PIL - Constitutional Validity of the Kerala Finance Act, 2025 Court Fees – Constitutional Validity of Amendment – Legislative Competence – Entry 3 List II – Kerala Finance Act, 2025 upheld – Petitioner Association challenged the amendment to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 via the Kerala Finance Act, 2025 on grounds of arbitrariness and excessive burden – Held: State has legislative competence under Entry 3, List II of Seventh Schedule – Court recognised economic legislation must be judged with judicial restraint – Revisions made after long intervals (up to 63 years in some categories) are reasonable and justified [Paras 1–3, 15–16, 25, 41].

Article 14 – No Unreasonable Classification – Section 73A Exempting Government from Court Fees Valid – Petitioner challenged Section 73A granting Government exemption from court fees as arbitrary – Held: Provision upheld by previous Division Bench in Human Rights Protection Forum v. State of Kerala – Reasonable classification exists as State pays into its own exchequer – No fresh material to re-examine the settled view – Challenge dismissed [Paras 9–11, 49].

Article 21 – Access to Justice – No Violation by Enhanced Court Fees – Petitioner argued increased court fees restrict access to justice – Held: No concrete data or individual cases presented to show denial of access – Mere enhancement not violative of Article 21 – State's power to revise fees includes consideration of inflation, devaluation, judicial infrastructure costs – Right of access not absolute in fee context [Paras 22–24, 42–44].

Ad Valorem Fees – No Change in Rate – Challenge Not Pressed – Court held there was no change in percentage of ad valorem fees; only computation base modified – Petitioners conceded and did not press this point further – Hence, challenge to ad valorem fees rejected [Paras 13–14, 49].

Justice V.K. Mohanan Committee Report – Validity of Fee Revision Process – Report formed part of legislative background – Allegations of perfunctory process and arbitrary reasoning rejected – Revision based on long-standing stagnation, inflation, increased judicial expenditure – No requirement of mathematical correlation – Broad nexus between revenue and judicial cost sufficient [Paras 20–24, 28–29, 34–35, 41].

Public Interest Litigation – No Material to Justify Challenge – Blanket Challenge Unfounded – Petitioner failed to specify which classes or litigants were affected – Court emphasised need for precise pleading and evidence in PILs challenging legislation – No individual litigants or hardship shown – Challenge dismissed [Paras 43–45].

Court Fees and Infrastructure – Fee Collection Intended for Judicial Administration – Not General Revenue – State showed budgetary allocation for judiciary has grown significantly while court fee revenue lags – Consistent with All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India – Court fees validly levied to support justice delivery [Paras 32–33, 39].

Anticipatory Bail Applications – Specific Challenge Deferred – Court Fee Increase Not Unreasonable Per Se – Challenge to ₹500 court fee for anticipatory bail not substantiated – Court left issue open for adjudication in appropriate individual cases [Para 46].

Provision for Exemptions – Special Categories Protected – Financial Hardship Addressed in Act – Sections 72–75 of the Act of 1959 allow fee exemptions or remissions for weaker sections (SC/ST, women, poor, ex-servicemen, NGOs, etc.) – State Government empowered to notify additional remissions [Para 47–48].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – No violation of Articles 14 or 21 found – Amendment Act upheld as valid legislative exercise – Petitioners directed to approach State Government if any category of litigants requires exemption or relief – [Paras 50–52].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Abuse of Process – Petitioners and complainant were co-owners in civil dispute over shared property – Allegations of criminal trespass and outraging modesty found unsubstantiated – No material on record to indicate intention to outrage modesty or exclusive possession by complainant – Held: FIR filed to give civil dispute a criminal colour – Quashing warranted to prevent abuse of judicial process [Paras 24–29]

Indian Penal Code – Section 354 IPC – Outraging Modesty of Woman – Allegation that headgear of complainant (sister-in-law of accused) fell during dragging incident – No evidence to show intent to outrage modesty – Close familial relationship and absence of indecent intent negate applicability of Section 354 IPC – Mere use of force not sufficient without accompanying intent [Paras 20–22]

Indian Penal Code – Section 448 IPC – Criminal Trespass – Alleged unlawful entry into property – Disputed ownership and pending civil suit with status quo order – Petitioners found to be co-owners – Held: Entry into disputed property by co-owner cannot constitute criminal trespass – No exclusive possession proved by complainant – Offence under Section 448 IPC not made out [Paras 23–25]

Criminal Law – Civil Dispute Given Criminal Colour – FIR lodged in context of long-standing civil property dispute – No clear evidence of criminal intent – Citing Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, Supreme Court reiterates misuse of criminal law to pressurize parties – Held: Continuation of proceedings amounts to harassment and misuse of court process [Paras 26–27]

Decision: FIR No. 84/2021 and proceedings arising therefrom quashed – Petition allowed – Case diary directed to be returned to respondent's counsel [Paras 28–30]

Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Right to Gratuity – Delay in Payment – Liability of Employer – Withholding of terminal dues of retired employees on ground that PACS had not remitted its share to DCCB – Petitioners, all senior citizens, rendered unblemished service and retired between 2009 and 2013 – Held: Right to gratuity is a statutory and enforceable right under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Delay in payment without legal justification violates Sections 4 and 7 – Interest @10% awarded from due date till payment [Paras 24–28].

Administrative Law – State Liability – Article 12 Entities – DCCB and PACS held to be 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution – Financial incapacity of PACS cannot be accepted as defence against statutory obligation – Both entities held jointly and severally liable – Respondents directed to release terminal dues within 8 weeks with liberty to recover inter-se [Paras 34–36, 41(i)-(ii)].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 and Article 300-A – Right to Property and Livelihood – Denial of pensionary and terminal dues without due process held violative of Articles 21 and 300-A – Refusal to disburse terminal benefits without lawful justification affects right to dignity and life – Reference made to SC precedents in Deokinandan Prasad, D.S. Nakara, Gagan Bihari Prusty – Right to pension and gratuity treated as enforceable constitutional property right [Paras 29–33, 39].

Elderly Rights – Protection of Senior Citizens – Petitioners aged and vulnerable – Court deprecated prolonged denial of retirement benefits and noted decline in societal values concerning dignity of aged persons – Stressed need to uphold welfare of retired employees who served without blemish – Symbolic costs of ₹10,000 imposed on each respondent in favour of petitioners [Paras 37–38, 41(iii)].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – DCCB directed to release all terminal benefits with 10% interest within 8 weeks – Liberty to recover share from PACS – Respondents directed to pay ₹10,000 each as costs to petitioners – Delay and financial incapacity no ground to deny statutory and constitutional entitlements [Paras 41–42].

Taxation Law – Property Tax – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Appellant temple challenged property tax enhancement through civil suit – Trial Court and Appellate Court held suit was barred under Section 354 of Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act – Civil Court lacked jurisdiction where statutory remedy through appeal to Taxation Appeals Committee existed – Held: Bar under Section 354 applicable – Suit not maintainable – Alternative remedy not exhausted [Paras 9–11]

Municipal Law – Assessment of Property Tax – Challenge to enhanced tax – Allegation that assessment lacked basis and was not in conformity with fair rent principles – No evidence led to show assessment was arbitrary or violative of the Act – Courts below found substantial compliance with statutory procedure – High Court found no perversity in findings – Held: No merit in second appeal – Interference not warranted [Paras 6–11]

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – No costs

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Section 498-A IPC – Acquittal Reversed – Mental and Economic Abuse Proven – Victim, an octogenarian wife, alleged sustained cruelty including isolation, denial of food and communication, desecration of religious symbols, coercion to bring money, and obstruction of property rights – Trial Court convicted husband but appellate court acquitted citing lack of corroboration – Held: Appellate Court misdirected in law by demanding independent eyewitnesses in a domestic setting and misapplied Explanation (a) to Section 498-A – Police-recorded compromise terms corroborate cruelty – Conviction under Section 498-A restored – Sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine affirmed [Paras 30–36].

Evidence – Sole Testimony of Victim – Hearsay in Domestic Context – Trial Court rightly relied on victim’s consistent testimony supported by circumstances and police records – Appellate Court’s rejection based on hearsay rule was misplaced – Held: In domestic offences, corroboration by non-independent witnesses and compromise terms can supplement sole testimony – Conviction can be based solely on credible victim testimony [Paras 27, 30.1, 31.3].

Section 506(ii) IPC – Threat Allegations – Knife and Poison Threats – Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court rightly acquitted husband and co-accused due to lack of corroboration – Held: No basis to disturb acquittals under Section 506(ii) IPC or against other accused under Section 498-A r/w 109 IPC [Paras 32].

Maintenance – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Wife’s Status as ‘Aggrieved Person’ – Economic and Emotional Abuse Established – Husband claimed wife voluntarily left home and was self-sufficient – Held: Deprivation of maintenance and support is continuing domestic violence – Wife's claim not barred by limitation – “Aggrieved Person” status upheld – Maintenance claim maintainable [Paras 58–60].

Maintenance – Quantum – Rs.20,000/month Justified – Based on Advocate Commissioner’s Report – Husband’s net monthly income from properties over Rs.1.1 lakh – Wife aged, dependent, with no regular income – Held: Maintenance award is fair, realistic, and based on settled law – Plea of financial inability unsustainable in light of continued income flow from ancestral assets [Paras 61–63.2].

Civil Proceedings – Partition Suit Pending – Reliefs Limited – Courts rightly denied injunction and jewellery recovery due to pendency of civil suit – Residence order not granted as wife already residing in shared house valued at Rs.50 lakh – Held: No perversity in refusing ancillary reliefs [Paras 63.3–63.4].

Revisional Jurisdiction – No Interference Warranted – Appellate and Trial Courts’ findings consistent – Commissioner’s report supports conclusions – No legal or factual perversity found – Criminal Revisions dismissed – Maintenance order of Rs.20,000/month confirmed – Husband and son jointly liable [Paras 63.6–66].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction of husband under Section 498-A IPC restored – Sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine affirmed – Criminal Revision Petitions dismissed – Monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to wife upheld – Husband and son directed to pay jointly – Arrears to be cleared within 3 months – No costs [Paras 36–38, 64–66].

Arbitration – MSME Registered Supplier – Jurisdiction – Petition under Section 11 of Arbitration Act dismissed – Respondent, a registered MSME under UDYAM registration, had invoked jurisdiction of the MSEFC, Jammu, on 01.02.2025 before invocation of arbitration clause by applicant – Held: MSMED Act is a special legislation with overriding effect via Section 24 – Precedes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where applicable – MSEFC has jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between the parties [Paras 2, 12-16].

Special Legislation vs General Law – Non-obstante Clause – Section 24 of the MSMED Act overrides arbitration clause in agreement – MSME disputes fall under statutory framework of conciliation and arbitration under MSMED Act – Court relied on Silpi Industries and NBCC (India) Ltd to affirm priority of MSMED Act for MSME claims [Paras 13-14].

Works Contract – Applicability of MSMED Act – Argument that contract is a 'works contract' and thus excluded from MSMED Act jurisdiction rejected – Held: MSMED Act makes no such distinction – Nature of enterprise, not transaction, is key – Reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. WB MSEFC – Revenue jurisprudence like Kone Elevators not applicable in interpreting beneficial statutes [Paras 6, 8.2, 15].

Concealment and Premature Filing – Applicant failed to disclose prior MSEFC proceedings in arbitration application – Also failed to comply with 30-day notice requirement under Section 11(5) – Held: Suppression of facts and premature invocation of arbitration clause warrant dismissal of the application [Paras 8.4-8.5].

Multiplicity of Proceedings – Forum Shopping – Parallel proceedings before MSEFC and under Arbitration Act deprecated – Risks conflicting awards – MSEFC has Kompetenz-Kompetenz to decide on its jurisdiction – Application dismissed to prevent abuse of process [Paras 8.3, 16-17].

Decision:

Application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed – MSEFC, Jammu held to be the proper forum under MSMED Act – No order as to costs.

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Plaintiff’s Discretion – In a suit for permanent injunction and compensation filed by the petitioner, third-party villagers claiming communal interest in the land were permitted to be impleaded as defendants by the Trial Court – Court below justified the order only on ground of avoiding multiplicity of litigation – Held: Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties against whom no relief is sought – Where existing defendants have already raised identical pleas, presence of third-party interveners is not necessary – No independent stand or distinct legal interest shown by proposed parties – Impleadment held unjustified [Paras 7, 10-15].

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Addition of parties permissible only if necessary for effective adjudication – Repetition of existing pleadings by proposed parties not a valid ground – Trial Court failed to give cogent reasoning or satisfy test of necessity – Impleadment solely to prevent future litigation not a legally sustainable basis [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Plaintiff as Dominus Litis – Right to Choose Adversary – Plaintiff not claiming relief against third-party applicants – Law settled that plaintiff is the master of the suit – Addition of parties must be judicially justified and cannot be compelled by opposing defendants – Cited Supreme Court and High Court rulings reaffirm this legal position [Paras 7, 12].

Distinguished Case Law – Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 distinguished – Impleadment in that case arose at execution stage and was based on Commissioner's report – Held not applicable to trial-stage impleadment where no relief is claimed against proposed parties [Para 13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trial Court's order permitting impleadment set aside – Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by third-party villagers dismissed [Para 15].

Civil Law – Fraudulent Decree – Family Settlement – Registration Requirement – Limitation – Concurrent findings upheld – Decree dated 01.04.1988 held fraudulent as Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared, signed, or engaged counsel – No pre-existing right in appellant; decree compulsorily registerable – Unregistered consent decree conveys no title – Plaintiffs proved as natural heirs – Suit within limitation under Art. 65 – Fraud vitiates all proceedings – RSA dismissed [Paras 38–48].

Fraud – Proof and Effect – Decree obtained through deception – Evidence showed Smt. Ram Bhuli never appeared in Court, signed pleadings, verified written statement, or engaged counsel – Power of attorney and written statement bore no advocate’s endorsement or verification – Proceedings manipulated behind her back – Held: decree dated 01.04.1988 obtained by fraud; fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings – Applies Chengalvaraya Naidu principle [Paras 10, 39–41].

Consent Decree – Requirement of Registration – Where decree purports to transfer immovable property above ₹100 to a person having no pre-existing right, registration is mandatory under Section 17(1)(b) Registration Act – Appellant, a daughter-in-law of brother of Smt. Ram Bhuli, had no antecedent right – Decree operated as instrument of transfer – Being unregistered, conveyed no title – Bachan Singh and Dhian Singh distinguished as involving genuine family settlements between persons with pre-existing rights [Paras 16, 39–40, 42, 46].

Family Settlement – Non-existence – No pleadings or evidence of any family arrangement – Appellant had no pre-existing right; relationship too remote – Alleged settlement an afterthought – Cannot validate a fraudulent or unregistered decree [Paras 39–40].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge – Plaintiffs discovered decree only after death of Smt. Ram Bhuli in 1993 on approaching revenue authorities – Suit filed in 1995 within 12-year period under Article 65 – Void decree need not be cancelled under Article 59 – Follows Shanti Devi v. Jagan Devi, 2025 (SC) – Limitation correctly computed by courts below [Paras 12, 34, 43].

Estoppel – Mutation – No estoppel against statute or fraud – Mutation entries do not confer title – Fraudulent decree being void, all proceedings including mutation fall automatically – Estoppel plea rejected [Para 44].

Heirs – Locus Standi – Once decree found void and property remained vested in Smt. Ram Bhuli, her heirs were entitled to challenge fraudulent decree after her death – Cause of action arose upon gaining knowledge – Plaintiffs held rightful heirs based on oral and documentary evidence including mutation No. 2158 [Paras 9, 12, 45].

Concurrent Findings – Second Appeal – Findings of both courts based on proper appraisal of evidence; no perversity shown – RSA Court declines to interfere – Concurrent findings affirmed [Paras 38, 47–48].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – Decree dated 01.04.1988 declared void, unlawful, unregistered; plaintiffs entitled to possession of 1/3rd share – Judgments of Trial Court & First Appellate Court upheld – Pending applications disposed [Paras 48–49].

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – POCSO Conviction – Acquittal – Allegation that accused committed sexual assault on 13-year-old girl by hugging and kissing her in a field – Victim’s initial statement to aunt was that she fell down – Complaint made two days later alleging sexual assault – Delay in complaint explained as concern for family honour – Trial court convicted accused under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 354A(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found victim's version had evolved over time with inconsistencies and lacked corroboration – Allegation of enmity arising out of local election dispute supported by defence evidence including medical record showing assault on accused's mother a day prior to the alleged incident – Held: Delay in filing FIR and contradictions in victim’s version made prosecution case doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 13–20, 28–30].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act – Rebuttal – Accused produced evidence of prior assault by victim's family due to local body election rivalry – Accused’s mother injured and admitted in hospital one day prior to alleged assault – Certified medical record (Ex.D2) and testimony of defence witnesses including elected panchayat member (DW2) corroborated the version – High Court held accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 29 – Trial court failed to properly consider defence evidence – Acquittal justified [Paras 21–27, 30].

Criminal Procedure – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in lodging complaint – Alleged incident on 05.01.2020 but FIR filed on 07.01.2020 – Police station just 10 km away – Delay not properly explained in the context of election violence and counter-allegations – Court held such unexplained delay significant and fatal to the prosecution case in present facts – Tutoring and exaggeration in victim’s statement evident – Held: Trial court erred in convicting by applying presumption without evaluating credibility of evidence [Paras 15–18, 28–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Fine to be refunded – Victim compensation not disturbed [Para 31].