Motor Accident – Negligence of Driver – Award Upheld – The respondent (injured) alleged negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle leading to grievous injuries – Court upheld the finding of negligence based on unchallenged testimony, corroborated site plan, and chargesheet under Sections 279/338 IPC – Filing of a chargesheet was deemed sufficient proof of negligence, as per precedent in National Insurance Co. v. Pushpa Rana [2009 ACJ 287] [Paras 7-11].

Income and Loss of Future Income – Revision – Injured's monthly salary proved as ₹32,500 based on salary slips and employer’s testimony – Functional disability reduced from 40% to 20% due to lack of loss in salary despite permanent disability of 76% in the lower limb – Compensation for loss of future income recalculated accordingly [Paras 14-21].

Medical Expenses – No Reduction – Medical bills amounting to ₹6,75,096/- were presented – Tribunal awarded ₹7,70,000/- considering permanent disability and the likelihood of future medical expenses – High Court upheld the amount, observing that the injured’s condition warranted additional treatment beyond documented bills [Paras 22-24].

Non-Pecuniary Heads – Compensation Upheld – The Tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000/- each for pain, suffering, mental and physical shock, disfiguration, and loss of amenities – High Court found no basis for reduction given the nature of injuries and permanent disability [Para 25].

Interest Rate – No Change – The Tribunal awarded 9% per annum interest – High Court upheld this as reasonable and consistent with prevailing rates [Para 26].

Decision – Compensation revised from ₹36,04,000/- to ₹25,12,000/- – Interest at 9% per annum upheld – Excess statutory deposit ordered to be returned to the insurance company [Paras 29-31].
 

Civil Law – Recruitment Process – Validity of Application – Condition of PAP Certificate - Eligibility for Post of Supervisor (Women) – Advertisement dated 5th March 2010 required project-affected persons (PAP) to submit PAP certificates along with applications – Respondent No. 4 filed application without PAP certificate in her name and later submitted certificate after the last date – Held: As per Condition No. 7 of the advertisement, submission of PAP certificate in the candidate's name at the time of application was mandatory – Application of Respondent No. 4 was invalid as the certificate was submitted post cut-off date – Further, retrospective validation of the application through late submission was impermissible [Paras 43-47, 55].

Selection and Appointment Process – Respondent No. 4 was selected and appointed to the post despite non-compliance with mandatory conditions – Court found differential treatment applied to candidates by Zilla Parishad – Respondent No. 4's selection and appointment were declared invalid – Reconsideration of the appellant's application was directed as per the terms of the advertisement and selection process [Paras 48-49, 56].

Rehabilitation Act – Scope and Purpose of PAP Certificates – Purpose of transferring PAP certificates is to ensure benefits are availed only once and by eligible nominees – Submission of the certificate is not an empty formality but a vital requirement to prevent misuse – Nomination and due inquiry by the Collector are prerequisites under Sections 5(c) and 6(c) of the Rehabilitation Act – Compliance with these provisions is essential to validate eligibility [Paras 40-42].

Notice under Section 280 of Zilla Parishad Act – Objection raised regarding maintainability of the suit for want of notice under Section 280 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Act, 1961 – Trial and appellate courts held that the recruitment process was conducted under government notifications and not the Act – Held: Objection was vague and without merit – No bar to maintainability of the suit [Paras 34-35].

Legal Principles and Precedents – Apex Court decisions in Rekha Chaturvedi, Bhupinderpal Singh, Ashok Kumar Sonkar, and Divya reiterated that eligibility must be tested on the cut-off date as per advertisement terms – Late submission of documents cannot validate an application retrospectively – Relaxation of mandatory conditions would lead to arbitrariness and favoritism [Paras 45-47, 50-51].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgments of trial court and first appellate court set aside – Appointment of Respondent No. 4 quashed – Zilla Parishad directed to reconsider appellant's application as per advertisement terms [Para 56].

Property Law – Partition Suit – Will Validity – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Plaintiff filed a suit seeking 1/6th share in the self-acquired property of late K.V. Vengadasamy Chettiar – Defendant No. 1 claimed exclusive ownership of the suit property based on an unregistered Will dated 20.05.2000 executed by the deceased, bequeathing the property to him – Subsequent sale of the suit property by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 – Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, upholding the genuineness of the Will – Held: Will executed in compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – No suspicious circumstances proved – Second Appeal dismissed, confirming the judgments of the lower courts [Paras 6–34].

Will – Proof of Genuineness – Compliance with Legal Formalities – Plaintiff alleged suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including absence of signature on each page, corrections in property description not attested by the testator, and non-registration of the Will – Defendant No. 1 proved the execution of the Will through attesting witnesses and the notary who prepared it – Held: Corrections made under the testator's instructions were initialed by the notary; absence of signatures on each page not fatal – Non-registration of the Will does not affect its validity as per Indian law – Evidence showed that the testator executed the Will in a sound and disposing state of mind and of his own free will [Paras 13–18, 26–31].

Inheritance Law – Disinheritance of Legal Heirs – Testator's Discretion – Will excluded other legal heirs and bequeathed the suit property to Defendant No. 1 – Held: Disinheritance alone is not a ground to invalidate a Will if the testator provides specific reasons – Testator explicitly stated that Defendant No. 1 cared for him and his wife during their lifetime – Evidence substantiated that the testator was of sound mind and understood the consequences of the bequest [Paras 13–14, 22–23].

Suspicious Circumstances – Rebuttal of Allegations – Plaintiff alleged that the testator traveled 11 km to a notary office instead of visiting a nearby Sub-Registrar’s office, and claimed contradictions in the evidence of attesting witnesses – Held: Testator's choice of the notary office explained by circumstances, including the day of execution (Saturday) – Minor discrepancies in the witnesses' testimony do not invalidate the Will – Courts below rightly held that the alleged suspicious circumstances were not sufficient to invalidate the Will [Paras 24–30].

Standard of Proof for Wills – Sound Disposing State of Mind – Propounder established that the testator signed the Will voluntarily, understanding its contents – Evidence showed that the Will was read out to the testator, who instructed corrections and signed it in the presence of witnesses – Plaintiff failed to produce contrary evidence or prove fraud, coercion, or undue influence – Courts below correctly applied principles from precedents, including Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023) 9 SCC 734 and H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 [Paras 19–20, 26–31].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Will held genuine and valid – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – Plaintiff not entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property – No costs [Paras 32–34].
 

Criminal Law – Murder Trial – Benefit of Doubt – The appellants were convicted for the murder of two individuals based on eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence – The High Court found inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, including delay in filing the FIR, unreliable testimony of the child witness, and lack of proper investigation – Held: Benefit of doubt granted; conviction set aside [Paras 30-34].

Eyewitness Testimony – Child Witness – Need for Corroboration – The prosecution relied on the testimony of an 8-year-old child as the primary eyewitness – The High Court found that the Sessions Judge failed to conduct a proper preliminary examination to ascertain his competency – The child’s testimony contained contradictions and showed signs of tutoring – Held: A child witness’s testimony must be corroborated by independent evidence before it can be relied upon; in its absence, it is unsafe to convict [Paras 18-22].

Deficiencies in Investigation – Failure to Examine Key Witnesses – The Investigating Officer failed to record the statement of a key eyewitness who had shifted the injured child to the hospital and did not examine another crucial witness present at the scene – The prosecution did not establish the ownership of the vehicle allegedly used in the crime – Held: Serious lapses in investigation weakened the prosecution’s case, making conviction unsustainable [Paras 30-31].

Recovery of Weapons – Section 27, Indian Evidence Act – Improper Procedure – The alleged recovery of weapons used in the crime was not conducted in accordance with legal standards – The High Court found that the recovery process lacked independent witnesses and was a joint recovery – Held: Recovery evidence unreliable; cannot be used to convict the accused [Paras 27-28].

Motive – Land Dispute – Not Proven Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The prosecution claimed that a long-standing property dispute was the motive for the murders – However, the dispute had been settled years before the incident – Held: The prosecution failed to establish motive, further weakening its case [Paras 26].

Decision: Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted of all charges. Immediate release directed if not required in any other case.
 

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Modification of Punishment – Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Appellant/Bank challenged the order of the learned Single Judge directing inclusion of the compulsory retirement period (07.01.2002 to 17.09.2009) in total service for computation of retiral benefits – Employee also appealed seeking additional benefits denied by the Single Judge – High Court upheld the Single Judge’s order, finding that the compulsory retirement was unjustified and modified punishment applied retrospectively – Held: Employee entitled to full benefits including pension and gratuity based on total service [Paras 24-28].

Service Benefits – Period of Exclusion – Consequential Benefits – Learned Single Judge directed inclusion of the period of compulsory retirement in total service and payment of retiral benefits accordingly – High Court found no justification to exclude the period during which the employee was out of service due to the disproportionate punishment of compulsory retirement later modified to reduction in basic pay – Held: Employee entitled to all arrears, with interest at 8% p.a. if not paid within the stipulated period [Paras 24-28].

Proportionality of Punishment – Modification by Appellate Authority – Supreme Court’s Affirmation – Appellate authority substituted the harsh punishment of compulsory retirement with reduction of basic pay to the first stage of Junior Management Scale-I – Supreme Court upheld the appellate order – Held: Modified punishment takes effect from the original date of compulsory retirement, entitling the employee to full consequential benefits [Paras 25-27].

Delay and Laches – Challenge to Appellate Authority’s Order – Bank contended that employee’s challenge to the 2009 appellate order was time-barred – High Court rejected the contention, finding the employee’s claim meritorious in light of the judicial direction modifying the punishment and reinstating the employee [Para 12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Single Judge’s order affirmed – Appellant/Bank directed to comply with the order within four weeks – Employee entitled to all consequential benefits including arrears, gratuity, and pension based on the full length of service, including the excluded period [Paras 28].

Property Law – Revocation of Power of Attorney – Validity of Sale Deed Executed by Power Agent – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Suit Property originally owned by the plaintiffs through inheritance and subsequent acquisition – Plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) in favor of the first defendant as security for a loan – G.P.A. revoked by a registered Cancellation Deed, which was communicated to the Sub-Registrar – First defendant executed a Sale Deed in favor of the second defendant, which was presented for registration after the revocation of the G.P.A. – Sub-Registrar refused to register the Sale Deed – Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and other reliefs – Trial Court decreed the Suit, holding the G.P.A. as a security document and its cancellation valid – First Appellate Court confirmed the decision – Held: Sale Deed was executed after the cancellation of the G.P.A. came to the notice of the defendants; sale was incomplete in the absence of registration – Second Appeal dismissed, with liberty to the second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed [Paras 6–19].

Agency Law – Power Coupled with Interest – Revocation and Termination – Plaintiffs contended that G.P.A. was executed as security for a loan and revoked through a Cancellation Deed – Defendants argued that the G.P.A. was irrevocable as it was coupled with interest, and revocation was not validly communicated – Held: G.P.A. was not coupled with interest as possession of the Suit Property was not handed over to the power agent – Revocation was validly communicated to the Sub-Registrar and came to the notice of the power agent before the registration of the Sale Deed – Sale Deed executed without a valid G.P.A. is invalid [Paras 14–18].

Sale Deed – Incomplete Sale Without Registration – Sale Deed executed by the power agent was presented for registration after the G.P.A. was revoked – Sub-Registrar rightly refused registration, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a sale is incomplete without registration – Held: The Sale Deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and does not convey any title to the second defendant – Remedy available to the second defendant is to seek specific performance [Paras 17–18].

Procedural Compliance – Registration of Cancellation Deed – Cancellation Deed was registered at a Sub-Registrar Office (S.R.O.) different from where the G.P.A. was registered – Plaintiffs sent a letter of objection to the Jurisdictional S.R.O. – Held: Registration of Cancellation Deed at a different S.R.O. is valid as per the Registration Act, 1908, and it was the duty of the Sub-Registrar to communicate the cancellation to the concerned Jurisdictional S.R.O. – No evidence suggests procedural non-compliance by the Sub-Registrar [Paras 15–16].

Liberty to File Suit for Specific Performance – Plaintiffs retain possession and title to the Suit Property – Second defendant granted liberty to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed – Parties directed to raise all available contentions in the said Suit, including seeking exclusion of time spent in the present proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Para 18].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Plaintiffs' title and possession upheld – Sale Deed declared invalid – Liberty granted to second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance – No order as to costs [Paras 19].

Termination of Government Counsel – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Inquiry Based on Unverified Video – Termination Set Aside – The petitioner, who was serving as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) in District Hathras, was removed from his post by an order of the Joint Secretary, Law Department, based on an inquiry report alleging objectionable remarks against Mahatma Gandhi – The inquiry committee’s report failed to establish the authenticity of the video relied upon, nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to present his defense – The court found the action against the petitioner to be malicious and unsupported by substantive material – Held: The termination order is unsustainable in law and is set aside – The petitioner is directed to be reinstated within three weeks [Paras 6-11].

Bail – Section 439 CrPC – Regular Bail in Cases Involving National Security – Held: Not Granted – Petitioner accused of provoking unrest in Punjab by writing Khalistani slogans and disseminating anti-national content on social media – Court emphasized that such actions threaten national sovereignty and public order – Mere delay in trial is not sufficient to justify bail when charges involve acts of sedition and cyber terrorism – Petition dismissed [Paras 7-10].

Criminal Law – Relevance of Multiple FIRs in Bail Consideration – Held: Relevant Factor Against Bail – Petitioner facing similar charges in multiple FIRs across Punjab and Himachal Pradesh – Court held that pending cases with identical allegations strengthen the prosecution's argument against bail – Cited as a prima facie indicator of continued engagement in anti-national activities – Bail refused [Para 9].

Trial Delay – Impact on Bail Decision – Whether Delay Justifies Bail in Serious Offences – Held: No – Petitioner argued that trial was delayed since his arrest in September 2022 – Court noted that sanction from the Central Government was awaited, which contributed to the delay – Additionally, key prosecution witnesses had already been examined, contradicting the petitioner’s claim that evidence had not begun – Held that trial delay alone cannot be a ground for bail in cases involving national security concerns [Paras 5, 9].

Decision – Bail Denied – Petition Dismissed – Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the bail application citing serious allegations, national security concerns, and pending cases in other states – However, clarified that observations made in this order shall not affect the merits of the trial [Paras 10-11].

Matrimonial Law - Interim Maintenance – Husband’s Meager Income Not a Ground for Denial – Obligation of Able-Bodied Husband – Held: Maintenance Upheld – The applicant challenged the Family Court’s grant of ₹4,000 per month as interim maintenance – Held: An able-bodied husband cannot escape his obligation to maintain his wife merely on the ground of low income – The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha ruled that a husband's limited earnings do not absolve him from paying maintenance – Husband must earn to support his wife [Paras 5, 7].

Adultery as a Ground for Denying Maintenance – Distinction Between Adultery and Emotional Affair – Held: No Bar to Maintenance – The applicant alleged that the wife had a love affair and was therefore not entitled to maintenance – Held: Under Section 125(4) CrPC, maintenance can be denied only if the wife is proved to be living in adultery – Mere love or emotional affection without proof of sexual relations does not constitute adultery – Maintenance rightly granted [Para 6].

Judicial Interpretation – Effect of Restitution of Conjugal Rights on Maintenance – Whether Husband’s Section 9 HMA Petition Bars Wife’s Claim – Held: No – The applicant contended that he had filed for restitution of conjugal rights, which the wife refused, and hence she was not entitled to maintenance – Held: Even if a decree under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act is passed, the wife is still entitled to maintenance unless she voluntarily deserts her husband without reasonable cause (Rina Kumari v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto) – Since no proceedings for restitution were pending, the contention was irrelevant [Para 5].

Allegations of Wife’s Independent Income – Absence of Documentary Proof – Held: No Justification to Deny Maintenance – The applicant claimed that the wife was running a beauty parlour and earning sufficiently – Held: No documentary evidence was produced to establish the claim – Mere allegations without proof cannot be a basis to deny interim maintenance [Para 7].

Public Notice by Husband’s Father Dispossessing Him – Legal Impact on Maintenance Obligation – Held: Irrelevant – The applicant placed reliance on a public notice by his father stating that he had been disowned from family property – Held: The applicant was still residing at the same address, proving that the notice was merely a legal formality with no actual effect – Such notices cannot be used as a shield to avoid maintenance liability [Para 8].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – Maintenance Upheld – The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s order granting ₹4,000 as interim maintenance, noting that the trial court already considered the maintenance under Section 24 HMA – No interference warranted – Criminal revision dismissed [Paras 9-12].