Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC allowed by Trial Court – Amendment sought to rectify General Power of Attorney (GPA) and include additional defendants – Trial Court found amendment necessary for effective adjudication – Delhi High Court finds amendment introduces new cause of action and affects rights of new defendants – Impugned order set aside, amendment application rejected [Paras 1-13].

Limitation – Application for Rectification of Instrument – Trial Court allowed amendment despite limitation concerns – Delhi High Court emphasizes that limitation is a factual issue requiring evidence – Original suit directed only against two defendants – Amendment seeks to challenge GPA executed by plaintiff herself – High Court holds that such amendment constitutes new cause of action and cannot be allowed at late stage [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit as originally framed – Liberty granted to plaintiff to institute separate proceedings regarding new cause of action [Para 12-13].
 

Motor Vehicle Accident – Claim under Section 163A – Entitlement of Legal Representatives – Appeal against the Tribunal’s order denying compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act – Tribunal held the insurance company not liable as the deceased was riding the vehicle owned by his father – High Court converted the claim to Section 166 considering negligence – Compensation awarded with future prospects and general damages [Paras 1-24].

Liability of Insurance Company – Driving by Deceased – Insurance company contended policy did not cover the owner driving the vehicle – High Court noted the insured’s son, as a third party, entitled to claim – Compensation assessed under Section 166 for just compensation [Paras 13-20].

Determination of Compensation – Multiplier Method – Future Prospects – Compensation calculated using the multiplier method – 40% added for future prospects – Deduction for personal expenses at 50% as the deceased was a bachelor – General damages for loss of estate, funeral expenses, and pain and suffering enhanced by 20% since 2017 [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Compensation of Rs. 6,88,800/- awarded with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till deposit – Respondent insurance company directed to deposit the amount within six weeks – Tribunal judgment set aside [Paras 24-29].
 

Administrative Law – Concealment of Facts – Abuse of Process – Petitioner challenged resumption order and appellate authority's decision – Previously filed writ petition on the same issue was dismissed on merits – Petitioner failed to disclose this fact in the current petition – Court held non-disclosure amounts to abuse of process and misrepresentation, leading to dismissal with costs [Paras 6, 9, 16-18].

Judicial Ethics – Duty to Disclose – Clean Hands Doctrine – Emphasized that litigants must approach the court with clean hands, full disclosure of facts, and not mislead the court – Petition lacking bona fides and concealing material facts warrants dismissal at the threshold [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioner imposed with costs of ₹1 lakh payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks, failing which recovery will be enforced [Para 18].

Partition – Ancestral Properties – Plaintiffs sought partition of A to C schedule properties into 12 equal shares, claiming 7 shares – Defendants contested on the grounds of independent acquisitions and pre-existing partitions – Trial Court granted plaintiffs 7/12^th share – On appeal, High Court examined the evidence and upheld the Trial Court’s decree [Paras 1-24].

Proof of Will – Requirement under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act – Defendants produced a registered Will allegedly executed by Sundarayya – Propounder failed to prove Will as required – Evidence showed inconsistencies in attestation – Will not deemed genuine [Paras 18-22].

Acquisition and Self-Acquired Properties – Defendants contended certain properties were purchased independently – Evidence revealed no independent income source – Presumption that properties acquired from joint family funds – Items declared as joint family properties [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s decree upheld – Plaintiffs entitled to 7/12^th share in ancestral properties – Registered Will declared invalid – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Para 25].

Landlord and Tenant – Eviction – Arrears of Rent – Petitioner tenant failed to pay rent for over six months and ignored landlord’s notice demanding arrears – Landlord entitled to decree for possession under Section 12(3)(a) of Bombay Rent Act – Tenant's defence of non-receipt of notice and payment to another heir rejected – Notice considered duly served – Appeal dismissed, eviction decree upheld [Paras 1-30].

Fixation of Standard Rent – Application filed after prescribed period – Bombay Rent Act requires filing within one month of notice – Application rejected – Standard rent application cannot nullify decree for arrears of rent and eviction [Paras 26-33].

Service of Notice – Validity – Notice sent to tenant’s workplace and marked as refused – Held valid service – Tenant had prior knowledge of landlord’s ownership and obligation to pay rent [Paras 18-20].

Tenant's Obligations – Arrears of Rent – Tenant failed to deposit arrears during pendency of suit – Triple default: pre-suit, post-suit, and during suit – No protection under Section 12(3)(b) for non-compliance [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Concurrent findings of lower courts upheld – Tenant's eviction affirmed – Application for fixation of standard rent dismissed as untimely and ineffective in negating default [Paras 33-34].

Caste Certificate – Provisional Admission and Employment – Petitioner admitted to M.B.B.S. and M.D. courses based on provisional caste certificate – Caste claim invalidated by Scrutiny Committee – Petitioner completed courses and was appointed as Medical Officer – Petitioner sought protection of education and employment – High Court dismissed the petition, citing the Apex Court’s judgment in Jagdish Bahira & Others v. State of Maharashtra, which mandates withdrawal of benefits secured through invalid caste certificates – Court observed that protection of such benefits violates constitutional and statutory norms [Paras 1-14].

Equity Principle – Protection of Education – Petitioner’s plea for protection based on prolonged benefits availed due to inaction by authorities – Court rejected plea, emphasizing that equitable considerations cannot override statutory mandates – Apex Court precedents in Jagdish Bahira and other relevant judgments upheld, stating that benefits drawn under false caste claims must be withdrawn to preserve integrity and rule of law [Paras 10-12].

Legislative Mandate – Withdrawal of Benefits – Supreme Court decisions reiterated – Benefits drawn under false claims to be withdrawn – No protection for admissions or employment secured on invalid caste certificates – Section 10 of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 emphasized [Paras 10-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No protection for educational and employment benefits drawn under invalid caste claim – Effect and operation of the judgment stayed for four weeks – Rule discharged, no costs [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Inclusion of POCSO Charges – Petitioner challenged the rejection of her application for addition of Section 12 of the POCSO Act – Case initially filed under Sections 363 and 366A IPC for enticement of minor daughter – Trial Court dismissed inclusion of POCSO charges citing lack of sufficient material – High Court upheld the dismissal, confirming no evidence supporting POCSO charges [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Section 216 Cr.P.C. – Court’s Power to Alter Charges – The Court may alter or add charges at any time before judgment – Requirement for material evidence to justify such alterations emphasized – High Court found no materials warranting the addition of Section 12 POCSO charges, supporting the Trial Court’s decision [Paras 6-8].

Facts of the Case – Victim enticed by accused, later married and living together – State submitted that the couple now leads a conjugal life – Victim was 13 years old at the time of offense – High Court noted lack of material evidence to support POCSO charges – Current charges under Sections 363/366A IPC deemed appropriate [Paras 2-4, 8].

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – High Court dismissed the application for addition of POCSO charges – Directed return of case diary to the State’s counsel – No interference with lower court’s order required [Para 10-14].

Interim Maintenance – Property Ownership Not Determinative – Petitioner, despite owning a gifted two-storied building, lacks independent income – Magistrate erroneously concluded property alone suffices for maintenance – Gifted property does not negate husband’s statutory obligation to provide maintenance if wife lacks her own income – Claim for interim maintenance justified and allowed [Paras 1-6].

Husband’s Income – Liability to Maintain – Opposite party no. 1’s take-home salary considered – Even with existing liabilities, sufficient income demonstrated to grant interim maintenance – Opposite party no. 1 directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to petitioner from the date of application under Section 23(1) – Arrears to be cleared in 40 equal installments [Paras 5-8].

Ex Parte Decision – Opposite party no. 1 failed to appear despite proper service – Case heard and decided ex parte – Petitioner’s entitlement to interim maintenance affirmed [Paras 3, 7].

Decision: Criminal Revisional Application allowed – Interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month awarded – Opposite party no. 1 to pay arrears in 40 equal installments – Order by Magistrate set aside, interim order vacated [Paras 6-12].
 

Criminal Law – Negligent Driving – Petitioner convicted under Section 304-A IPC and relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act for causing death by negligent driving – Trial court and appellate court affirmed conviction – Revision court considered the petitioner's age, lack of mens rea, and absence of antecedents – Highlighted the potential of the petitioner’s future being ruined by the conviction stigma – Applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, supporting the prosecution [Paras 1-17].

Probation of Offenders Act – Applicability – Court analyzed the application of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act – Emphasized the discretion of courts to apply probation in cases involving young, first-time offenders with bright futures – Cited relevant precedents where probation was granted in similar circumstances [Paras 12-17].

Res ipsa loquitur – Doctrine Application – Prosecution's case supported by the doctrine, indicating the accident speaks for itself regarding the petitioner’s negligence – Both courts established petitioner’s negligent driving was the cause of death [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Criminal revision application partly allowed – Conviction maintained, but sentence suspended with the petitioner released on probation for one year – Petitioner to enter into a bond for maintaining peace and good behavior – Fine paid under Motor Vehicles Act forfeited to the government; fine under Section 304-A IPC to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased [Para 17].