Motor Accident Compensation – Death of Injured Claimant Before Award – Whether Legal Heirs Can Claim Compensation – The injured claimant filed MAC No. 136 of 2016 but passed away before judgment was pronounced – The Tribunal awarded ₹3,60,400/- with 7% interest, but later refused substitution of his married daughter (Petitioner) and minor granddaughter as legal heirs – Held: Legal representatives are entitled to compensation even if the claimant dies during proceedings, and their substitution cannot be rejected solely on procedural technicalities [Paras 5-7].

Legal Representatives – Scope of Section 166 MV Act – Inclusion of Married Daughters – The Tribunal held that married daughters are not dependents and thus cannot claim compensation for pain and suffering – Petitioner relied on N. Jayasree v. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., (2022) 14 SCC 712, which interpreted ‘legal representatives’ broadly – Held: Married daughters and minor grandchildren fall within the definition of ‘legal representatives’ under Section 166 of the MV Act and are entitled to compensation [Paras 20-22].

Award in Favor of a Deceased Person – Whether Nullity in Law – The Insurance Company argued that since the injured claimant died before the judgment, the award is non est (void) in law – Held: The award remains valid as MV Act is beneficial legislation – The Tribunal erred in rejecting the substitution petition – Compensation awarded to a deceased claimant does not lapse but passes to legal heirs [Paras 17-18].

Substitution of Legal Heirs – Right of Minor Granddaughter – Appointment of Next Friend – The Tribunal rejected the Petitioner’s substitution as guardian of her minor niece, Subhalaxmi Nath, stating that her father was still alive – Held: A next friend need not be the natural guardian; any responsible person without adverse interest can represent a minor – The Tribunal’s rejection was improper, and the Petitioner was allowed to act as next friend for the minor [Paras 28-30].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Tribunal Directed to Accept Substitution – The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s orders dated 15.11.2022 and 02.01.2023 – Tribunal directed to permit Petitioner to represent minor grandchild as next friend and distribute compensation accordingly [Para 30].

Service Law – Removal from Service – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Relevance in Departmental Proceedings – Petitioner challenged removal from service following departmental inquiry on charges of misconduct, citing subsequent acquittal in a criminal case – Held: Acquittal in criminal proceedings, based on insufficient prosecution evidence, does not impact the validity of disciplinary action taken under the preponderance of probabilities standard – No grounds for interference found [Paras 6.3, 12.1].

Gratuity and Provident Fund – Forfeiture – Validity of Deduction – Bank forfeited petitioner’s gratuity and deducted provident fund contributions to recover financial losses caused by petitioner’s misconduct – Held: Forfeiture of gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, justified given proven financial loss to the bank – Provident fund deductions similarly upheld [Paras 8–9].

Delay and Laches – Bar to Relief Under Article 226 – Petition filed 14 years after removal from service – Held: Petition barred by delay and laches, as the petitioner accepted the order of removal without challenging it for an extended period – Doctrine of delay and laches applied to dismiss stale claims [Paras 11–12].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Disciplinary Actions – Court emphasized its limited role in interfering with administrative decisions unless there is a violation of natural justice or procedural impropriety – Disciplinary action conducted as per law and principles of natural justice upheld [Paras 12, 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No interference with the order of removal from service or the forfeiture of gratuity and deductions from provident fund – Rule discharged [Paras 12–13].
 

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence - Compliance with NDPS Procedural Safeguards – Section 42 and Section 50 – Substantial Compliance Established – Appellants argued non-compliance with Section 42 (recording of information) and Section 50 (informing suspects of rights) of the NDPS Act – Held: In emergencies, immediate raids may be conducted, and minor procedural lapses are acceptable if no prejudice is caused – Substantial compliance with Section 42 and 50 was demonstrated, as the information was promptly conveyed and documented, and rights were explained to the appellants, which they declined to exercise [Paras 39-40, 82-83, 89-90].

Confessions Under Section 67 NDPS Act – Voluntary and Corroborative Evidence – Conviction Upheld – Appellants argued that statements under Section 67 were involuntary, coerced, and retracted – Held: Statements were corroborated by independent evidence, including recovery of contraband, and no evidence was provided to substantiate coercion – Confessions were deemed voluntary, truthful, and consistent with the evidence on record, supporting convictions [Paras 72-73, 93-96].

Role of Co-Accused and Abetment – Section 29 NDPS Act – Chain of Conspiracy Established – Evidence revealed the roles of the appellants in a conspiracy to manufacture and traffic heroin – Syed Abu Ala was the primary manufacturer; Rajinder Kumar supplied controlled substances, and Mohd. Altaf assisted in manufacturing – Testimonies and recoveries linked the accused in a coordinated chain of illegal activities, justifying convictions under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) and 25A [Paras 76, 93-96].

Sentencing – Reduction Considering Advanced Age and Time Already Undergone – Appellants sought leniency in sentencing due to advanced age and long trials – Held: Considering the appellants’ age, health, and time spent in custody, the sentences for all three appellants were reduced to periods already undergone, balancing justice and reformation [Paras 77-78, 103, 105].

Decision:
CRL.A. 1200/2010 – Rajinder Kumar:
Conviction under Section 29 read with Section 25A upheld.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (22 months).
CRL.A. 1294/2010 – Syed Abu Ala:
Conviction under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) and 25A upheld.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (about 10 years).
CRL.A. 1381/2010 – Mohd. Altaf:
Conviction under Section 29 read with Section 21(c) upheld.
Sentence reduced to the period already undergone (entire sentence served).
Appeals disposed of accordingly.
 

Ad-Interim Injunction in Defamation – Prima Facie Case Established – Balance of Convenience Favored Plaintiff – Plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of defamation against Defendant No. 1 for publishing unverified allegations of manipulation and financial irregularities – Defendants Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11 further amplified defamatory claims – Court held that the Plaintiff's reputation faced irreparable harm, warranting temporary injunctions [Paras 26-30, 38].

Digital Platforms and Defamation – Limited Relief Against Defendant No. 4 (Google) – Plaintiff alleged defamatory content hosted on YouTube, owned by Defendant No. 4, but failed to provide translations or specific details of content – Held: Relief deferred until the Plaintiff files adequate documentation – Defendant No. 4 directed to act on valid takedown requests in good faith [Paras 33-34].

Freedom of Speech vs. Right to Reputation – Equitable Balance Between Competing Rights – Court emphasized that reckless and baseless allegations harming reputation cannot be justified under Article 19(1)(a) – Prima facie defamatory content found in publications by Defendants Nos. 6 to 11 – Injunction granted to preserve Plaintiff's reputation [Paras 28-29, 39].

Speculative Publications by Media Outlets – Defamation Found – Media outlets (Defendants Nos. 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11) published speculative and unverified allegations linking Plaintiff to family disputes of Defendant No. 1 – Content harmed Plaintiff's personal and professional credibility – Court restrained Defendants from further publication and directed removal of defamatory content [Paras 35-38].

Decision: Ad-Interim Injunction Granted Against Defendants Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11:

Defendants restrained from publishing, sharing, or disseminating defamatory content regarding the Plaintiff.
Defendants directed to remove existing defamatory content within one week.
Relief Deferred Against Defendants Nos. 2 and 4 (YouTube/Google):

Plaintiff to furnish translations and details of the defamatory content before seeking relief.
Undertaking by Defendant No. 9 (HT Media Ltd.):

Agreed to publish Plaintiff’s version of events to ensure balanced reporting.
Compliance and Filing of Replies:

Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC to be made within two weeks.
Replies and rejoinders to be filed as per timelines set by the Court.
Next Steps in Suit:

Summons issued to Defendants with directions to file written statements within 30 days.
Pleadings to be completed by 17/02/2025.
 

Service Law - Leave Encashment – Pre-existing Right Established – Claim Upheld - The Labour Court rightly held that the respondent was entitled to leave encashment based on the certificate issued by the petitioner Corporation (mark 15/1), which confirmed accumulated leave credits. The Court ruled that leave encashment constitutes a property right, and its deprivation without statutory authority violates constitutional protections. [Paras 6, 8].

Voluntary Resignation – Deemed Retirement After 90 Days – Absence of Timely Action by Employer - The respondent's resignation application dated 07.03.2013 was deemed accepted after 90 days as per Rule 49 of the Gujarat Civil Services Rules. The Corporation failed to act on the application within the stipulated time, rendering its subsequent communications for notice pay irrelevant. [Paras 5-7].

Unauthorized Absence – Employer’s Failure to Conduct Proceedings – No Justification to Deny Benefits - The petitioner Corporation neither initiated disciplinary proceedings nor issued directions for the respondent to resume duty. Consequently, the absence was not proven to be unauthorized, and benefits could not be denied. [Para 7.1].

Section 33(c)(2) I.D. Act – Maintainability Established – Pre-existing Right Proven - The Labour Court correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 33(c)(2), as the respondent's entitlement to leave encashment was based on an undisputed certificate issued by the petitioner Corporation. [Paras 5.2, 6].

Leave Encashment as a Property Right – Statutory Safeguards Upheld - The Court emphasized that earned leave, akin to salary, constitutes a property right under law. Any deprivation of such rights without statutory backing contravenes constitutional protections. [Para 8].

Decision – Petition Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the Corporation’s petition, affirming the Labour Court’s order to grant leave encashment of ₹1,63,620 with costs. The Court also vacated any interim stay granted earlier. [Paras 8-10].

Labour Law - Principal Employer – No Direct Employment Relationship – Section 25-F of ID Act – The petitioner, who suffered injuries while working at M/s Hafed Oil Mills, claimed reinstatement as a direct employee – Labour Court rejected the claim, holding that the petitioner was engaged through a contractor and thus not entitled to reinstatement under the ID Act – Held: Burden of proving direct employment with the principal employer lies on the workman – The petitioner failed to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship [Paras 7-9].

Employer-Employee Relationship – Burden of Proof – Relying on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, the court held that it is the petitioner’s responsibility to prove the employment relationship – The petitioner failed to produce evidence such as appointment letters or salary records showing direct engagement with the principal employer – Labour Court findings upheld [Paras 8-10].

Contractor Engagement – Validity of Contract – The Labour Court relied on the contract (Exhibit M-4) executed between the respondent and the contractor, which indicated that the petitioner was employed by the contractor and not directly by the principal employer – Held: The petitioner’s claim against the principal employer is unsustainable as there is no evidence to contradict the existence of the contractor [Para 10].

Findings of Commissioner under the 1923 Act – No Impact on ID Act Proceedings – The Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, proceedings had found M/s Hafed Oil Mills liable as a principal employer to pay compensation for the petitioner’s injuries under Section 12 – Held: Liability under the 1923 Act does not translate into an employer-employee relationship under the ID Act – Labour Court rightly differentiated between statutory compensation and claims for reinstatement [Paras 9-11].

Jurisdictional and Factual Findings – No Interference Warranted – The High Court held there was no jurisdictional error or factual infirmity in the Labour Court’s award – Petition dismissed as bereft of merit [Para 11].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The High Court upheld the Labour Court’s award rejecting the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement – No direct employment relationship between the petitioner and the principal employer could be established [Para 12].
 

Contract Law - Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – Interpretation of Contractual Jurisdiction Clauses – Clause 13(b) of the ISDA Agreement conferred exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction to the High Court of Mumbai – Held: The clause was valid and binding on the parties, as it was neither void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act nor contrary to public policy – A jurisdictional clause conferring exclusive competence on one court is valid if the chosen court has territorial jurisdiction and part of the cause of action arises within its domain [Paras 5-6, 11-13].

Jurisdictional Limitation – Cause of Action Requirement – For a court to exercise jurisdiction under an exclusive jurisdiction clause, part or whole of the cause of action must arise within its territorial jurisdiction – Held: Since a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Mumbai, the clause is enforceable, and courts outside Mumbai lack jurisdiction in this matter [Paras 7, 12-14].

Waiver of Jurisdiction – Binding Nature of Contract – By entering into a valid contract that includes an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the parties waive their right to approach other courts – Held: The respondents, having consented to the jurisdiction clause, were estopped from invoking the jurisdiction of civil courts in Gurgaon. The clause must be strictly enforced [Paras 13-15].

Applicability of Proviso in Jurisdiction Clause – The exception in Clause 13(b), allowing Party B (the petitioner) to bring proceedings in other forums, applies only to the petitioner and not to the respondent – Held: Respondents could not rely on the proviso to invoke the jurisdiction of courts outside Mumbai [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Reference Answered – Civil Revision Petition Disposed Of – The jurisdictional clause in the ISDA Agreement is declared valid and enforceable. The case is remanded to the Roster Bench for further proceedings in light of this decision [Para 16].
 

Appointment of Lambardar – Preference to Ex-Servicemen – Rule 15(c) of Punjab Land Revenue Rules – Collector’s Decision Upheld – The appellant challenged the appointment of the private respondent as Lambardar, arguing that the appellant’s younger age (29 years) should outweigh the respondent’s experience as a retired Subedar (51 years old) – Held: Rule 15(c) prioritizes services rendered to the State – Age factor cannot outweigh the preference for an ex-serviceman who retired after serving the nation – Collector's decision upheld [Paras 7-8].

Collector's Discretion – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Interference Not Warranted – The Financial Commissioner’s decision to override the Collector’s choice was set aside – The court noted that the Collector personally interacted with the candidates, considered their relative merits (age, education, and service to the State), and selected the respondent – The Single Judge appropriately upheld the Collector’s discretion, observing no perversity in the decision [Paras 5-9].

Educational Qualifications – Marginal Difference Not Decisive – The appellant argued his 12th-grade qualification made him a better candidate than the respondent, who had studied up to the 10th standard – Held: The marginal difference in educational qualifications was not significant, especially when weighed against the respondent’s service as an ex-serviceman – Respondent was not illiterate, and the Collector rightly prioritized his service record [Paras 5, 9].

Hereditary Claim – No Preference Allowed – The appellant’s hereditary claim as the son of the previous Lambardar was rejected – Held: Hereditary claims violate Article 14 of the Constitution – The Collector and the court appropriately excluded hereditary preference in the selection process [Para 5].

Land Ownership – Relevant Factor – The respondent owned land in the village, while the appellant did not – The court found this factor validly considered by the Collector in favor of the respondent [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court upheld the respondent’s appointment as Lambardar and affirmed the learned Single Judge’s order – Held: The Collector’s discretion was exercised properly, and there was no perversity or illegality warranting interference [Paras 9-10].
 

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor – Applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – The petitioner, a biological father, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal custody of his minor son (aged 9 years) with the maternal grandparents (respondents) – Held: The petitioner, being the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, is entitled to the custody of the minor – Custody with the maternal grandparents is not in accordance with the law, and their refusal to return the child constitutes illegal custody [Paras 19-22, 26, 63].

Best Interest of the Child – Paramount Consideration – Welfare Principle – While adjudicating custody matters, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration – The mother, who is living in Canada since 2021, has shown no interest in the child’s welfare and failed to participate in legal proceedings, while the petitioner demonstrated stable financial and emotional readiness to care for the child – Custody awarded to the petitioner as it serves the best interest of the minor [Paras 56-59, 63].

Maintainability of Habeas Corpus Petition – Custody by Maternal Grandparents – Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Respondents argued that habeas corpus was not maintainable as the petitioner had alternative remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Held: Habeas corpus is maintainable as the custody with maternal grandparents does not fall under any legally recognized category of guardianship (natural, testamentary, or legal guardian) – Refusal to hand over custody to the natural guardian amounts to illegal detention [Paras 13-19, 26].

Visitation Rights for Maternal Grandparents – The Court permitted the maternal grandparents (respondents) to visit the child after every fortnight for two hours at the petitioner’s residence, ensuring the child maintains familial bonds with both sides of the family [Paras 66-67].

Decision: Writ of habeas corpus allowed – The custody of the minor child, Harmanveer Singh, aged 9 years, directed to be handed over to the petitioner (biological father).
The maternal grandparents (respondents) are permitted visitation rights after every fortnight at the petitioner’s residence for two hours with prior intimation [Paras 63-67].