Civil Law - Suit under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act – Restoration of Possession – Dispossession without due process – Decree Upheld - Plaintiffs, being the widow and children of deceased Harjinder Pal, were in settled possession of the disputed property when they were forcibly dispossessed by defendants who are their close family members – The defendants contended that the possession was voluntarily handed over in a family settlement – However, no documentary evidence of the alleged settlement was produced – Trial Court rightly decreed the suit – Revision petition dismissed holding that possession was unlawfully taken – Question of ownership is irrelevant under Section 6 when unlawful dispossession is proved [Paras 25-28].

Specific Date of Dispossession – Minor Contradiction – Not Fatal - The discrepancy between the plaint and cross-examination regarding whether the dispossession happened in August or September 2021 was immaterial as the suit was filed within six months, satisfying the statutory limitation under Section 6(2) of the Specific Relief Act – The revision was dismissed on this ground as well [Paras 26-27].

Scope of Revision under Section 115 CPC – Limited Interference – No Jurisdictional Error Found - The High Court held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot be exercised merely to re-appreciate evidence or substitute findings unless jurisdictional error is proved – No such error was found in this case – Revision dismissed [Para 28].

Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Evidence Corroborated – Negligence Proven – Appeal Dismissed – Based on eyewitness testimony and police records, Court affirmed MACT’s finding that the APSRTC bus driver was negligent – Driver failed to exercise caution when passing a stationary tipper despite clear view from right side – Held: No interference warranted in MACT’s finding of liability [Paras 14, 17–18].

Compensation – Reassessment Permitted Despite No Appeal by Claimants – Enhanced – Court held that even without cross-appeal, enhancement is permissible to ensure just compensation – Compensation enhanced from ₹4,62,000 to ₹6,22,000 based on principles from Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance cases [Paras 20–22, 26].

Dependency and Consortium – Income Fixed at ₹3,000/Month – Conventional Heads Applied – Court upheld MACT’s estimation of monthly income but found amounts under non-pecuniary heads insufficient – Award modified to grant consortium of ₹40,000 each to four claimants, and funeral/loss of estate amounts added appropriately [Paras 21–22].

Interest Rate – Enhanced from 6% to 7.5% p.a. – Following prevailing norms and ensuring fair restitution, rate of interest awarded was enhanced to 7.5% per annum [Para 23].

Decision:  Appeal dismissed – Award modified – Compensation enhanced from ₹4,62,000 to ₹6,22,000 with 7.5% interest p.a. – Directions issued for revised apportionment among claimants under various heads – Remaining directions of MACT upheld [Paras 24–26].

Civil Law - Specific Relief – Restoration of Possession – Possession Proven – Ownership Irrelevant – Trial Court rightly decreed suit under Section 6 where plaintiffs (widow and children of deceased son) proved possession and illegal dispossession – Held: Title is immaterial under Section 6 – Possession alone suffices, and oral family settlement defence lacked credibility [Paras 5–7, 24–27].

Dispossession – Family Property Dispute – Oral Settlement Not Accepted – Alleged voluntary handover of possession by plaintiff pursuant to oral settlement held improbable – Court observed that history of prolonged litigation between parties rendered such claim untenable – Oral version unsupported by written proof or actions (e.g. appeal withdrawal) [Paras 17–25].

Date of Dispossession – Precise Date Not Fatal – Suit Within Limitation – Plaintiff’s slight discrepancy in date (August vs. September 2021) immaterial as suit was filed within 6 months – Held: Substantial compliance with Section 6(2); technical objections rejected [Paras 15, 26].

Jurisdiction – Limited Interference in Revision – No Jurisdictional Error – Held: Trial Court applied correct legal principles, appreciated evidence properly – No perversity or jurisdictional infirmity found – Revision jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC not attracted [Paras 27–29].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Possession of plaintiffs restored – Trial Court’s decree upheld – No jurisdictional error or perversity found warranting interference under Section 115 CPC [Para 29].
 

Motor Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – Evidence Corroborated – Negligence Proven – Appeal Dismissed – Based on eyewitness testimony and police records, Court affirmed MACT’s finding that the APSRTC bus driver was negligent – Driver failed to exercise caution when passing a stationary tipper despite clear view from right side – Held: No interference warranted in MACT’s finding of liability [Paras 14, 17–18].

Compensation – Reassessment Permitted Despite No Appeal by Claimants – Enhanced – Court held that even without cross-appeal, enhancement is permissible to ensure just compensation – Compensation enhanced from ₹4,62,000 to ₹6,22,000 based on principles from Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, and Magma General Insurance cases [Paras 20–22, 26].

Dependency and Consortium – Income Fixed at ₹3,000/Month – Conventional Heads Applied – Court upheld MACT’s estimation of monthly income but found amounts under non-pecuniary heads insufficient – Award modified to grant consortium of ₹40,000 each to four claimants, and funeral/loss of estate amounts added appropriately [Paras 21–22].

Interest Rate – Enhanced from 6% to 7.5% p.a. – Following prevailing norms and ensuring fair restitution, rate of interest awarded was enhanced to 7.5% per annum [Para 23].

Decision:  Appeal dismissed – Award modified – Compensation enhanced from ₹4,62,000 to ₹6,22,000 with 7.5% interest p.a. – Directions issued for revised apportionment among claimants under various heads – Remaining directions of MACT upheld [Paras 24–26].

Taxation Law - Reassessment Proceedings – Requirement of Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Jurisdictional Condition – Section 147 of the Income-tax Act – Reassessment notice issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year must satisfy the condition that income escaped assessment due to failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts – In the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated without establishing such failure – Held: Reassessment proceedings are invalid and without jurisdiction [Paras 20-23].

Reassessment Proceedings – Bar Under Third Proviso to Section 147 – Where the subject matter of reassessment is pending in appeal before the appellate authority, reassessment proceedings on the same issue are barred – In the present case, the issue of "guarantee fee" was already under appeal before the Tribunal – Held: Reassessment proceedings initiated on the same issue are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed [Paras 24-25].

Reassessment Proceedings – Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – Change of Opinion Not Permissible – Reassessment cannot be initiated based on the same material that was already considered during original assessment – The reasons for reopening did not rely on any new material – Held: The reassessment proceedings amount to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law [Paras 22-23, 26].

Notice under Section 148 – Compliance by Treating Original Return as Response – An assessee is not barred from challenging reassessment proceedings merely for not filing a fresh return in response to Section 148 notice – If the assessee requests the department to treat the previously filed return as a response, it constitutes substantial compliance – Held: Petitioner complied with Section 148 notice requirements, and the reassessment order remains challengeable [Paras 28-29].

Quashing of Reassessment Proceedings – Absence of Jurisdictional Grounds – Section 147 & 148 of the Income-tax Act – Since there was full disclosure, the issue was already under appeal, and no fresh tangible material existed, the jurisdictional conditions under Section 147 were not satisfied – Held: The reassessment notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment order are quashed as without jurisdiction [Paras 27, 30-31].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Delay in Filing of Complaint – Continuous Offense – No Bar on Investigation – The petitioner contended that the complaint was lodged five years after the alleged incidents, rendering it politically motivated – The Court held that the complaint was not limited to events in 2019 but referred to a continuing pattern of conduct up to 2024 – Held: The investigation is not barred by delay since the allegations indicate a continuing offense [Paras 9-10].

Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Legality of Constitution – Officers Need Not Be Exclusively from CID – The petitioner argued that the SIT was improperly constituted since not all its members were from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) – The Court clarified that while the head of the SIT was from CID, other members could be drawn from different departments – Held: The constitution of SIT was legal and within the State Government's powers [Paras 11-12].

Power of SIT to File Report – Direction to Submit Report to Government Does Not Vitiate Investigation – The petitioner contended that since the SIT was directed to submit its report to the Government instead of the Court, the investigation was vitiated – Relying on precedents, the Court held that such a direction does not preclude the SIT from filing its final report before the jurisdictional court – Held: The notification constituting the SIT does not render the investigation illegal or without jurisdiction [Paras 12-13].

CID as a Police Station – Authority to Investigate and Register Cases – The Court referred to the Government Notification dated 12-01-2024, declaring CID as a police station for the entire state of Karnataka – Held: CID officers investigating the case were acting within their legal authority, and the investigation was valid [Para 14].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Grounds for Quashing FIR – The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it – Held: The FIR and investigation shall continue as per law [Para 15].

Property Law – Bank Auction of Mortgaged Property – No Objection Certificate (NOC) – Authorities Cannot Withhold Transfer - Petitioners purchased Plot No. 1591-B, Sector 23-23A, Gurugram, in a public auction conducted by the bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002 – Sale confirmed, full payment made, and possession delivered – However, authorities refused to issue NOC, citing lack of prior approval for auction – Held: Once mortgage was permitted, inherent rights of the mortgagee included auctioning in case of loan default – Decision: Authorities directed to issue NOC and update records in favor of the petitioners [Paras 8-14].

Mortgage Rights – Auction Sale Valid Despite Absence of Additional Permission – Borrower’s Default Triggers Sale Rights - Respondents argued that bank required explicit NOC before auctioning the property – Court ruled that once mortgage was created with permission, sale rights in case of default were implicit – Held: Absence of additional NOC for auction does not invalidate the sale – Decision: Mortgagee (bank) was within its rights to sell the property through public auction [Paras 9-11].

Public Auction – Challenge to Legality – Absence of Allegations of Fraud or Collusion - Authorities did not challenge the auction as fraudulent or illegal, except on procedural grounds – Court noted that no material irregularities or collusion were alleged – Held: In the absence of any specific illegality, the auction sale stands valid – Decision: Petition allowed, property transfer to petitioners upheld [Paras 12-13].

Motor Vehicle Accident  Claim – Negligence – Determination of Liability – Whether the accident resulted from sole negligence of the truck driver or contributory negligence of the car driver – The tribunal held the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the truck driver who rammed into the car from behind – Held: No contributory negligence of the car driver was established, and the insurance company’s challenge to liability was dismissed [Paras 9-18].

Compensation – Future Prospects – Assessment – The tribunal awarded future prospects at 50% for a self-employed deceased person – Held: As per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pranay Sethi, future prospects should be limited to 40% – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 23-29].

Interest Rate on Compensation – Insurance company challenged the interest rate of 8% per annum as excessive – Held: Interest rate awarded by the tribunal was reasonable and did not warrant modification [Paras 19-22].

Enhancement of Compensation – Claimants sought higher compensation based on latest income tax returns and additional damages for loss of love and affection – Held: Income tax return for 2016-2017 should have been considered, and loss of consortium enhanced for each claimant – Total compensation enhanced to ₹42,46,000/- with interest @8% p.a. [Paras 30-37].

Custody of Child – Jurisdiction of Family Court – Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act – The petitioners argued that once custody was granted to the mother in a divorce decree, the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a fresh application under Section 11 of the Guardian and Wards Act – High Court held that Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act allows modification of custody orders even after divorce if circumstances change – The Family Court has jurisdiction to reconsider custody in the child’s best interests [Paras 5-6].

Change in Circumstances – Right to Seek Custody – Welfare of the Child is Paramount – The respondent-father sought custody modification citing changed circumstances – Petitioners argued that there was no material change – Relying on Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal and Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari, the Court held that custody orders are temporary in nature and can be altered if the child’s welfare demands it – Held: A parent cannot be debarred from seeking custody modification solely because of a prior consent decree [Paras 7-8].

Rejection of Suit under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Whether Maintainable – Petitioners contended that the custody modification application was barred by law and should have been dismissed at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – High Court ruled that objections on merits should be raised during trial, not at the stage of admission – Held: The Family Court correctly rejected the Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application as the case required full adjudication [Paras 9-10].

Final Decision – Revision petition dismissed – Held: The Family Court correctly exercised jurisdiction under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Petitioners are free to raise objections on guardianship during trial, and the Family Court must decide the issue independently without being influenced by this order [Paras 10-11].