Civil Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application seeking rejection of plaint on ground that suit for administration of estate is barred in law as plaintiff had propounded a Will and probate proceedings were pending – Held: Plaint cannot be rejected where it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law – Order VII Rule 11 invoked erroneously [Paras 57–58, 70–71, 76].

Administration of Estate – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Distinction from Probate Proceedings – Plaintiff propounded Will of 1994 and filed probate petition as executor – Defendant contended civil court lacked jurisdiction till probate decided – Held: Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction only to decide genuineness and execution of Will – Administration of estate and protective reliefs fall within civil court’s jurisdiction – Remedies are distinct and can proceed concurrently [Paras 59–62, 73, 77].

Pending Probate – Maintainability of Administration Suit – Mere pendency of testamentary proceedings does not bar institution or continuation of suit for administration of estate – Grant of probate may follow suit but must precede final decree – Section 213 of Succession Act not a bar to institution of civil action [Paras 63–64].

Executor – Section 211 Succession Act – Legal Representative – Executor becomes legal representative of deceased upon death – Vesting of estate enables prosecution of civil proceedings without waiting for probate – Rights subject to outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 63, 45].

Two Competing Wills – Civil Court’s Limited Role – Plaintiff acknowledged later Will of 2012 propounded by defendant – Held: Civil court need not and cannot decide which Will is genuine – Testamentary court alone to adjudicate validity – Civil court confined to administration and protection of estate [Paras 62, 73–74].

Alternative Pleas – Will and Intestacy – Permissibility – Plaintiff sought administration as per Will and alternatively on intestacy – Objection that pleas were mutually destructive rejected – Held: Alternative pleas permissible where factual foundation not inconsistent – Alternate relief would arise only if both Wills held invalid [Paras 65–67].

Contradictory vs Alternative Pleas – Test Applied – Pleas not self-destructive as they operate on different eventualities – Reliance on Praful Manohar Rele and Sarva Shramik Sangh affirmed – No bar to claiming alternate reliefs on same factual matrix [Paras 65–67].

Rejection of Plaint in Parts – Impermissible – Defendant sought rejection of prayers (a) to (c) alone – Held: Plaint must be read as whole – Partial rejection not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 70].

Concurrent Proceedings – Civil and Testamentary Courts – Suit for administration and probate proceedings may proceed simultaneously – Final decree in administration suit to await outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 77].

Decision – Notice of Motion seeking rejection of plaint dismissed – Suit held maintainable – Four weeks’ stay granted on operation of order [Paras 78–80].

Criminal Law - Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Not Negotiable Endorsement – Applicability – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act on ground that cheque bore "Not Negotiable" marking – Held: Endorsement “Not Negotiable” merely restricts transferee from acquiring better title under Section 130 NI Act – It does not nullify drawer’s liability or exclude application of Section 138 – Drawer remains liable if cheque issued in discharge of debt and dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complaint maintainable – No ground to quash proceedings at preliminary stage [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of trial and revisional court rejecting application to drop proceedings under NI Act – Held: Courts below rightly held that legality of cheque and existence of enforceable debt are triable issues requiring evidence – No jurisdictional error or abuse of process shown – Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Paras 6–7]

Interpretation of NI Act – “Not Negotiable” Endorsement – Legal Effect – Cited case Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1952 All 590 explained – Endorsement does not destroy negotiability or legality of cheque – Trial to proceed to determine liability [Para 6]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly held that issue of whether cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and applicability of Section 138 are matters of trial – “Not Negotiable” endorsement does not render Section 138 inapplicable – No interference warranted under Section 482 CrPC.

Criminal Law – Medical Negligence – Quashing of Complaint – Section 304-A IPC – Doctors prosecuted for alleged negligence leading to death of patient after delivery – Complaint and summoning order challenged under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: In absence of prima facie medical evidence indicating gross rashness or negligence, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law [Paras 1–5, 12–13].

Medical Negligence – Requirement of Prima Facie Expert Opinion – Compliance with Jacob Mathew Guidelines – Hon’ble Supreme Court mandates credible and competent medical opinion before prosecuting doctors for criminal negligence – In present case, inquiry by medical board constituted pursuant to High Court directions found no negligence – Even prosecution witness (CW-3), supervising doctor at referral hospital, categorically deposed absence of negligence – Held: Summoning without such prima facie opinion unsustainable [Paras 8–10, 12].

Summoning Order – Non-application of Mind – Appreciation of Medical Evidence – Learned Magistrate relied on complaint narrative without recording any finding of rash or negligent act attributable to petitioners – Medical testimony on record exonerated doctors – Failure to refer matter to independent medical board or to appreciate expert evidence renders summoning order legally infirm [Paras 10–12].

Criminal Negligence – Distinction between Civil and Criminal Liability – Degree of Negligence – For offence under Section 304-A IPC, negligence must be gross and of very high degree – Mere complication during medical treatment or adverse outcome not sufficient – Postpartum hemorrhage and subsequent death held to be natural medical complication without proof of gross negligence [Paras 11–12].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process – Where criminal proceedings against medical professionals are initiated without adherence to settled legal safeguards and expert medical opinion, High Court justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice – Complaint and all consequential proceedings quashed [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal Complaint No. 164 of 2015 and summoning order dated 23.03.2018 quashed – All consequential proceedings set aside qua petitioners.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Section 11(6) – Institutional Arbitration – Exhaustion of Agreed Procedure Mandatory – Employment agreements contained arbitration clause providing for appointment of sole arbitrator in accordance with MCIA Rules – Respondent accepted invocation of arbitration and did not default in agreed procedure – Held: Where parties have consciously agreed to an institutional mechanism for appointment of arbitrator, Court cannot appoint arbitrator under Section 11 without first requiring parties to exhaust agreed procedure – Section 11 jurisdiction arises only upon failure of agreed mechanism [Paras 13–16].

Arbitration Clause – MCIA Rules – Seat and Venue at Indore – No Inconsistency – Contention that MCIA Rules can operate only if seat is Mumbai rejected – Rule 30 of MCIA Rules permits parties to agree on seat of arbitration – Fixing Indore as seat and venue does not render MCIA Rules inapplicable – Arbitration clause held coherent and workable [Paras 11–12].

Section 11 Jurisdiction – Prematurity of Petition – Applicants invoked arbitration and respondent consented to invocation – Applicants failed to take further steps under MCIA Rules for appointment of arbitrator – Direct approach to High Court held premature and impermissible – Court cannot bypass institutional framework agreed by parties [Paras 13–16].

Party Autonomy – Binding Nature of Arbitration Agreement – Parties bound by dispute resolution clause consciously agreed in employment contracts – Applicants cannot resile from agreed procedure merely because arbitration is institutional – Party autonomy is cornerstone of arbitration law and must be respected [Paras 14–16].

Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent – Parmar Construction Case – Reiterated that default procedure under Section 11 can be invoked only when agreed appointment mechanism fails or becomes inoperative – High Court must first give effect to contractual mechanism before appointing independent arbitrator [Paras 14–15].

Multiple Applications – Common Arbitration Clause – Common Outcome – All three employment agreements contained identical arbitration clause – Common order passed dismissing all three applications – Liberty granted to applicants to invoke MCIA mechanism in accordance with rules [Paras 1, 17].

Decision – Arbitration Case Nos. 105, 106 and 107 of 2025 dismissed – Liberty granted to applicants to approach Mumbai Centre for International Arbitration for appointment of sole arbitrator as per MCIA Rules and employment agreements – No appointment made by Court under Section 11 [Para 17].

Civil Law – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Order 26 Rule 9 CPC – Refusal to Appoint Commissioner – Revisability – Petition filed under Article 227 challenging order of Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissing application for appointment of Local Commissioner – Held: Order refusing appointment of Local Commissioner neither decides any issue nor adjudicates rights of parties and therefore is not revisable – Appointment of Local Commissioner is purely discretionary and no vested right accrues to any party [Paras 1–3].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Limited Scope – High Court reiterated that supervisory jurisdiction is not meant to circumvent settled law on maintainability of revisions – Reliance placed on binding Division Bench judgment holding such orders as non-revisable – No illegality or perversity found in impugned order [Paras 2–3].

Withdrawal of Revision Petition – Liberty to Lead Evidence – Petitioner sought permission to withdraw revision in view of settled legal position and availability of opportunity to lead evidence at appropriate stage – Revision dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to adduce relevant evidence during trial [Paras 4–5].

Decision: Civil Revision dismissed as withdrawn – Liberty granted to petitioner to lead relevant evidence before Trial Court.

Civil Law – Framing of Issues – Will Propounded by Defendant – Mandatory Duty of Court – Plaintiff filed suit claiming ownership by natural inheritance – Defendants pleaded Will dated 16.08.1978 to defeat plaintiff’s claim – Trial Court framed general issue on entitlement to declaration but failed to frame specific issue on validity and effect of Will – Application by plaintiff for framing additional issue dismissed on ground that only defendants could seek such issue – Held: Plea of Will constitutes a distinct and material proposition of fact and law and Court is statutorily bound to frame a specific issue thereon [Paras 2, 5].

Order XIV Rules 1 and 5 CPC – Scope and Application – Issues are to be framed by Court on basis of pleadings and not at discretion of parties – Any party affected by a plea raised is entitled to seek framing of an issue – Court empowered to frame or amend issues at any stage before passing of decree if necessary for determining real controversy – Stage of rebuttal evidence no bar to framing additional issue [Paras 7].

Will – Proof – Burden of Proof – Procedural Safeguards – Proof of Will governed by special statutory requirements under Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act – Burden lies on propounder of Will – Absence of specific issue on Will renders trial procedurally deficient and final adjudication vulnerable to challenge – General issue cannot substitute a specific issue on Will [Paras 6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Failure to Exercise Jurisdiction – Trial Court declined to frame necessary issue on erroneous understanding of law – Such refusal amounts to material error of jurisdiction – Interference by High Court warranted to ensure proper adjudication of lis [Paras 8].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 26.11.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to frame additional issue regarding validity, execution and binding effect of Will dated 16.08.1978 and proceed with suit in accordance with law [Paras 9–10].

Criminal Law – Sexual Offences Against Child – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Victim – Sufficiency of Evidence – Appellant convicted for wrongful restraint, outraging modesty and rape of a minor girl – Victim gave a clear, cogent and consistent account of sexual assault involving digital penetration and sexual acts – Cross-examination failed to discredit her testimony – Held: Conviction can be safely based on sole testimony of prosecutrix when it inspires confidence [Paras 14–17, 22].

Evidence – Minor Contradictions and Omissions – Effect – Defence highlighted omissions in statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC and discrepancies regarding disclosure of incident – Held: Minor omissions which do not affect the core of prosecution case are inconsequential and do not undermine credibility of victim’s testimony [Paras 16, 23–24].

Medical Evidence – Absence of Injuries – Not Fatal – Medical examination conducted after lapse of time showed no genital injuries – Doctor opined that injuries could heal within 7–10 days – Held: Absence of medical corroboration does not discredit otherwise trustworthy testimony of victim – Medical evidence not sine qua non for conviction in sexual offence cases [Paras 20–22].

Delay in Lodging FIR – Sexual Offences – Explained – FIR lodged after victim disclosed incident to friend and family – Delay satisfactorily explained due to fear, trauma and social stigma – Held: Delay in sexual offence cases cannot be equated with other crimes and does not vitiate prosecution case [Paras 22].

Non-Examination of Certain Witnesses – Adverse Inference – When Not Warranted – Defence argued non-examination of daughter of appellant and other relatives – Held: When evidence on record is overwhelming and unimpeachable, non-examination of some witnesses is not fatal and does not warrant adverse inference [Paras 36].

Rape – Section 375(b) IPC – Digital Penetration – Act of inserting finger into private part of minor squarely falls within Section 375(b) IPC – Consent irrelevant as victim was a minor – Offence of rape clearly made out [Paras 41–42].

Goa Children’s Act – Grave Sexual Assault – Acts proved constituted “grave sexual assault” under Sections 2(y)(i) & (ii) punishable under Section 8(2) – Conviction under special statute justified [Paras 43–44].

Sentence – Age of Accused – No Mitigation in Child Sexual Offence – Appellant aged above 80 years sought leniency – Held: Advanced age of accused not a mitigating factor in offences involving sexual assault on a child – Protection of child and societal conscience paramount [Paras 50–52].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentences imposed by Children’s Court affirmed – Appellant directed to surrender forthwith – Prayer for stay rejected.

NDPS Act – Possession of Poppy Husk – Conviction under Section 15(c) – Acquittal on Appeal – Failure to Prove Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Appellants convicted for possession of three gunny bags each containing about 40 kg poppy husk – Conviction challenged on grounds of contradictions in prosecution evidence and non-compliance of statutory provisions – Held: Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted [Paras 21, 29].

Evidence – Official Witnesses – Material Contradictions – Effect – Prosecution case rested solely on police witnesses – DSP shown to be present simultaneously at two different places in two separate FIRs on same date and time – Contradictions regarding place of bags in jeep, weighing method, seals, custody and return of seals – No independent public witness joined despite availability – Held: Contradictions go to root of prosecution case and render recovery doubtful [Paras 22].

Search and Seizure – FIR Number Mentioned on Documents Prepared Prior to Registration of FIR – Serious Infirmity – Recovery memo, site plan and other documents prepared allegedly at spot contained FIR number though FIR registered later – No explanation offered by prosecution – Reliance placed on precedents – Held: Indicates documents were prepared subsequently and investigation is doubtful [Paras 23].

NDPS Act – Section 52A – Non-Compliance – Fatal to Prosecution – Case property and samples not produced before Magistrate – No inventory certified by Magistrate – Samples sent to FSL were those drawn at spot – Mandatory safeguard under Section 52A violated – Held: Non-compliance vitiates prosecution and benefit must go to accused [Paras 24–25].

Delay in Sending Samples to FSL – Violation of Standing Order No. 1 of 1988 – Sample sent after unexplained delay of nine days – Standing Order mandates dispatch within 72 hours – Seal custody doubtful – Possibility of tampering not ruled out – Adverse inference drawn against prosecution [Paras 26–27].

Sample Seal – Preparation and Custody – Serious Lapse – Prosecution witnesses silent on preparation of sample seal at spot – Contradictory versions regarding handing over and return of seal – Sample seal not produced before Magistrate – Held: Sanctity of samples compromised and prosecution case weakened [Paras 27–28].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2004 set aside – Appellants acquitted of charge under Section 15(c) NDPS Act – Bail bonds discharged – Case property ordered to be confiscated and destroyed – Jeep to be returned to registered owner as per rules.

Service Law – Fixed Pay Policy – Graduate and Post Graduate Teachers – Equal Pay for Equal Work – Appellants appointed through regular selection process against sanctioned permanent posts of Graduate Teachers and Post Graduate Teachers – State policy restricted payment to 75% fixed pay for first five years – Held: Once appointed against regular posts after due selection, denial of regular pay scale amounts to irrational classification – Violates Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution [Paras 28–34].

Equal Pay for Equal Work – Scope – Applicability to Regular Appointees – Appellants discharged same duties, responsibilities, workload and sensitivity as teachers appointed prior to 2001 and those appointed through Tripura Public Service Commission – No distinguishing features shown by State – Held: Unequal pay for identical work impermissible – Doctrine squarely attracted [Paras 31–35].

Executive Policy – Memorandums of 2001 and 2007 – Constitutional Validity – Memorandum dated 15.12.2001 and 16.10.2007 introduced and continued fixed pay regime for Group C and D employees – Held: Policy of keeping regular pay scales in abeyance for sanctioned posts arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional – Cabinet approval does not grant immunity from judicial review [Paras 42, 45–51].

Judicial Review – Policy Decisions – Limits – Courts normally refrain from interfering in policy matters – However, when policy violates fundamental rights or is arbitrary, courts are duty-bound to strike it down – Held: Fixed pay policy infringes Article 14 and hence liable to be invalidated [Paras 44–50].

Financial Stringency – Pleadings – Burden of Proof – Single Judge relied on alleged financial constraints of State – No pleading or material produced by State to establish financial hardship – Held: In absence of pleadings and evidence, financial stringency cannot justify denial of constitutional rights [Paras 52–55].

Appointment Terms – Temporary Appointment against Permanent Posts – Estoppel – Appointment letters described posts as temporary with termination clause despite advertisement for permanent posts – Held: State estopped from altering nature of posts post-selection – Such clauses arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 55–59].

Waiver – Estoppel – Fundamental Rights – Acceptance of appointment on fixed pay does not bar employees from challenging unconstitutional conditions – There can be no estoppel against Constitution and no waiver of fundamental rights – Held: Appellants entitled to challenge fixed pay condition notwithstanding acceptance [Paras 56–60].

Relief – Monetary Benefits – Limitation – Appellants approached Court belatedly – Held: Regular pay granted notionally from date of initial appointment – Arrears restricted to three years prior to filing of writ petitions with 9% interest – Costs awarded [Paras 65–66].

Decision: Writ Appeals allowed – Judgment of Single Judge set aside – Memorandums dated 15.12.2001 and 16.10.2007 struck down – Appellants deemed regular appointees from initial date – Regular pay scale granted with consequential benefits – Arrears limited to three years with interest @ 9% per annum – Costs awarded.