Motor Vehicles – Permit Variation Application – Rejection and Appeal – Reversal on Civil Revision Petition – Appellant filed for route extension beyond Lakshmi Mills – Application treated as new permit request under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act – State Transport Appellate Tribunal upheld rejection – Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution – Court held Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 applies – Application for variation permissible annually up to 24 km without treating as fresh permit – Held: Order of Tribunal set aside, matter remitted to RTA for reconsideration.

Motor Vehicles Act vs. Special Provisions Act – Special Law Prevails – Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1992 permits small operators to file annual route variation applications up to 24 km without treating them as new permit requests. The Court clarified that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not apply where the Tamil Nadu Special Provisions Act governs. The Tribunal misapplied Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, failing to acknowledge the special provisions. Held: Small operators may file fresh variation requests annually under the 1992 Act [Paras 1-61].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed – Order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside – Matter remitted to RTA with direction to reconsider and dispose of application as per the 1992 Act – RTA to dispose of matter by 10.10.2024.

Criminal Law – Common Object – Sections 302, 149 IPC – Whether the accused acted with a common object under Section 149 IPC or in furtherance of a common intention under Section 34 IPC – Held, appellants Nos. 1 and 3 were found guilty under Section 302 read with 34 IPC as they inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased, while appellants Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with 149 IPC due to lack of evidence linking them to the murder – [Paras 45-75].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability of Interested Witnesses – The court emphasized that the testimony of related or interested witnesses, such as PWs 1, 3, and 4, should not be discredited merely on that ground if it is corroborated and consistent with medical and other evidence – [Paras 20-35].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Post-mortem findings confirmed the cause of death as hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries inflicted with sharp weapons, corroborating the eyewitness accounts of the roles of appellants Nos. 1 and 3 – [Paras 50-55].

Decision: Criminal Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction of appellants Nos. 1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 IPC is modified to conviction under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, and they are sentenced to life imprisonment. Conviction of appellants Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, and 9 for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC is set aside, and they are acquitted of that charge. The conviction under Sections 324, 454, 427, and 148 IPC for all appellants is confirmed. Sentences are to run concurrently – [Paras 76-85].

Criminal Law – Sections 294, 114 of the IPC – Obscene Acts and Abetment – Whether merely being present as a spectator in a bar where obscene acts are performed constitutes criminal liability – Held, no material on record shows that the petitioner participated in the obscene acts as per the requirements of Section 294 IPC. The prosecution's evidence is insufficient to establish that the petitioner either encouraged the acts or performed any overt actions that could attract the offense of abetment under Section 114 IPC. Precedents confirm that mere presence at the scene is not enough to invoke criminal liability. Petition allowed, proceedings quashed – [Paras 20-35].

Abetment – Section 114 IPC – Criminal liability of a bystander when no overt act is committed – Court clarifies that the petitioner was not engaged in any explicit act or encouragement of the obscene behavior, and there was no evidence to substantiate the charge of abetment under Section 114 IPC – [Paras 24-30].

Decision: The Petition is allowed, and the criminal proceedings are quashed. No offense is made out against the petitioner under Sections 294 or 114 of the IPC.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed when the dispute arises from corporate transactions – Held, criminal proceedings can be quashed only in exceptional cases where it is clearly shown that no prima facie case is made out, or the allegations are frivolous and vexatious – [Paras 5-8].

Corporate Disputes – Criminal Proceedings – The petitioner argued that the matter is a corporate dispute involving management of a company, not a criminal case – Court rejected the contention, holding that the allegations of misappropriation and forgery involving company assets cannot be purely treated as civil in nature – [Paras 9-15].

Delay in Filing FIR – Impact on Quashing – The Court addressed the 9-year delay in filing the FIR, concluding that the delay alone is insufficient to quash proceedings if the allegations are serious and prima facie evidence exists – [Paras 16-18].

Motor Vehicles – Standards of Visual Transmission of Light (VLT) – State Government Authority – The State Government and its officials were penalizing vehicle owners for using "Safety Glazing" materials that comply with Indian Standard IS.2553 (Part 2) (First Revision); 2019, alleging violations of the specified percentage of VLT – The amended Rule 100 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules permits the use of "Safety Glazing" subject to compliance with the specified VLT and Indian Standard – Held: The State Government or its officials are not legally justified in penalizing owners of motor vehicles maintained with "Safety Glazing" that conforms to the Indian Standard IS.2553 (Part 2) (First Revision); 2019 and maintains the specified percentage of VLT [Paras 30].

Judicial Interpretation – Rule 100 of CMV Rules – Amendment – The Hon’ble Apex Court in Avishek Goenka v. Union of India interpreted the unamended Rule 100 which permitted only "Safety Glass" – The amendment effective from 01.04.2021 now permits "Safety Glazing," subject to conditions – Held: The State’s penal action based on the interpretation of the unamended rule is not applicable after the amendment allowing "Safety Glazing" [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Challans issued against the petitioners quashed – The State Government and its officials are restrained from penalizing owners of motor vehicles maintained with "Safety Glazing" that conforms to the Indian Standard IS.2553 (Part 2) (First Revision); 2019 and provides the stipulated percentage of VLT [Paras 31].

Family Law – Maintenance – Quantum of Maintenance – Reduce Maintenance - The wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, claiming the husband, employed as a vice president in Citi Bank Dubai, was earning a substantial income – The Family Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹60,000 per month to the wife – The husband contested the amount, arguing his current income in Singapore was significantly reduced, and the wife was self-sufficient, earning AED 3500 in Dubai and running a coaching center – Held: The Court reduced the maintenance to ₹40,000 per month, considering the husband's financial liabilities and the wife's earning capacity, aligning with the principle that the wife should receive a reasonable amount to maintain a standard of living consistent with the marriage, but not so excessive to make the husband bear an undue financial burden [Paras 11-16].

Criminal Law – Revision – Scope of Interference – The Court emphasized the necessity of balancing the financial capabilities and responsibilities of both parties – Citing Supreme Court precedents, it was held that the wife is entitled to a portion of the husband’s income, generally up to 25%, which should allow her to maintain herself with reasonable comfort – The amount fixed must not be exorbitant considering the wife’s own earning potential and qualifications [Paras 17-21].

Decision: Criminal Revision No. 3028/2019 filed by the wife is dismissed – Criminal Revision No. 3931/2019 filed by the husband is partly allowed – Maintenance amount is reduced from ₹60,000 to ₹40,000 per month – Remaining part of the Family Court's order remains intact [Order].

Service Law - Payment of Gratuity – Delay in Payment – Interest on Gratuity – Appeal Dismissal – Petitioner, a retired Professor and Head of Anesthesia Department at Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute, sought interest at 10% on the delayed payment of Rs. 10,00,000 in gratuity for the period from 01.05.2018 to 31.08.2021 – Gratuity amount enhanced by amendment to Rs. 20,00,000 on 29.03.2018, but the Respondent only paid Rs. 10,00,000 initially – The Petitioner was paid Rs. 10,00,000 in arrears with interest only from 01.09.2021 to 04.03.2022 – Controlling and Appellate Authorities both denied interest for the period from 01.05.2018, citing the petitioner's retirement date as 28.02.2018, preceding the amendment – Held: No illegality in the denial of additional interest as retirement benefits were calculated based on the date of superannuation and subsequent extension of service till 30.04.2018 was not to be considered for gratuity purposes [Paras 1-7].

Retirement Date – Applicability of Gratuity Amendment – The Petitioner retired from service on 30.04.2018, but the actual date of superannuation was 28.02.2018 – The gratuity amendment increasing the limit to Rs. 20,00,000 came into force on 29.03.2018 – Controlling and Appellate Authorities concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to enhanced gratuity since the retirement date for gratuity purposes was 28.02.2018 – Service extension until the end of the academic term under the State's G.R. did not affect gratuity calculations [Paras 5, 6].

Interest on Delayed Gratuity – Legal Entitlement – Petitioner claimed interest on the balance Rs. 10,00,000 for the period between 01.05.2018 and 31.08.2021 – Controlling Authority awarded interest only from 01.09.2021, when the Form-N application was filed – Appeal seeking interest from 01.05.2018 dismissed by the Appellate Authority, and subsequently by the High Court – Held: No entitlement to interest for the period before 01.09.2021 as the delay was not due to Respondent's fault but procedural requirements related to the extension of service [Paras 4-7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Controlling and Appellate Authority orders upheld – Petitioner not entitled to interest from 01.05.2018 to 31.08.2021 [Paras 7].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Mesne Profits – Assessment – BPCL and M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd. were involved in a dispute over mesne profits following BPCL’s occupation of leased premises. BPCL sought a reduction in mesne profits, while the landlord sought an increase. The court upheld the trial court's assessment of mesne profits, determining that the amount fixed (ranging from Rs. 2,50,000 per month in 2001 to Rs. 4,50,000 per month in 2013) was reasonable based on the comparable rents in the area – [Paras 1-40].

Interest on Mesne Profits – Commercial Transaction – Section 34 of CPC – BPCL contended that the interest rate should not exceed 6% under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the lease was not a commercial transaction. The court agreed, reducing the interest rate from 9% to 6%, noting that BPCL was not in the business of renting properties, and the transaction did not qualify as commercial under the definition of Section 34 – [Paras 41-60].

Adjustment of Deposits – The court clarified that the interest calculation should exclude the monthly deposits BPCL made from October 2010 to December 2013, as these amounts had already been paid towards mesne profits – [Paras 61-70].

Decision:

The quantum of mesne profits fixed by the Small Causes Court was upheld. However, the interest rate was reduced to 6%. BPCL’s application was partly allowed to the extent of the interest rate adjustment, while M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd.'s application was dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 153 IPC – Petitioner, an Australian tourist of Jewish descent, was charged under Section 153 IPC for tearing down banners at Fort Kochi – The banners bore the slogan "SILENCE IS VIOLENCE STAND UP FOR HUMANITY" – Petitioner contended that the posters invoked distress due to their possible allusion to the Israel-Palestine conflict – Held: The posters were erected without legal permission, and their removal by the petitioner cannot be considered an illegal act under Section 153 IPC – The primary ingredient of provocation for rioting was absent, as the petitioner’s act did not intend to incite unrest, and no rioting followed the incident [Paras 8-10].

Public Order – Right to Remove Unauthorized Posters – The posters were placed without permission, and their removal did not constitute an illegal act – Even though the petitioner should have approached law enforcement instead of removing them herself, this did not amount to a criminal offense – Held: Removal of unauthorized posters cannot attract charges under Section 153 IPC, as the necessary element of malignance or provocation for rioting is lacking [Paras 10-12].

Tourist Rights – Detention at Airport Due to Lookout Notice – Petitioner was detained at Kochi International Airport based on a lookout notice, despite being granted bail for the alleged offense – Held: The detention was disproportionate, given that the offense was bailable, and the petitioner’s continued prosecution would result in an abuse of legal process [Paras 5, 9].

Decision:

All further proceedings in C.C. No. 462/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattanchery, arising out of Crime No. 390/2024 of Fort Kochi Police Station, are quashed – The petition is allowed, and the criminal case is dismissed [Paras 13-14].