Civil Procedure – Rejection of Application under Order XI Rules 12/14 CPC – Challenging Validity of Orders – Petitioner challenged the validity of the orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/FTC-II, Pratapgarh, rejecting his application under Order XI Rules 12/14 CPC – Petitioner sought to summon the original Will dated 21.03.1952 allegedly in possession of the respondents – Trial Court and Revisional Court dismissed the application and revision respectively, citing lack of evidence that the Will was in possession of the respondents and undue delay in filing the application [Paras 2, 21, 22, 36].

Misjoinder of Parties – Impleading Judicial Officers – Petitioner incorrectly impleaded the District Judge and Civil Judge as opposite parties – Court cited the precedent in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and held that judicial officers are not to be made parties as they do not defend their orders in higher courts – Court noted the misjoinder of parties but did not dismiss the petition on this ground since the respondents did not raise an objection during arguments [Paras 8, 9].

Will as Evidence – Secondary Evidence – Petitioner argued that the certified copy of the Will dated 21.03.1952, being secondary evidence, was inadmissible and sought to summon the original – Court held that a certified copy of a Will is admissible under Section 57 of the Registration Act – Petitioner failed to establish that the original Will was in possession of the respondents, and thus the application to summon the Will was dismissed [Paras 33, 35, 40, 41].

Delay in Filing Application – The application under Order XI Rules 12/14 CPC was filed after the extended time for completing the trial had lapsed and after evidence had been concluded – Court held that the application was an attempt to fill gaps in the petitioner’s case and would prejudice the respondent’s rights – Application was filed at an advanced stage of the trial without justifiable cause for the delay [Paras 37, 38].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court found no illegality in the orders passed by the lower courts – Petitioner's challenge lacked merit and was dismissed – No costs awarded [Paras 42, 43].

Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder – Conviction under Section 307 IPC – Modification to Section 326 IPC – Appellants’ Conviction Partially Reduced – The appellants, Sugreev and Ghanshyam, were convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing grievous injuries by firearm to the complainant and his father – Held: The injuries inflicted by Sugreev were on non-vital parts (legs), and medical testimony did not support the allegation of life-threatening injuries – As such, Sugreev’s conviction under Section 307 IPC was reduced to Section 326 IPC, with a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000 – Ghanshyam, whose injury was deemed to be simple and not by firearm, was convicted under Section 323 IPC instead of Section 307 IPC, and as he had already served two years in custody, no further imprisonment was required [Paras 27-35].

Ocular vs. Medical Testimony – Prevalence of Medical Testimony – In cases where there is a conflict between ocular testimony (eyewitness accounts) and medical evidence, the medical evidence prevails if it completely rules out the possibility of the ocular evidence being true – Held: In this case, medical testimony contradicted the claim that the complainant Santosh was injured by a firearm – The court relied on the medical evidence, which indicated that the injury was caused by a hard and blunt object, not a gunshot [Paras 14-17].

Defective Investigation – Not Fatal to Prosecution Case – Allegations of defective investigation, such as missing X-ray reports and delayed witness statements, do not vitiate the trial if the material evidence, including testimonies of injured witnesses, remains reliable – Held: Despite some investigation flaws, the prosecution's case was upheld based on strong injured-witness testimonies and corroborative medical evidence – The appellants' convictions were modified accordingly [Paras 19-22].

Common Intention – Absence of Pre-Determined Common Object – The court ruled that common intention under Section 34 IPC was not applicable as the injuries were caused on the spur of the moment, and there was no evidence of premeditated common object – The appellants were held liable for their individual actions without invoking common intention [Paras 28-29].

Decision:

The criminal appeals are partly allowed.

Sugreev’s conviction under Section 307 IPC is modified to Section 326 IPC, and he is sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000. In default of payment of fine, he will undergo an additional 3 months of imprisonment.

Ghanshyam’s conviction is modified to Section 323 IPC, and as he has already served approximately two years in custody, no further imprisonment is required. A fine of Rs. 1,000 is imposed, and in default, he will undergo 10 days simple imprisonment.

Out of the total fine amount, Rs. 25,000 will be paid to injured Govind, and Rs. 1,000 to injured Santosh as compensation under Section 357(3) of CrPC.

Provident Fund Damages – Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act – Reduction of Damages – Order Quashed – The petitioner challenged the Appellate Tribunal’s order reducing damages from 100% to 17% under Section 14-B for delayed remittance of provident fund contributions – The Tribunal reduced the damages based on the respondent’s plea of prejudice due to delayed initiation of proceedings and unavailability of records – Held: The Tribunal's decision was perverse as the damages were calculated based on the respondent’s own statements of defaults and there was no evidence of prejudice – The Tribunal failed to apply the law correctly as delay alone does not justify reduction in damages, per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. Union of India – Order reducing damages set aside, original order of damages reinstated [Paras 22-23, 29-33].

Mens Rea and Actus Reus Not Required – Section 14-B – The imposition of damages under Section 14-B is a civil liability and does not require proof of mens rea or actus reus – The objective is to penalize the employer for delayed payments and compensate for losses suffered by the employees [Paras 26-27].

Delay in Initiation of Proceedings – No Prejudice – Section 14-B – Mere delay in initiating proceedings under Section 14-B does not amount to prejudice unless irretrievable prejudice is proven – In the present case, the respondent failed to prove any such prejudice, and the delay alone could not justify reduction in damages [Paras 29-30].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal reducing damages to 17% is quashed, and the original order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner levying full damages is restored.

Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) – Section 201(1) and 195 of the Income-tax Act – Situs of Intellectual Property – Territoriality Principle – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, Hindustan Unilever Ltd., challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order raising a demand for non-deduction of TDS under Section 195 in relation to the purchase of the "Horlicks" trademark from foreign entities. The petitioner contended that the intellectual property was not situated in India, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in CUB Pty Ltd. vs. Union of India. The Deputy Commissioner rejected this, holding the trademark as a capital asset situated in India, thus attracting TDS obligations. Held: The issues of territoriality and the location of the intellectual property are mixed questions of fact and law. The Court found no jurisdictional error in the Deputy Commissioner's decision and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to avail appellate remedies under Section 253 – Petition dismissed, statutory remedy of appeal recommended [Paras 16-23].

Limitation for Action under Section 201 – No Specific Time Limit – Reasonable Time Required – The petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner's order was passed beyond the limitation period of one year. The Court held that Section 201 does not specify a time limit, and while action must be taken within a reasonable period, the Tribunal's imposition of a one-year limit is not binding. The Court held that the order was not barred by limitation – Petition dismissed [Paras 25-27].

Observations on Judicial Propriety – Unwarranted Comments on Delhi High Court Judgment – Expunged – The Court noted the improper comments made by the Deputy Commissioner regarding the Delhi High Court's decision in CUB Pty Ltd., labeling it per incuriam. The Court expressed serious concern over such remarks, directed the deletion of the remarks within two days, and urged disciplinary caution for future cases – Remarks expunged, officer warned [Paras 29-30].

Substitution of Legal Representative – Legatee's Right to Continue Suit – Sections 211 and 213 of Indian Succession Act – Substitution Upheld – The petitioner challenged the substitution of the opposite party (daughter-in-law of the deceased plaintiff) under Order XXII, Rule 3 of the CPC on the grounds that the Will under which she claims had not been probated – Held: A legatee can act as a legal representative and pursue the suit even before the probate of the Will is granted – The vesting of property in the executor occurs upon the testator’s death, and the absence of probate does not bar the substitution – The suit can be pursued to its logical end, though the final decree will be subject to the probate of the Will [Paras 12-14].

Right to Sue by Executor – Probate Not Required to Initiate Suit – Section 211 of Indian Succession Act – Executor May Pursue Legal Proceedings Before Probate – It was contended that no legal right to sue flows from the Will without probate – The Court held that an executor derives authority from the Will itself and not from probate, thus can represent the estate of the deceased and proceed with the suit – Probate only serves to certify the executor's title but is not a precondition to initiating legal actions [Paras 12.1-12.3].

Legal Representative Under CPC – Definition Includes Executor or Legatee – Section 2(11) CPC – Substitution Valid – The opposite party qualifies as a "legal representative" under Section 2(11) of the CPC since she intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and has an interest in the suit property by virtue of the Will – Even though other legal heirs did not seek substitution, the legatee is entitled to protect her interest under the Will [Paras 5.1, 12.2-12.5].

Suit to Continue Subject to Probate – Judicial Precedents Applied – Decree Conditional on Probate – Referring to precedents, the Court reiterated that while a legatee may continue with the suit, any decree passed in favor of the legatee will remain contingent upon the grant of probate of the Will in her favor – This ensures that the substantive right to the property is adjudicated following the probate proceedings [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Substitution of Legal Representative Upheld – Continuation of Suit Allowed Subject to Probate – The Court dismissed the civil revision petition, upholding the trial court’s decision to allow the substitution of the opposite party as the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff – The opposite party, as the legatee under the Will, is permitted to continue the suit, but any decree passed in her favor will be subject to the probate of the Will – The petitioner’s objection that probate was a precondition for substitution was rejected – Held: The substitution is valid, and the right to sue survives in favor of the legatee [Paras 14-16].

Full Tank Level Dispute – Extent of FTL – Petitioners' objections regarding Durgam Cheruvu tank’s FTL not considered – Directions for Reconsideration – The petitioners argued that the FTL determined by the respondents exceeded the original extent of Acs. 65.12 Guntas, encroaching on their private property – Held: The Lake Protection Committee was directed to hear the petitioners’ objections and decide the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu through a speaking order – No demolition of the petitioners’ constructions until the FTL determination is finalized [Paras 1-6].

Administrative Law – Right to Hearing – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners entitled to a personal hearing before Lake Protection Committee – Petitioners had submitted objections within the prescribed time limit but were not considered – Held: The Lake Protection Committee must provide the petitioners with a personal hearing and finalize the FTL notification after considering the objections [Paras 10-12].

Land Rights – Private Property – Article 300-A Constitution of India – Encroachment Allegations – Petitioners’ claim of interference with peaceful possession – Petitioners' properties were alleged to fall under the extended FTL area – Held: The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioners' possession until the FTL is determined [Paras 8-10].

Judicial Remedy – No Final Relief Granted – Pending Decision by Committee – The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' claims as the matter was left to be adjudicated by the Lake Protection Committee – Writ petitions disposed of with directions to the Committee [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Writ petitions were disposed of with directions to the Lake Protection Committee to hear the petitioners' objections and notify the FTL of Durgam Cheruvu within six weeks. No demolition of the petitioners' constructions will take place until the FTL is determined.

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Applicant convicted for abetment of suicide and cruelty towards his wife – Trial Court sentenced him to imprisonment, and the conviction was upheld by the appellate court – Applicant argued that contradictory medical opinions (postmortem and chemical analysis) undermined the prosecution’s case and that there was no evidence of abetment – Held: Medical evidence favored the postmortem findings over the chemical analysis, but the prosecution failed to establish abetment or cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC – Conviction set aside [Paras 1-12, 13-31].

Medical Evidence – Postmortem vs. Chemical Analysis – The postmortem indicated poisoning, while the chemical analysis found no poison – Court relied on Modi's Medical Jurisprudence to conclude that poison might not always be detected after death due to various factors – Held: Postmortem findings prevail over chemical analysis, but this does not conclusively establish abetment or cruelty [Paras 7-12].

Abetment of Suicide – Insufficient Proof – Applicant argued that no evidence of provocation or incitement was provided to sustain a conviction under Section 306 IPC – The Court referred to Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ude Singh v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that abetment requires proof of instigation or active encouragement – The prosecution failed to prove any proximate incitement leading to the deceased's suicide [Paras 13-22].

Cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Lack of Continuous Harassment – No evidence of continuous harassment or unlawful demands for dowry was established – The deceased’s complaint about harassment was vague and not corroborated by credible witnesses – The general allegations surfaced only after her death, which were insufficient to convict under Section 498A IPC [Paras 23-29].

Decision: Criminal Revision Application allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC quashed – Applicant acquitted and fine to be refunded – Bail bonds canceled and surety discharged [Paras 31].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his neighbor following an altercation over a disputed will – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and a dying declaration made by the deceased – The trial court convicted the appellant, despite acquitting the co-accused on the same evidence – Held: The conviction was overturned on appeal due to contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, inconsistencies between the dying declaration and initial medical history provided by the deceased, and lack of independent corroboration – The court ruled that the dying declaration could not be relied upon exclusively to convict the appellant, especially in light of conflicting evidence [Paras 30-55].

Dying Declaration – Reliability and Contradictions – The deceased initially told doctors that his injuries were accidental, caused by a fall, but later implicated the appellant in a dying declaration – The court emphasized that a dying declaration, if contradictory or delayed, requires corroboration – Here, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case, and the dying declaration was deemed unreliable [Paras 40-45].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Eyewitness Reliability – The prosecution’s key witnesses were family members of the deceased, and their accounts contained material contradictions, particularly concerning the sequence of events and the timing of the complaint – The court held that their testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and their status as interested witnesses [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges – The court emphasized that when evidence is circumstantial and inconsistent, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Consumer Law – Award of Interest – Execution of Forum's Order – The respondent was awarded 15% interest on the deposited amount by the Consumer Forum, with a recovery certificate issued for further interest on the interest amount – Held: Interest is payable only on the principal sum adjudged, not on the interest component, as per Section 34 of the CPC and Section 3(3) of The Interest Act, 1978 – The Forum's order awarding interest on interest was set aside as illegal [Paras 17-23]​.

Judicial Review – Interest on Principal vs. Interest on Interest – The Court clarified that interest on interest cannot be awarded unless expressly provided by statute or contractual terms – Reiterated that courts ordinarily award interest only on the principal sum – The impugned orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed [Paras 23-24]​.

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders of 01/01/2020 and 15/03/2021 set aside – No order as to costs [Para 24]​.