Execution Proceedings – Resistance under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC – Joint Tenancy Rights – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant filed objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC to resist execution of an eviction decree drawn in Original Suit No. 323 of 1977 against his brother, Prem Chandra. The appellant asserted independent rights under a separate decree in Original Suit No. 216 of 1996. Both the Executing Court and First Appellate Court rejected the objections, holding that the appellant had inherited joint tenancy rights along with Prem Chandra. The High Court upheld these findings, affirming that the appellant's claim did not override the joint tenancy rights established through the earlier decree – Held: The second appeal is dismissed, and the execution of the decree against the joint tenants is upheld [Paras 12-17].

Execution of Decree – Finality of Joint Tenancy Findings – Cross-Objections Not Filed – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant did not challenge the findings of joint tenancy rights in Civil Appeal No. 104 of 2000 through cross-objections in Second Appeal No. 891 of 2002. The appellant’s failure to contest these findings prevents him from disputing the execution proceedings under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. The Court noted that joint tenancy rights had devolved on all legal heirs, and no separate appeal or objections were raised by the appellant at the appropriate stage – Held: The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed [Paras 15-17].

Adjudication of Independent Rights under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC – Joint Tenants Bound by Eviction Decree – The Court emphasized that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 97 CPC allow adjudication of independent claims in execution proceedings. However, since the appellant’s status as a joint tenant was previously determined, the eviction decree against his brother, Prem Chandra, applies to the appellant as well. Rejection of the appellant’s claim by the lower courts was upheld, confirming that he cannot avoid eviction based on his asserted independent decree – Held: The objections were rightly rejected by the lower courts, and the eviction decree is enforceable against all joint tenants [Paras 10-13].

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. The Court affirmed the execution of the decree against all joint tenants, including the appellant, finding no merit in the appellant's objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC [Paras 17].

Electricity Law - Unauthorized Use of Electricity - Assessment Period under Section 126(5) – The appellant, Secretary of the Trichur Tennis Trust, disputed a final assessment made under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003, for unauthorized electricity usage due to additional load without sanction. The Court clarified that under Section 126(5), if the start date of unauthorized use is unascertainable, the period must default to the 12 months immediately before inspection. The burden lies on the consumer to establish the actual duration of unauthorized use to alter this default period [Paras 5, 6].

Appellate Authority - Jurisdictional Limitations - Requirement for Concrete Findings – The Court found that the Appellate Authority failed to substantiate a start date for unauthorized use, merely assuming it began on the date the appellant applied for additional load. Without concrete evidence or findings, such interference with the original assessment constituted an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. Hence, the Single Judge’s reinstatement of the Board’s assessment order was warranted [Para 6].

Burden of Proof in Electricity Assessments - Onus on Consumer to Prove Duration of Unauthorized Use – The Court reiterated that when disputing a 12-month assessment under Section 126(5), it is incumbent upon the consumer to provide evidence establishing a shorter period of unauthorized use. Mere assertion or application submission date does not suffice to infer the start of unauthorized consumption, as demonstrated in the appellant’s case [Paras 5, 6].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, reinstating the Kerala State Electricity Board’s final assessment for the 12-month default period. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of jurisdictional findings by the Appellate Authority on the duration of unauthorized electricity use [Para 6].
 

Land Acquisition – Religious Structure – Quashing of Notifications – The petitioner in CWP-14168-1999 sought to quash notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming that a religious structure, Gurudwara Sanjha Sahib, was constructed before the acquisition – Held: The acquisition was valid, as the land vested in the Union Territory after the award under Section 11A was announced – The petitioner's application for release of the land was filed after the acquisition was complete, and no objections were filed within the prescribed period – The claim lacked merit and was dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Failure to Serve Personal Notice – No Vitiation of Acquisition – The petitioner argued that personal notices under Sections 4, 6, and 9 were not served – Held: There is no legal requirement for personal notice under Sections 4 and 6 – Publication in the Official Gazette and newspapers suffices – Failure to serve notice under Section 9 does not vitiate the acquisition once the land vests with the government [Para 6].

Release of Land – Hostile Discrimination Not Proven – The petitioner claimed that other parcels of land were released – Held: The petitioner’s land fell within the alignment of a major road, and no discrimination was proven – The claim was rejected [Para 7].

Public Interest – Rotary Construction – Mandamus Issued – In CWP-23369-2017, the petitioner sought a mandamus to complete the construction of a rotary near Model Jail Burail, which was delayed due to an interim order protecting the religious structure – Held: The interim order was vacated, and the respondents were directed to remove the structure and complete the rotary in public interest [Para 8].

Decision – CWP-14168-1999 was dismissed, and CWP-23369-2017 was disposed of with directions to complete the rotary construction [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Inspection of Seized Documents – Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside orders denying inspection and provision of deficient copies of documents seized by the C.B.I. but not relied upon or filed in the court – Trial court dismissed the application for access, stating that only documents in the final report had been provided, as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. – High Court examined whether unrelied documents seized during investigation should be accessible to the accused to ensure a fair trial – Held: Petition dismissed, but petitioner granted liberty to request unrelied documents in line with precedent [Paras 1, 11-15].

Right to Fair Trial – Disclosure of Unrelied Documents – Accused’s right to fair trial argued to include access to all seized documents, even if unrelied by the prosecution – Petitioner relied on Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017 and Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Supreme Court directed that all unrelied documents, material objects, and statements be listed for the accused, allowing them to seek relevant evidence for their defense – High Court affirmed that documents in the final report had been disclosed, satisfying Section 207, and any further request could be pursued in trial court [Paras 2-3, 6-10, 12-13].

Judicial Precedents – Compliance with Disclosure Rules – Referencing the Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2017, Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, and P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, High Court reiterated that unrelied documents should be disclosed to the accused if deemed essential to the defense – Rule mandates one opportunity post-charge for disclosure requests, evaluated by the court on relevance and intent – High Court found no grounds for setting aside the trial court’s orders as the petitioner was already provided with all documents in the final report [Paras 5-10].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Petitioner granted liberty to seek specific unrelied documents per the ruling in CBI v. Surinder Pal Singh (CRM-M-26474-2023), ensuring the petitioner’s right to a fair trial remains preserved – Application disposed of with directions for trial court to assess any further disclosure requests based on relevance to the accused’s defense [Paras 13-16].
 

Fraud Classification – RBI Master Circular – Natural Justice – The petitioner company sought to quash PNB's action of declaring its account as 'fraud' without prior notice or hearing – The court held that the declaration of the petitioner's account as fraud, without following the principles of natural justice, violated RBI guidelines – Held: The petitioner was neither given a chance to respond nor was the fraud declaration substantiated through proper procedure, making the declaration invalid [Paras 18-21].

Suspension of Credit Facilities – Illegal Action – The court quashed SBI's letter suspending the petitioner's credit facilities based on PNB's fraud classification – It was held that since the fraud declaration itself was invalid, the consequent suspension of credit facilities by SBI could not stand – Held: The suspension of credit facilities was unlawful and must be reversed [Paras 19, 22].

Compensation for Damages – Costs Imposed – The court acknowledged the financial loss and reputational damage suffered by the petitioner due to PNB's wrongful action – As compensation, PNB was ordered to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner, failing which an 18% per annum interest would apply from the date of filing the petition [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Petition allowed – The court directed PNB to remove the petitioner's account from the fraud list and notify RBI and SBI accordingly – SBI was instructed to restore the petitioner's credit facilities [Paras 22-24].

Customs Law – Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) – Interest on Delayed Refund – The petitioner sought interest at 6% per annum on the delayed refund of SAD under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 – The refund application was filed on 04 August 2014, and despite multiple remands and delays, the refund was sanctioned only in 2024 – Held: The interest should be calculated from 04 August 2014, the date of the original refund application, and not from 08 August 2022, as contended by the respondent – The petitioner is entitled to interest at 6% per annum for the delay in refund [Paras 2-5, 18-23].

Section 27A of Customs Act – Interpretation – The court rejected the respondent's argument that the interest period should begin only from the petitioner's subsequent request for refund on 08 August 2022 – Held: Section 27A provides for interest on delayed refunds starting from three months after the receipt of the original refund application, not from a later follow-up application [Paras 28-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – The respondent was directed to pay Rs. 421,940 as interest on the delayed refund within two months, failing which interest at 8% per annum would apply – Costs of Rs. 15,000 were also awarded to the petitioner [Paras 40-45].

Contract Law – Breach of Compromise Agreement – Liquidated Damages Awarded – The plaintiff claimed recovery of ₹3.5 crore, asserting that the defendant breached an agreement by filing a criminal complaint despite receiving ₹3 crore as part of the settlement – Held: The defendant breached the contract by filing a police complaint, violating Clause 4 of the compromise agreement, which stipulated the return of ₹3 crore in case of any action against the plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to liquidated damages of ₹3 crore, as the breach caused inconvenience and humiliation – The sum was found to be a genuine pre-estimate of damages [Paras 46-51].

Criminal Complaint Filed Despite Settlement – Consequences on Contractual Obligations – Defendant's filing of an FIR against the plaintiff, despite receiving settlement amounts, constituted a breach of the settlement agreement – The defendant failed to appear and provide legitimate justification for filing the complaint after accepting the settlement, reinforcing the breach of contract [Paras 43-45].

Liquidated Damages – Compensation under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act – The return of ₹3 crore was upheld as liquidated damages under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, as the plaintiff faced mental agony and inconvenience due to the breach – Plaintiff awarded ₹3 crore with interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery [Paras 47-53].

Decision: The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of ₹3 crore with interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of payment – The claim for ₹50 lakhs is rejected – The defendant no.2 is not held liable under the agreement – Costs awarded to the plaintiff [Paras 52-57].

Family Law – Guardianship – Jurisdiction of Family Court – The appellant, Amit Dhansing Jagtap & Ors., challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Navsari, which rejected their application under Exh.14 – The custody of minor Varad was disputed between the father and maternal grandparents after the death of the mother – Appellants claimed that Varad resided in Maharashtra, making Navsari Court incompetent – The court held that the issue of whether Navsari was the ordinary place of residence of the child needed further factual inquiry and could not be determined solely on past residence in Navsari – Order quashed and remanded to the Family Court for re-consideration [Paras 5-9].

Interpretation of "Ordinarily Resides" – The Family Court relied on the father's claim that Varad was forcibly taken to Pune by the maternal grandparents and that his past residence was at Navsari – Appellants argued that Varad had been residing in Maharashtra since his mother's death – The High Court emphasized that the term "ordinarily resides" under Section 9 of the Guardians & Wards Act must be determined based on a factual inquiry, considering both the child's welfare and actual place of residence before custody was contested [Paras 8.9-8.12].

Welfare of the Child – The court reiterated that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, and the factual situation, including the forced removal and current residence, should guide jurisdictional determinations – The case was sent back for the Family Court to decide the issue afresh, with the current custody arrangement (with maternal grandparents) remaining until further orders [Paras 8.12-9].

Decision: First Appeal No. 1268 of 2023 allowed – Order of Family Court quashed – Case remanded for fresh consideration of jurisdiction – First Appeal No. 4464 of 2023 not pressed by the respondent-father and dismissed accordingly – Family Court directed to expedite proceedings and decide within six months [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of BNSS – The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving an assault on the complainant due to political rivalry – The complainant suffered grievous injuries, including a dislocated shoulder – The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the complainant's choice of a distant hospital raised doubts about the case – Held: The delay in filing the FIR was justified as the complainant first sought medical treatment – The serious nature of the injuries and specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners weighed against granting anticipatory bail [Paras 1-20].

Overt Acts – The court noted that the petitioners were accused of picking up sticks and beating the victim, causing significant injuries – These specific allegations, supported by medical evidence, disproved the petitioners' claim that there were no overt acts alleged against them [Paras 21-30].

Political Motive – Both parties belonged to rival political factions, and the court recognized the political motive behind the attack – However, this motive did not diminish the severity of the offense or the gravity of the injuries sustained by the complainant [Paras 31-40].

Decision: Both criminal petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed.