Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Mesne Profits – Assessment – BPCL and M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd. were involved in a dispute over mesne profits following BPCL’s occupation of leased premises. BPCL sought a reduction in mesne profits, while the landlord sought an increase. The court upheld the trial court's assessment of mesne profits, determining that the amount fixed (ranging from Rs. 2,50,000 per month in 2001 to Rs. 4,50,000 per month in 2013) was reasonable based on the comparable rents in the area – [Paras 1-40].

Interest on Mesne Profits – Commercial Transaction – Section 34 of CPC – BPCL contended that the interest rate should not exceed 6% under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the lease was not a commercial transaction. The court agreed, reducing the interest rate from 9% to 6%, noting that BPCL was not in the business of renting properties, and the transaction did not qualify as commercial under the definition of Section 34 – [Paras 41-60].

Adjustment of Deposits – The court clarified that the interest calculation should exclude the monthly deposits BPCL made from October 2010 to December 2013, as these amounts had already been paid towards mesne profits – [Paras 61-70].

Decision:

The quantum of mesne profits fixed by the Small Causes Court was upheld. However, the interest rate was reduced to 6%. BPCL’s application was partly allowed to the extent of the interest rate adjustment, while M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd.'s application was dismissed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 153 IPC – Petitioner, an Australian tourist of Jewish descent, was charged under Section 153 IPC for tearing down banners at Fort Kochi – The banners bore the slogan "SILENCE IS VIOLENCE STAND UP FOR HUMANITY" – Petitioner contended that the posters invoked distress due to their possible allusion to the Israel-Palestine conflict – Held: The posters were erected without legal permission, and their removal by the petitioner cannot be considered an illegal act under Section 153 IPC – The primary ingredient of provocation for rioting was absent, as the petitioner’s act did not intend to incite unrest, and no rioting followed the incident [Paras 8-10].

Public Order – Right to Remove Unauthorized Posters – The posters were placed without permission, and their removal did not constitute an illegal act – Even though the petitioner should have approached law enforcement instead of removing them herself, this did not amount to a criminal offense – Held: Removal of unauthorized posters cannot attract charges under Section 153 IPC, as the necessary element of malignance or provocation for rioting is lacking [Paras 10-12].

Tourist Rights – Detention at Airport Due to Lookout Notice – Petitioner was detained at Kochi International Airport based on a lookout notice, despite being granted bail for the alleged offense – Held: The detention was disproportionate, given that the offense was bailable, and the petitioner’s continued prosecution would result in an abuse of legal process [Paras 5, 9].

Decision:

All further proceedings in C.C. No. 462/2024 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattanchery, arising out of Crime No. 390/2024 of Fort Kochi Police Station, are quashed – The petition is allowed, and the criminal case is dismissed [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Cruelty and Abetment of Suicide – Section 498-A and 306 of IPC – Dying declarations – Whether conviction based on dying declarations is sustainable – Held, inconsistencies in the three dying declarations recorded by different officers without clear endorsement of fitness and absence of thumb impressions cast doubt on their reliability – Court emphasizes that suspicion and general allegations without specific acts of cruelty or abetment cannot establish guilt under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC – [Paras 9-17].

Dying Declarations – Multiple Declarations – Reliability – Supreme Court precedents cited in assessing the credibility of multiple dying declarations – Delay in recording, lack of fitness certification, and inconsistencies in key details undermine the credibility of the dying declarations – [Paras 18-22].

Mens Rea and Instigation – Essential Elements for Conviction under Section 306 IPC – For conviction under Section 306 IPC, prosecution must establish positive action of instigation or incitement to commit suicide – Mere suspicion of character and general allegations of cruelty, without evidence of abetment or specific proximate cause, are insufficient to hold the accused guilty – [Paras 69-73].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC is quashed – Appellant acquitted of all charges. Bail bonds cancelled and fine, if any, to be refunded. Counsel fee fixed at Rs. 15,000 to be paid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad – [Paras 74-75].
 

Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor Child – Welfare of the Child as Paramount Consideration – Section 6 of Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act – The petitioner-mother sought a writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of her 8-month-old son from the custody of the father, claiming the child's best interest lies with her as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act – The Court upheld the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount, especially given the child’s tender age, and found that the mother's custody is ordinarily preferred for a child below five years – Held: Custody of the child granted to the petitioner-mother pending further proceedings [Paras 1, 3, 8, 10, 14].

Maintainability of Habeas Corpus for Child Custody – Habeas Corpus Upheld – The respondent-father contended that the Habeas Corpus petition was not maintainable as an alternative remedy was available under the Guardianship Act – The Court reiterated that Habeas Corpus is maintainable in child custody matters where the best interest of the child is at stake, and the child's welfare necessitates the extraordinary remedy – The Court noted that although alternative remedies exist, they do not bar invoking Habeas Corpus when the child’s custody is improperly withheld – Held: Habeas Corpus petition maintainable [Paras 8-9, 19].

Visitation Rights – Father’s Access to Child – Protection of Child’s Emotional Balance – Although custody was awarded to the petitioner-mother, the Court acknowledged the importance of the father’s presence in the child’s life and granted visitation rights to ensure the child's emotional well-being – Respondent No.4 (father) was granted supervised access to the child twice a month under specified conditions to avoid any disturbance to the child's emotional balance – Held: Father granted visitation on the 1st and 3rd Saturdays of each month [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Petition allowed – Custody of the 8-month-old minor child was ordered to be handed over to the petitioner-mother, with visitation rights granted to the father. Respondent No.4 (father) was directed to ensure compliance in the presence of a judicial officer. The custody arrangement prioritizes the welfare of the child, ensuring both parents maintain a relationship with the minor [Paras 14-15].

University Regulations – Post-Publication Review – Retrospective Application – Petitioner challenged the suo motu review conducted by the University, which led to the reduction of her CGPA and resulted in her demotion from First Class First to First Class Second – University cited a resolution passed on December 24, 2018, requiring a review of the top three examinees if a post-publication review affected the First Class First position – Court held that the retrospective application of the resolution, which was not in effect at the time of the petitioner's result publication, was impermissible [Paras 1-50].

Resolution and Fairness – Suo Motu Review – Court observed that the University’s action of conducting a suo motu review without the petitioner’s consent or prior notice violated principles of natural justice – University’s retrospective application of the December 24, 2018 resolution was deemed improper as the petitioner’s results were published prior to the resolution’s enactment [Paras 25-35].

Relief Granted – Award of Gold Medal – While the court acknowledged the higher CGPA of Respondent No. 7 following the review, it ordered that Respondent No. 7 be declared First Class First and awarded the Gold Medal – As a special case, the court also directed that the petitioner be awarded a Gold Medal, but her merit position would remain as First Class Second [Paras 45-50].

Decision:

Writ Petition disposed of – University directed to award Gold Medals to both Respondent No. 7 and the petitioner, with the petitioner retaining the second position in the merit list.

Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Challenge to deduction of 1% Labour Cess by the government from contractors’ bills – Absence of specific contract provisions for such deductions – Petitioners, engaged in various infrastructure projects, claim deductions are illegal and arbitrary – Relying on prior judgment (Ch.V.V. Subba Rao), court finds in favor of petitioners – Held, government cannot deduct cess without inclusion in contract estimates [Paras 5-12].

Labour Cess Act 1996 – Applicability to infrastructure contracts – Petitioners argue Labour Cess was not included in original contract estimates for works initiated before the amendment of rules in 2007 – Court reiterates principle that deductions for Labour Cess can only be made if explicitly provided for in contract – Judgment in prior case deemed applicable – Relief granted [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held, 1% Labour Cess cannot be deducted from contractors’ bills unless explicitly factored into contract estimates – Government directed to cease further deductions and refund amounts already deducted – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Promotion – Effect of Minor Penalty (Censure) – The Writ Court quashed the departmental proceedings and the penalty of "censure" imposed on the respondent, directing his promotion to the post of DGM (ATC) w.e.f. 01.10.1999 – Appellants argued that the "censure" penalty was a valid impediment to promotion – Court held that the respondent was not entitled to promotion in light of the penalty, and that the "censure," being a blameworthy factor, justified denying promotion – Writ Court’s decision to quash the penalty without examining its legality was improper [Paras 1-40].

Departmental Proceedings – Delay and Procedural Fairness – Respondent alleged that the six-month delay in initiating the departmental enquiry deprived him of his right to a speedy conclusion of the proceedings – Appellants argued that the proceedings were completed within a reasonable time frame (1.5 years), and the minor penalty imposed was warranted – Court concluded that the delay was not sufficient to invalidate the enquiry or the penalty imposed [Paras 20-30].

Applicability of Order II Rule 2 CPC – Court observed that the respondent had the opportunity to challenge the departmental proceedings in a previous writ petition (SWP No. 893/2005) but chose not to – As per Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, the respondent was estopped from raising the same challenge in a subsequent petition (SWP No. 862/2009) [Paras 31-35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Writ Court’s judgment set aside – Departmental proceedings and the penalty of "censure" against the respondent upheld – Respondent not entitled to promotion to the post of DGM w.e.f. 01.10.1999.

Registration of Sale Deed – Duty of Sub-Registrar under Section 71 of Registration Act, 1908 – Sub-Registrar, Renigunta, refused to accept the sale deed dated 05.08.2024, presented by the petitioner, without providing any reasons – Petitioner challenged the refusal, relying on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Salimeni Ravindra v. State of Andhra Pradesh (W.P.No.10392 of 2021) – Court emphasized the duty of the Sub-Registrar to either register the document or issue a speaking order recording reasons for refusal in Book No.2, with an endorsement "registration refused" – Held: Sub-Registrar is directed to process the sale deed or issue a speaking order as per law [Paras 1-7].

Obligation of Sub-Registrar under Registration Act – Reliance on Prior Case Law – Court refers to the judgment in Salimeni Ravindra v. State of Andhra Pradesh, holding that the Sub-Registrar is under a statutory duty to process documents presented for registration unless there are valid legal grounds for refusal, which must be recorded in writing – Sub-Registrar is bound to comply with the procedure established under Rules 161-164 of the Registration Act [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Sub-Registrar directed to process the sale deed dated 05.08.2024, or issue a speaking order within four weeks, stating reasons for refusal if applicable – Court also directs the petitioner to submit a copy of this order and the judgment in Salimeni Ravindra to the Registrar for future reference [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Abduction and Murder – Section 364A and 302 IPC – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Held, the prosecution established that the appellants abducted the victim for ransom, and when they failed to extort money, they murdered him. Despite no direct evidence of the murder, the chain of circumstantial evidence and the appellants' failure to provide an alternative explanation justified conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, leading to the discovery of the dead body. [Paras 28-68].

Criminal Law – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Admissibility of disclosure leading to the recovery of a dead body – The Court affirmed that the recovery of the dead body following the accused’s disclosure was admissible, even though the body was found in an open area. The proximity between the abduction and recovery of the body supported the reliability of the disclosure. [Paras 50-62].

Motive – Establishing motive in cases of circumstantial evidence – Although the prosecution could not fully establish a motive, the appellants’ actions during and after the abduction pointed to a criminal intention, which negated the need for a distinct motive to commit murder. The demand for ransom and the subsequent killing to evade capture sufficed as inferred motives. [Paras 69-75].

FIR and procedural fairness – Alleged delay in FIR registration – Held, the FIR was registered promptly after the incident, and any minor procedural delays in the investigation, including sending the FIR to the Magistrate, did not affect the prosecution's case. The court rejected the appellants' claim of FIR manipulation. [Paras 76-88].

Judicial Precedent – Reliance on circumstantial evidence and recovery under Section 27 Evidence Act – The Court referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar, supporting the conviction based on circumstantial evidence when the accused failed to explain the victim’s fate after the abduction. [Paras 89-102].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Court upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the conviction for abduction and murder. [Paras 103-110].