Writ Jurisdiction – Judicial Orders of Civil Courts – Article 226 – Non-Maintainability - The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 to quash an interlocutory order passed by the Sub-Judge-I, Danapur, in an execution case. The High Court held that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 but can be challenged under Article 227 – Directed petitioners to convert the writ into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition – Held: Judicial orders by civil courts cannot be challenged under Article 226, and the petition was allowed to be converted to Civil Miscellaneous Petition within four weeks.

Scope of Article 227 – Distinction from Article 226 – The High Court emphasized the distinct scopes of Articles 226 and 227, clarifying that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is constitutional and differs fundamentally from writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Reaffirmed principles set out by the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam and Another v. Chhabi Nath [2015 (5) SCC 423] – Held: The distinction between the two Articles must be upheld, and Article 226 does not permit interference with civil court orders.

Amendments in Patna High Court Rules – Procedure for Petitions under Article 227 - Rule 6 of Chapter IIIA of the Patna High Court Rules now mandates that petitions under Article 227 concerning civil court orders must be filed as Civil Miscellaneous Petitions – The court granted four weeks to the petitioners to convert the present writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition – Held: The amended procedure under Rule 6 of Chapter IIIA must be adhered to, and the registry was directed to assist the petitioners in the conversion process 

Decision – Time granted for conversion of writ petition – Registry directed to cooperate and prioritize the matter after conversion – Case pending for over ten years to be expedited [Paras 4-5].
 

Civil Writ - NEET-PG Merit List – Incentivised Marks – State Merit List Preparation Found Defective - State Merit List for NEET-PG 2024 prepared by the National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) for Madhya Pradesh was challenged on the ground that incentivised marks awarded to in-service candidates were added to raw scores instead of normalised scores – Held: Adding incentivised marks to raw scores compounded discrepancies caused by the varying difficulty levels of multiple shifts, leading to a distorted ranking – The methodology adopted was erroneous and contrary to principles of fairness in competitive examinations [Paras 19-24].

Normalisation of Scores – Statistical Process Explained – NBEMS Directed to Correct Methodology - Normalisation, a statistical process to equalise scores across multiple shifts, was adopted for NEET-PG 2024 to account for varying difficulty levels between shifts – The court held that adding incentivised marks to normalised scores ensures a level playing field for all candidates and prevents compounded benefits based on raw scores – NBEMS was directed to prepare a fresh State Merit List by awarding incentivised marks to normalised scores [Paras 20-24, 34].

Relative Performance – Logical Inconsistencies in Merit List Highlighted – State Merit List Quashed - State Merit List showed candidates ranked higher in the All India Merit List ranked lower in the State Merit List compared to the same individuals – This inconsistency arose due to flawed methodology and could not be reconciled – Held: Rankings based on relative performance in the same examination cannot differ between lists – The court quashed the State Merit List and directed NBEMS to prepare a new list [Paras 28-31].

Notification of Methodology – Failure to Notify State Merit List Criteria – Violation of Fair Examination Principles - methodology adopted for preparing the State Merit List, including the addition of incentivised marks to raw scores, was never notified to candidates – Held: The lack of transparency violated principles of fairness in examinations – The court reiterated the importance of notifying methodologies to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary processes [Paras 16, 32-33].

Decision: The State Merit List for NEET-PG 2024 for Madhya Pradesh was quashed – NBEMS was directed to prepare a fresh State Merit List by awarding incentivised marks to normalised scores instead of raw scores – The revised merit list must be prepared as expeditiously as possible – Writ Petition allowed with no order as to costs.
 

NDPS - Bail – Prolonged Custody – Concession Allowed – The petitioner, a first-time offender, was in custody since 05.09.2021 with only 09 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined – Held: Delay in trial and prolonged custody warranted relaxation of Section 37 NDPS Act conditions in light of Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail granted [Paras 9-10].
Judicial Precedents – Applicability to Bail Cases – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act Diluted – Relying on precedents set in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5769/2022, and Hasanujjaman & Others v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 3221/2023, the Court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and extended bail to the petitioner [Paras 6-8].
Bail Conditions – Safeguards Imposed – The petitioner directed to provide monthly reporting at the police station, deposit an FDR of ₹1,00,000 with the Trial Court, and comply with trial requirements to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of bail [Paras 11-12].
Decision – Petition allowed – Bail granted to Balwinder Singh subject to conditions, emphasizing adherence to trial obligations and accountability [Paras 10-13].
 

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicle Accident – Negligence – Determination of Liability – Insurer's Liability Affirmed – The accident resulted from the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the first respondent – First respondent, despite notice, failed to contest the case or depose – Insurer held liable to pay compensation under the terms of the insurance policy but with liberty to recover the amount from the first respondent – Held: Insurer to pay compensation of ₹42,03,960/- with interest and recover the same from the first respondent via execution petition – Award upheld [Paras 13-16, 22(ii)].

Insurance – Recovery Rights – Insurer Granted Recovery Rights Against Tort-Feasor – The Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants due to the negligent riding by the insured’s vehicle – Since the insured violated policy terms by not cooperating, the insurer was permitted to recover the awarded amount directly from the tort-feasor – Decision: Insurer to recover from the first respondent without filing a separate suit [Paras 16, 22(ii)].

Quantum of Compensation – Multiplier and Age – No Interference – Though the Tribunal erred in calculating the multiplier based on the deceased’s age per post-mortem instead of transfer certificates, the claimants did not challenge the award amount – Held: No alteration in the compensation quantum of ₹42,03,960/- awarded by the Tribunal [Paras 21].

Tribunal’s Findings – Claimants' Choice to Sue Either Party Erroneous – The Tribunal wrongly allowed claimants to sue either the lorry driver or the motorcyclist – Claim lies solely against the tort-feasor – Held: First respondent, the tort-feasor, was liable for the accident; not a case of composite negligence – Award Upheld [Paras 17, 22(ii)].

Decision:

Appeal partly allowed: Compensation of ₹42,03,960/- upheld with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the petition filing date. Insurer directed to deposit compensation within 45 days and recover from the tort-feasor (first respondent) through execution petition without a separate suit. Apportionment of compensation among claimants unchanged. No costs awarded; connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition closed.

Transfer of Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Distinct Causes of Action – Transfer Denied – The petitioner sought transfer of two rent petitions, one under Section 13-B (NRI eviction) and the other under Section 13 (non-payment of rent), to the same court. The Court held that although the premises in dispute were the same, the causes of action were distinct, and the applicable procedures were entirely different. Hence, the transfer was not warranted. [Paras 6-7, 9]

Summary Nature of Section 13-B Eviction Proceedings – Special Procedure under Section 18-A – Transfer Not Justified – Proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act are to be conducted summarily as per the procedure laid down in Section 18-A of the Act, whereas proceedings under Section 13 follow a regular trial process. The Court emphasized that the difference in the nature and procedure of the two petitions militated against their consolidation. [Paras 6, 8]

Convenience of Parties – No Common or Joint Issues Between Petitions – Convenience Not a Ground for Transfer – The petitioner argued that transferring the petitions to the same court would be convenient for both parties. The Court rejected this argument, observing that the two petitions were based on different causes of action and involved no overlapping issues or potential conflicts in judicial findings. [Para 6]

Non-Payment of Rent vs. NRI Eviction Rights – Distinct Grounds – The rent petition under Section 13-B was based on the special right of eviction granted to NRIs, while the petition under Section 13 was based on non-payment of rent. The Court held that these grounds are distinct and unrelated, further justifying the decision to keep the proceedings separate. [Paras 5-6]

Tenant's Obligation Under Section 18-A – Summary Procedure in NRI Cases – Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act mandates a summary procedure for Section 13-B petitions. The Court highlighted that the tenant's application to contest such petitions must meet specific procedural requirements, and the matter could not be equated with proceedings under Section 13, which involve a full-fledged trial. [Paras 6, 8]

Decision – The Court upheld the District Judge's order refusing the transfer of proceedings. It found that the transfer application lacked merit and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. [Para 9]

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Bail Application – Expedited Consideration Sought – Interim Measures Permissible - The petitioner, a juvenile, sought a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide his bail application on the same day of surrender – Held: A juvenile should not be unnecessarily detained in an observation home pending a bail decision – As per Sections 10(2) and 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, if bail is not refused, juveniles may be placed in the custody of parents/guardians instead of being sent to observation homes – Decision: Petition allowed with a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the bail application on the same day of surrender [Paras 6-8, 10].

Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Custody Pending Bail Proceedings – Non-Mandatory Detention in Observation Home - The Juvenile Justice Act provides that juveniles may be placed under parental or guardian custody pending bail proceedings, especially when offences are not heinous – Held: Sending the juvenile to an observation home should not be automatic and must only follow a bail rejection order – Juvenile Justice Board may ascertain antecedents through probation officer reports without mandatory detention – Decision: Petition disposed of with specific directions to the Board [Paras 6-10].

Juvenile Justice Board Procedure – Probation Officer Reports – Permissible Interim Custody - The Court clarified that while the Board may obtain probation officer reports for assessing antecedents, such procedural steps should not result in unwarranted detention – Instead, interim custody with parents or guardians is permissible under Rule 9 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules – Decision: Juvenile to be placed under parental custody if bail is not refused on the same day [Paras 7-9].
Decision: The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, is directed to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day of surrender. The Board is further instructed to avoid sending the juvenile to an observation home unless bail is specifically rejected, and interim custody with parents/guardians is not feasible. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
 

Permanent Injunction – Possession in Dispute – Ownership Not Established – Suit Dismissed – In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs must establish possession independent of ownership – Concurrent findings by both the Trial and Appellate Courts demonstrated that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession or ownership over the suit property, as the defendants were found to be in occupation and use of the property – The High Court upheld the dismissal of the suit, holding that the findings were supported by evidence [Paras 6-8].

Vacant Land – Presumption of Possession with Ownership – Not Applicable in Presence of Contradictory Evidence – Injunction Denied – The argument that possession follows ownership for vacant land was rejected, as evidence showed the land had constructions used by the defendants – Courts emphasized the need for concrete proof of possession in such cases – Appeal dismissed due to lack of such proof [Para 7].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as both lower courts provided well-reasoned judgments based on evidence – Regular second appeal dismissed for being devoid of merit [Para 8].

Labour Law – Dismissal without Inquiry – Lump Sum Compensation Awarded – The Labour Court awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as lump sum compensation to the dismissed worker who served over 14 years without conducting an inquiry – Held: The Labour Court’s findings were reasoned, and no reinstatement was granted due to the worker's age of superannuation and lapse of 24 years since dismissal – The compensation awarded was upheld with an enhancement of 20% [Paras 7, 12].

Scope of Judicial Review – Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Limited Interference – The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and not appellate – Errors of fact cannot be reappreciated unless jurisdictional errors or principles of natural justice are violated – Held: The Labour Court’s order was not palpably erroneous or without jurisdiction, warranting no interference [Paras 8, 12].

Compensation Instead of Reinstatement – Worker’s Long Separation and Superannuation – Referring to precedents, the Court observed that reinstatement with back wages is not automatic in cases of procedural lapses like violation of Section 25-F – Compensation was held as an appropriate relief considering the worker’s age, long separation, and nature of dismissal [Paras 9-10].

Interest on Compensation – Enhancement Awarded – The Court increased the awarded amount by 20% due to delays in payment but reduced the interest rate to 9% per annum for further delays, balancing both parties' conduct [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Both petitions (management and worker) were dismissed – Lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,00,000 was upheld with an enhancement of 20%, to be paid within 8 weeks, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply [Paras 14-15].
 

Insurance Law – Ombudsman Award – Compliance with IRDA Guidelines – Jurisdiction – Petition challenging award dated 03 May 2021 issued by the Insurance Ombudsman directing the Oriental Insurance Company to pay ₹27,13,582/- to the claimant, Bharat Dedhia, under a health insurance policy – Allegations by the Insurance Company that the Ombudsman exceeded jurisdiction under IRDA Notification dated 25 April 2017 by considering claims involving partial repudiation and awarding an amount exceeding the insured limit of ₹25,00,000/- – Held: Ombudsman acted within jurisdiction, and the award was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy [Paras 5-7, 13, 46-49].

Jurisdiction – Ombudsman Authority – IRDA Notification – Insurance Company alleged that partial repudiation of claims does not fall under Clause 13 of the IRDA Notification – Court rejected the contention, stating that Clause 13 covers disputes arising from total or partial repudiation of claims and other matters, including legal construction of policies and violations of the Insurance Act, 1938 – The claimant’s complaint of partial settlement squarely fell within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction [Paras 44-48].

Claim Validity – Allegation of Void Policies – Insurance Company argued that the policies were void due to inaccuracies in the proposal form, including undisclosed pre-existing conditions – Court observed that this issue was not raised before the Ombudsman and constituted an afterthought – Proposal form was unsigned, and premiums had been accepted – Held: The claim was valid, and the award was enforceable [Paras 7, 39-40].

Reasonable and Customary Charges – Hospital Charges – Insurance Company challenged the award, claiming that the surgeon’s fees exceeded “reasonable and customary charges” – Court held that the charges were justified based on the claimant’s health condition and evidence presented – Comparison to charges for other patients was deemed insufficient to establish excessiveness [Paras 11, 41-42].

Delay and Non-Compliance – Harassment of Senior Citizen – Insurance Company failed to comply with Clause 17(6) of the IRDA Notification, which mandates award compliance within 30 days – Delay persisted for over three years without securing a stay – Court criticized the Insurance Company’s conduct, finding suppression of evidence and intentional delay – Directed exemplary costs and interest on the awarded amount [Paras 27-36, 55-57].

Decision – Writ Petition No.706 of 2024 dismissed with exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000/- – Writ Petition No.2903 of 2021 allowed – Insurance Company directed to pay the awarded amount with interest at 7% per annum from 01 July 2021 until the actual payment – Directions issued for fixing responsibility on officials responsible for delay and recovery of costs and interest from them – Compliance report to be filed by 16 June 2025 [Paras 56-71].