Land Ownership – Lease Deed – Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Execution of lease deed challenged – Whether the State of U.P. was justified in leasing the land to the appellant despite claims of ownership by Bhola (respondent) – Held, Bhola’s land was never declared surplus under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, and the execution of the lease deed was unlawful – First appellate court rightly cancelled the lease.

Property Law – Exchange of Property – Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Alleged exchange of land between Bhola and the State – Whether the exchange met legal requirements under Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held, exchange must follow procedures applicable to sale, which was not followed in this case – No valid exchange of land established –.

Doctrine of Estoppel – Admission of Facts – Whether Bhola’s admission in an affidavit regarding relinquishment of rights estopped him from claiming the land – Held, admission alone cannot confer legal title; property must be transferred through recognized legal modes such as sale, lease, or exchange .

Trespass – Illegality in Property Transfer – Role of State Officials – Whether the appellant and State functionaries acted within the law in taking possession of Bhola’s land – Held, the State’s actions constituted property grabbing without legal sanction, amounting to trespass – The lease deed was declared void .

Costs and Damages – Trespass and wrongful possession – Whether the appellant and State Government were liable to pay costs for wrongful possession – Held, exemplary damages of Rs. 10,00,000 awarded to compensate for the 32-year deprivation of land possession .

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The second appeal was dismissed, and the first appellate court’s decision was upheld, cancelling the lease deed executed in favor of the appellant. The court imposed exemplary costs and damages of Rs. 10,00,000, jointly payable by the appellant and the State Government to the legal heirs of Bhola​.

Criminal Law – Corruption Conviction – Reversal on Appeal – Appellant, a Junior Assistant in the Taluk Office, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.250/- for issuing a death certificate. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment and fines. On appeal, the High Court found significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including doubts about the credibility of the bribe transaction and the circumstances of the trap. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-50].

Witness Testimony – Credibility Questioned – The main witness, P.W.2, who claimed the appellant demanded Rs.250/-, handed over five Rs.50/- notes as instructed by the investigating officer. However, he later received Rs.100/- back, raising doubts about the alleged bribe demand. Furthermore, the defense successfully argued that the appellant was on duty at the District Treasury on the day of the trap, and the prosecution's case that he returned to the Taluk Office was improbable. Testimonies of defense witnesses D.W.1 and D.W.2 also supported the appellant’s defense that the money was a repayment of a loan, not a bribe [Paras 25-40].

Circumstantial Evidence – Flawed Trap Operation – Although the prosecution relied on the positive naphthalene test of the marked notes, the court found that the prosecution could not conclusively establish that the money was accepted as a bribe. The inconsistencies in P.W.2's statements, coupled with the appellant’s explanation of loan repayment corroborated by P.W.5 (Tahsildar), weakened the prosecution’s case. The artificiality of the appellant returning Rs.100/- also raised serious doubts [Paras 35-50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act set aside – Appellant acquitted – To be released immediately if not required in any other case.

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].