Wills – Validity and Proof – Dispute over the execution of multiple wills by Pohlo Ram – The trial court ruled in favor of the will dated 17.10.1997 – The appellate court allowed the appeal for the will dated 4.2.2000, finding it suspicious – High Court emphasized the need for clear proof and dismissed the appeal, reinstating the trial court’s decision [Paras 70-90].

Burden of Proof – Suspicious Circumstances – The burden lies on the propounder of the will to prove its genuineness and dispel any suspicious circumstances – Appellant failed to prove that the will dated 4.2.2000 was executed in sound mind and free of undue influence – Evidence highlighted inconsistencies and potential forgery [Paras 84-90].

Indian Succession Act – Sections 63 and 68 – Will must be attested by two or more witnesses – Evidence presented failed to confirm due attestation and mental state of the testator during execution – The appellate court’s reliance on procedural aspects without addressing core evidentiary issues resulted in the High Court overturning its decision [Paras 77-83].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment and decree reinstated – Will dated 17.10.1997 recognized as the last valid will of Pohlo Ram – Mortgage deed declared null and void [Para 74-75].
 

Administrative Law – Handover of Sites – Failure of Respondent Authorities to Provide Clear and Hindrance-Free Sites for Toll Booth Installation – Petitioner faced resistance from local authorities and public, impacting operations – Court directed recalculation of annual fees proportionately based on the actual number of operational toll booths – No coercive steps until recalculated demand is issued [Paras 1-41].

Contractual Obligations – Compliance and Breach – Respondent’s delayed execution of the work order and agreement despite payment by petitioner – Court emphasized the importance of timely and clear handover of sites as per the contractual agreement – Issues raised involving disputed facts unsuitable for writ jurisdiction – Contract terms and statutory obligations discussed [Paras 24-35].

Relief and Redress – Demand Notices Quashed – Directed District Magistrate to revisit issue, recalculate demands proportionate to actual operations, and consider the impact of COVID-19 on operations – No direction for refund of investment as it was not part of writ petitions [Paras 39-42].
 

Customs Law – Suspension of Broker License – Appeal against suspension of Customs Broker License – CESTAT upheld suspension citing proportional penalty for facilitating fraudulent exports – Supreme Court found suspension under Regulation 16 as an interim measure, not a penalty – CESTAT erred in construing suspension as penalty and perpetuating it indefinitely – Order set aside [Paras 1-9].

Customs Broker Obligations – Regulation 10(n) – Violation Alleged – Appellant accused of failing to verify client details per Regulation 10(n) – Evidence showed appellant relied on official documents (IEC, GSTIN) – Physical verification not required – CESTAT misinterpreted obligations under Regulation 10(n) – No violation established [Paras 10-12].

Evidence and Procedure – Statement of authorized representative recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Statement confirmed official documentation and business activities of the exporter – Tribunal's reliance on this evidence deemed insufficient to prove violation [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of CESTAT set aside – No violation of Regulation 10(n) established – Suspension of license lifted [Para 14].

Defamation – Right to be Forgotten – Ad-Interim Injunction – The plaintiff was acquitted in a criminal case but alleged that defamatory posts from 2018 related to the case were still available on the websites of defendants (media houses), causing harm to his reputation – The Court recognized the right to be forgotten as an inherent aspect of the right to privacy and granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from posting or updating any content related to the criminal case – Defendants were directed to remove the impugned posts within 15 days [Paras 25-35].

Disclosure of Information by 'X' (formerly Twitter) – The plaintiff identified defamatory posts made by unknown persons on 'X' – The Court directed 'X' to disclose the contact details, including names, email IDs, and IP addresses of the unknown persons, and instructed the plaintiff to contact them for the removal of defamatory content – If not removed within 48 hours, 'X' was ordered to delete the posts [Paras 36-38].

Decision: Ad-interim injunction granted – Defendants 1 to 4 were restrained from posting/updating any content related to the plaintiff’s criminal case, and directed to remove the impugned posts within 15 days – 'X' was directed to disclose information about unknown persons and to remove defamatory posts if not deleted by the users within 48 hours [Paras 35-38].

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation Calculation – Victim Souman Mondal was killed in a motor vehicle accident caused by a lorry driven recklessly. The tribunal awarded compensation, holding the owner of the vehicle liable and exonerating the insurance company. On appeal, the High Court recalculated the compensation considering the victim’s age, income, and future prospects, directing the insurance company to pay and recover from the owner [Paras 1-11].

Insurance Company Liability – Despite the driver not holding a valid license, the court, in light of the claimants’ dire situation, invoked the principle of ‘pay and recover,’ ordering the insurance company to pay the compensation first and then recover it from the vehicle owner through due process [Paras 9-14].

Just Compensation – High Court modified the award to Rs. 8,90,400/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the claim application until the deposit, deducting the amount already paid by the tribunal [Paras 10-16].

Decision: Appeal disposed of with modifications to the tribunal’s award. The insurance company is directed to pay the balance compensation and interest, with liberty to recover from the vehicle owner. No order as to costs [Paras 16-21].
 

Guardian Appointment – Vegetative State – Petitioners requested the court to appoint the petitioner no.1 as the guardian and manager of the properties of her husband, who is in a vegetative state since 2019. The court reviewed the medical condition and the affidavits filed by the family members, noting the absence of legislative provisions for appointing a guardian in such cases and invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide the requested relief [Paras 1-18].

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Application in Absence of Legislation – The court referenced judgments emphasizing the role of parens patriae when no statutory remedy exists for appointing guardians for persons in comatose states. The court outlined specific guidelines and conditions for the guardianship to ensure the best interest of the patient and prevent misuse of power [Paras 10-13].

Decision: The petition was partly allowed. The petitioner no.1, Anjuben Karansinh Dodiya, was declared as the guardian and manager of the movable and immovable properties of the patient, Karansinh Rajusinh Dodiya, subject to periodic reporting and monitoring by the Registrar General of the High Court of Gujarat and a public official/Social Welfare Officer. The guardianship will remain effective until the patient recovers from the comatose state [Para 15-18].

Promissory Note – Validity and Execution – Suit for recovery based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the appellant – Trial court ruled in favor of the respondent – Appellant contested the authenticity of the note and its execution – High Court affirmed trial court’s decision, citing sufficient evidence supporting the genuineness of the note and the transaction [Paras 1-19].

Promissory Note – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff’s evidence substantiated the execution and consideration of the promissory note – Appellant’s denial of the signature and transaction deemed unconvincing – High Court highlighted the importance of corroborative testimony from attestors and the scribe of the promissory note [Paras 14-18].

Evidence Act – Section 73 – Court’s power to compare signatures – Trial court’s comparison of disputed signatures with admitted ones upheld – High Court stressed the judicial discretion allowed under Section 73 for comparing signatures without necessarily seeking expert opinion [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s decree and judgment affirmed – No costs awarded.

Service Law – Regularization of Service – Petitioner seeking regularization of service from 1992 to 2016 on notional basis without financial benefits and from 2016 onwards with financial benefits – Petitioner continuously worked since 1992 – Government had conferred ‘Temporary Status’ in 2013 and regularized service in 2016 – Citing precedents on regularization for long-term temporary employees – Held: Denial of retrospective regularization and financial benefits by authorities upheld, considering financial implications and lack of direct comparability with cited cases.
Normal rule mandates similar treatment for identically situated employees – Exception made for laches and acquiescence – Held: Petitioner, having served over decades, merited consideration for regularization, but financial constraints and policy consistency justified limiting benefits.
Discussed in context of judicial decisions and administrative orders – Once an order is passed and action is taken, revisiting the decision is limited to specific circumstances – Held: Court found no grounds to alter previous administrative decisions based on functus officio principle.
Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner’s claim for notional regularization from 1992 to 2016 and monetary benefits from 2016 rejected. Authorities instructed to consider financial constraints and policy impacts. Liberty granted to petitioner to seek other remedies as per law.
 

Condonation of Delay – Divorce Proceedings – Remarriage of Respondent – Appeal against the decree of divorce granted ex-parte – Appellant’s delay in filing appeal attributed to lack of communication from her advocate – First appellate court’s refusal to condone delay upheld – Consideration of husband’s remarriage during pendency of delay condonation application significant – Held, appeal and condonation application infructuous due to remarriage [Paras 1-13].

Effect of Remarriage Post-Decree of Divorce – Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act – Legal validity of remarriage post-divorce decree if no appeal filed within limitation period – Held, second marriage lawful in absence of appeal or stay on decree – No distinction between ex-parte and contested divorce decrees under Section 15 – Appeal against divorce decree filed after respondent’s remarriage considered infructuous [Paras 6-12].

Principle of Finality and Legal Certainty – Importance of timely appeal in divorce matters – Courts emphasize on maintaining finality and certainty in matrimonial disputes to prevent complications arising from subsequent marriages – Reiteration of settled law that remarriage post-divorce decree, without pending appeal, is lawful [Paras 7-9].

Decision:

Second appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce and refusal to condone delay affirmed – Appeal declared infructuous due to respondent’s remarriage – Legal principles of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act applied.