Chamber Allotment – Transparency and Notification – Vacancy in Chamber No. 103 – Petitioner challenged the re-allotment of Chamber No. 103 on the grounds that the vacancy was not transparently notified to the general body of lawyers, depriving her of an opportunity to apply for the chamber – Held: The Court observed that the allotment process lacked transparency as the vacancy was not formally advertised to all eligible members. Although such vacancies should ideally be notified to ensure fairness, the Court found no sufficient grounds to interfere with the allotment as the Respondents were senior to the Petitioner, and there was no certainty that she would have been allotted the chamber even if notified. Future vacancies must be notified to ensure transparency and fairness [Paras 10-14].

Medical Grounds for Chamber Exchange – Applicability – Petitioner sought the chamber on the grounds of her husband's medical condition, arguing that the proximity of Chamber No. 103 would assist in managing his care – Held: The Court noted that precedents for chamber allotments on medical grounds pertain directly to the health of the allottee, not their spouse. The medical condition of the Petitioner’s husband did not justify interference in the allotment decision [Paras 12].

Seniority in Chamber Allotment – Guiding Principle – The Chamber Allotment Committee follows seniority as the main criterion for allotment or exchange of chambers – Held: Since Respondents No. 4 and 5 were senior to the Petitioner, they had a stronger claim to the chamber. Even if the vacancy had been notified, the outcome would likely have remained unchanged due to the Petitioner's lower seniority. Additionally, no other senior lawyers challenged the allotment, further indicating that the result might not have differed [Paras 13].

Decision: Petition disposed of – The Chamber Allotment Committee is directed to ensure that future vacancies are transparently notified to all members to avoid similar grievances [Paras 14, 15].
 

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action, Locus Standi, Limitation, Court Fees, Non-Joinder of Parties – Plaintiffs (appellants) sought declaration and injunction regarding property inherited from Tej Partap Singh – Suit challenged the validity of a Will dated 20.03.1971 and alleged oral Wills of other deceased family members, and contested over 23 sale deeds – Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruling that plaintiffs lacked locus standi, the suit was time-barred, and there was non-joinder of necessary parties – Findings upheld by First Appellate Court [Paras 2, 8-9].

Locus Standi and Cause of Action – Grandchildren’s Claim Over Ancestor's Property – Court held plaintiffs, as grandchildren of the deceased Tej Partap Singh, lacked locus standi to challenge his Will, as inheritance rights crystallize upon death – Grandchildren are excluded from Class-I heirs when direct children are alive under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs could only claim a share in their mother’s (deceased daughter of Tej Partap Singh) property, but not directly challenge the Will or other transactions regarding Tej Partap Singh's estate [Paras 30-32, 35, 40-41].

Limitation Period – Bar on Challenging Old Transactions – Claims against transactions executed from 1971 to 2005 were time-barred – Trial Court observed plaintiffs’ attempt to circumvent the limitation law by asserting a later "discovery" of facts – Held: Plaintiffs cannot claim inheritance rights directly from Tej Partap Singh or his wives as their mother never contested the Will during her lifetime, and limitation cannot be bypassed by creative drafting [Paras 50-51, 53, 58].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Numerous transactions involved third-party transferees who were not joined in the suit, making the suit defective under Order I Rule 9 CPC – Effective decree could not be passed in their absence, thus defeating the relief sought [Paras 59-62].

Court Fees – Applicability of Ad Valorem Fees on Challenged Transactions – Plaintiffs required to pay ad valorem Court fees as they sought cancellation of transactions executed by the deceased without being in possession – Relief sought was substantive and plaintiffs were held liable to pay fees based on transaction values, rather than a nominal amount [Paras 63-65, 71].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s rejection of plaint upheld as plaintiffs lacked cause of action and locus standi – Suit was barred by limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and improper valuation of Court fees – Reaffirmed that plaintiffs, as non-Class I heirs, have no direct claim over the ancestral property while direct heirs are alive, and inheritance rights cannot be challenged decades after the succession is settled [Paras 73-74].
 

Civil Procedure – Co-ownership – Suit for Possession – The appellants challenged the trial court's decree for possession of a portion of the suit property in favor of the respondent, who was a co-owner – The appellants contended that without a decree of partition, the suit for possession was not maintainable – The court held that in view of the oral settlement between the co-owners and the factual division of the property into two separate portions, a suit for possession was maintainable without a formal partition – The co-ownership was not denied, and the respondent's constructive possession was established through oral and documentary evidence [Paras 42-48].

Oral Settlement – Family Arrangement – The court recognized that an oral settlement between the co-owners concerning the division of property could be upheld if corroborated by evidence – In this case, the family arrangement dividing the property into two parts, with the respondent occupying one portion and the appellants the other, was proven through the testimony of witnesses and documents such as the lease deed – Held: The oral settlement is valid and enforceable, and no formal partition is required [Paras 45-53].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court upheld the trial court's judgment granting possession to the respondent – The appellants' argument regarding the requirement of a partition suit was rejected – The respondent was entitled to possession of the portion of the property and damages for wrongful occupation by the appellants [Paras 59-60].

Motor Accident – Compensation – Appellants, wife and children of the deceased, challenged the compensation awarded by the Tribunal – The deceased died due to injuries sustained in a two-wheeler accident – The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident was self-inflicted and the insurance company was not liable – Held: The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the dismissal based on the delay in lodging the FIR and non-examination of the informant was incorrect – The appellants were awarded compensation [Paras 1-10].

Quantum of Compensation – The Court fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- in the absence of proof – Applying the Sarla Verma multiplier of 14 and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the Court awarded Rs.6,72,000/- for loss of dependency, along with amounts for loss of consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses – Total compensation awarded: Rs.8,32,000/- [Paras 11-15].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Compensation of Rs.8,32,000/- awarded with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition – The Insurance Company directed to deposit the compensation within four weeks.

Election Law – False Affidavits – Misjoinder of Parties – The petitioner sought to annul the election of respondent No.1 and other candidates on grounds of submitting false affidavits with discrepancies in income and asset details – The court found no discrepancies in the affidavits filed by respondents No.1 and 2, who are husband and wife – Further, respondent No.2 was neither a contesting nor returned candidate, making her inclusion in the petition a misjoinder of parties, as per Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Paras 7-10, 12].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Frivolous Petitions – The court applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the election petition at the threshold – Held: The petition lacked any cause of action, and none of the reliefs sought by the petitioner could be granted as per law – The court emphasized that frivolous litigation should be curtailed early to prevent wastage of judicial resources [Paras 14-18].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The election petition was dismissed as it failed to disclose a cause of action and contained misjoinder of parties – The court rejected the plea for voiding the election and declaring the petitioner as the elected candidate [Para 19].

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax (GST) – Refund Restrictions – Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules – Ultra Vires Declaration – Refund of IGST – Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules – Ultra Vires Section 16 of the IGST Act – The court held that Rule 96(10), which imposed restrictions on exporters claiming refunds of IGST when certain benefits from government notifications were availed, was ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act – Subordinate legislation cannot impose restrictions that override substantive rights provided by the parent statute – The rule created unjust discrimination among exporters and was found to be manifestly arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution – Held: Rule 96(10) was invalid as it contradicted Section 16 and produced unreasonable and unjust outcomes [Paras 7, 12-14].

Subordinate Legislation – Compliance with Parent Statute – Subordinate legislation must align with the parent legislation and cannot restrict rights granted by the statute – The court held that Rule 96(10) exceeded its authority by imposing conditions that nullified the right to refunds under Section 16 of the IGST Act – The rule was declared ultra vires and beyond the legislative intent [Paras 11-13].

Constitutional Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Applying the doctrine from Shayara Bano v. Union of India, the court found Rule 96(10) to be manifestly arbitrary as it resulted in irrational and discriminatory outcomes – It denied IGST refunds even for minimal procurement benefits under certain notifications, producing excessive and disproportionate consequences – Such arbitrariness rendered the rule unconstitutional [Paras 13-14].

Discriminatory Impact on Exporters – Rule 96(10) created an arbitrary distinction between exporters claiming refunds under Rule 89 and those under Rule 96, leading to unequal treatment – The court held that this discriminatory outcome was not aligned with the legislative intent of Section 16 of the IGST Act [Para 14].

Retrospective Invalidity and Prospective Deletion – Though Rule 96(10) was deleted by Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax effective from 08-10-2024, the court ruled it invalid for periods prior to this date – Held: Refunds denied under Rule 96(10) during its enforcement period could not be recovered or withheld, safeguarding petitioners' refunds [Para 15].

Decision: Petitioners' writ petitions allowed – Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules declared ultra vires – Orders and actions based on this rule for the period from 23-10-2017 to 08-10-2024 quashed – Exporters protected from recovery of refunded IGST within the specified timeframe – Appeals and pending issues unaffected by Rule 96(10) to be pursued in compliance with the judgment.

Quashing of FIR – Delay in Lodging Complaint – Section 354, IPC – The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, citing a 127-day delay in lodging the complaint and the absence of evidence to support charges of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation – The complaint alleged that the petitioner, a teacher and Director of the Youth Welfare Board at CUSAT, had touched the complainant inappropriately and threatened her after the University Youth Festival – Held: The delay in filing the complaint and FIR, coupled with contradictions in the complaint and the absence of prima facie evidence, indicated that the FIR was an afterthought and lacked bona fides – FIR quashed [Paras 10, 16].

Intention to Outrage Modesty – Section 354 IPC – The petitioner’s conduct was examined in the context of the guidelines issued by the university to enforce discipline during the festival – No evidence of intention to outrage the complainant’s modesty was found – Held: The petitioner’s actions were in line with enforcing university guidelines and did not amount to sexual harassment or assault – FIR quashed [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – The allegations of threats made by the petitioner were also found to be unsupported by evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to establish criminal intimidation [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder or Culpable Homicide – Section 300 IPC – Conviction Modified – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for pouring acid on the deceased during a quarrel, leading to her death over a month later due to infection – The court observed that the incident occurred without premeditation, in the heat of passion, during a sudden quarrel – Held: The case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which reduces the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC – Conviction altered accordingly [Paras 9.1-9.3, 10].

Conviction Reduced – Sentence Commuted – The court considered the facts, including the absence of prior enmity or premeditation, and the time gap between the injury and death – The appellant's sentence was reduced to the period already served (13 years), which was deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to time served – Appellant to be released upon payment of the fine imposed by the trial court [Paras 14-15].

Civil Law - MACT - Power of Review – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Tribunal Lacks Power of Review – The Tribunal recalled its award and ordered recovery from the owner of the vehicle based on newly presented evidence – The Court held that the Tribunal has no inherent power of review under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and cannot review its orders unless there is fraud or misrepresentation – The application for review filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not maintainable as the Tribunal is not a Civil Court [Paras 13, 32-36].

Fitness Certificate – Deemed Valid for New Vehicles – Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Tribunal Erroneous in Ordering Recovery – The Tribunal's order to recover compensation from the vehicle owner based on the absence of a fitness certificate was erroneous – The Court held that under Rule 62, a newly registered vehicle is deemed to have a fitness certificate for two years from the date of registration – Since the vehicle was newly registered and the accident occurred within two years, the vehicle was deemed fit, and recovery from the owner was improper [Paras 37-38].

Decision:

The appeal is allowed, and the Tribunal's award dated 28.05.2020 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1042 of 2017 is set aside to the extent it orders the Insurance Company to recover compensation from the appellant-owner.