Employment Law – Termination for Poor Performance – Stigmatic Dismissal – The appellant, a former employee of Marriott Hotels, was terminated for allegedly failing to meet minimum performance standards. The Labour Court had ordered reinstatement with 40% back wages, but the learned Single Judge replaced this with three years' salary compensation. The High Court held that the termination was stigmatic and required a departmental inquiry. The employer's failure to conduct such an inquiry violated principles of natural justice, making the termination invalid. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the award of the Labour Court was restored [Paras 1.1-4.2].

Contractual Employment – Local Standard Operating Procedures (LSOP) and Employee Rights – The court examined the enforceability of the LSOP, concluding that unilateral policies imposed by the employer, which disadvantage the employee, fall under the mischief of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Such clauses are void as they are opposed to public policy and infringe upon the employee's rights under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 3.11-3.15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court was restored. The appellant was entitled to reinstatement and back wages as per the original award [Para 4.1].

Professional Misconduct – Advocates Act – Writ Petition allowed – The Court directed the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate appropriate disciplinary actions against the 5th respondent under the Advocates Act, 1961, for creating forged rental agreements to illegally occupy the petitioner’s property – Emphasized the need for maintaining professional standards and integrity among advocates [Paras 8-9].

Forgery and Criminal Proceedings – Court noted that the forensic examination confirmed the signatures on the rental agreements produced by the 5th respondent were forged – Directed the police to proceed with the criminal case registered against the 5th respondent under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC [Paras 7-9].

Eviction – Writ of Mandamus – The Court directed the police to evict the 5th respondent from the petitioner’s property and hand over possession to the petitioner within 48 hours – Court stressed the urgency of upholding the petitioner’s property rights in light of the respondent's unlawful conduct [Para 9].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Directions issued to the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for disciplinary action – Criminal proceedings to continue against the 5th respondent – Eviction of the 5th respondent from the petitioner’s property ordered [Para 10].

Service Law – Regularization of Service – The petitioner sought the antedating of his regularization as a Homeopathic Assistant either to his initial engagement date in 1992 or the date of sanction of the post in 2000. The court held that the petitioner’s service regularization was correctly dated to 06.03.2019, the date of the prior order of the High Court. The court rejected the petition, finding no legal or factual justification to support the request for earlier regularization dates [Paras 1-12].

Misrepresentation and Suppression of Facts – The court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding his temporary engagement on an ad hoc basis in 1996. This information was pivotal to the case and had been omitted in prior proceedings. The court invoked the legal principle that fraud and justice cannot coexist and rejected the petitioner’s claim on these grounds [Paras 8.1-8.4].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – No legal ground was found for the antedating of the petitioner’s regularization. The court upheld the administrative decision to regularize the petitioner’s service with effect from 06.03.2019 [Paras 9-10].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) – Suit for injunction based on agreement for sale – Applicants (Defendants) sought rejection of the suit for perpetual injunction filed by the Respondents (Plaintiffs), on the ground that the Plaintiffs had no legal title to the suit lands. The Defendants argued that without a sale deed, the plaintiffs' possession claims were untenable. However, the agreement for sale was registered, and possession was allegedly handed over as per the terms of the agreement. The Court held that the suit raised triable issues, and the rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) was not appropriate. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs had a prima facie case under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, allowing a prospective purchaser to maintain possession. [Paras 1-15].

Specific Relief Act – Section 41(h) – Applicability in injunction cases – Defendants' contention that the suit was barred under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act was rejected. The Court observed that, in the absence of a sale deed, the plaintiff's possession and the registered agreement for sale provided sufficient grounds to proceed with the injunction suit. [Paras 6-10].

Agreement for Sale – Legal Effect – Registered agreement for sale from 1992 between the mother of the Defendants and the original Plaintiff was sufficient to create an equity in favor of the Plaintiff under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Despite the lack of a formal sale deed, the Plaintiff’s claim to possession was sustained. [Paras 9-11].

Decision:

The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, and the impugned order rejecting the Defendants' application under Order VII Rule 11(d) was upheld. The Trial Court was directed to expedite the hearing of the suit within six months. All contentions of the parties were expressly kept open.

Customs Law – Service of Show Cause Notice (SCN) – Petitioner argued that SCN was improperly served via a non-government email service (Gmail), violating the E-mail Policy of India. High Court held that the SCN was validly served under Section 153 of the Customs Act, 1962, as there is no statutory requirement to use only government email services. The court noted that the petitioner's own email address was used and upheld the validity of service, even though it was sent through a non-NIC email platform [Paras 2-5].

Seizure of Goods – Time Limit – Under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, the SCN was issued within six months of the seizure of the gold bars. The petitioner’s challenge based on delayed service was dismissed since the court found that the SCN had been properly issued and served within the statutory period [Paras 7-12].

Digital Evidence – Admissibility of Screenshots – Petitioner's attempt to prove non-receipt of the SCN through a screenshot of her email inbox was rejected. The court ruled that the screenshot lacked credibility, especially since the Section 65-B certificate indicated that the evidence was obtained from a different device (computer instead of mobile phone) [Para 13].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The court upheld the customs authority's seizure and the timely issuance of the SCN. The petitioner was not entitled to the release of the gold bars at this stage [Paras 14-15].

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation Enhancement – Appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded for the death of a 19-year-old in a motor accident. The claimants argued that the MACT applied the wrong multiplier by considering the parents' ages instead of the deceased’s age. The Court held that, as per Sarla Verma, the correct multiplier should be based on the deceased's age (19 years), leading to a multiplier of 18 instead of 13. [Paras 1-25].

Daily Wage Employment – Proof of Income – The MACT erroneously rejected the deceased’s employment on daily wages, despite corroborative evidence from the employer and ledger records showing wages of Rs. 200 per day. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with labor laws by the employer cannot negate the deceased's income, as the standard of proof in such cases is "preponderance of probability," not "beyond reasonable doubt." [Paras 26-45].

Loss of Future Prospects – Following the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi, the Court granted an addition of 50% of the deceased’s established income towards future prospects, computing the base income as Rs. 4000 per month. The MACT's failure to apply this addition was rectified. [Paras 46-60].

Decision: The First Appeal was allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,54,000 to Rs. 7,32,000. The Respondent insurance company was directed to pay the additional amount within three weeks, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition until payment. [Paras 61-70].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Homicidal Death – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his wife. The case was based on circumstantial evidence, including a history of marital discord and the appellant's failure to provide a reasonable explanation for his wife's death, which occurred within their home. The post-mortem report revealed injuries inconsistent with the appellant’s claim of accidental death due to a fall [Paras 1-30].

Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Burden of Proof – The court held that in cases of unexplained deaths within the home, the onus is on the accused, under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, to explain the circumstances leading to the death. The appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation for the homicidal injuries found on the deceased [Paras 31-40].

Marital Discord – Previous Abuse as Evidence – Testimony from the couple’s children and letters written by the deceased prior to her death established a history of abuse by the appellant, further corroborating the prosecution’s case. The court found that these factors, combined with the absence of any alternative explanation from the appellant, supported the conviction [Paras 41-50].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court was affirmed.
 

Tax Law – Penalty for Undervaluation of Goods – Punjab VAT Act, 2005 – Appeals challenging the imposition of penalties under Section 51(7)(b) of the Punjab VAT Act for undervaluation of medicines imported into Chandigarh from Himachal Pradesh. The Checking Officer detained the goods, observing that the prices mentioned on the invoice were disproportionately lower than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP). The penalty was imposed on the presumption of tax evasion due to undervaluation. The Court held that mere discrepancies between the MRP and invoice prices do not conclusively prove an attempt to evade tax. VAT is payable only upon the actual sale of goods, and no sale had occurred in Chandigarh at the time of the imposition of the penalty [Paras 1-50].

Valuation of Goods – Jurisdiction of Assessing Authority – The Court ruled that the valuation of goods falls within the domain of the assessing authority and not the checking officer at the roadside. The imposition of penalties by the Checking Officer was premature, as no concealment or mens rea was demonstrated. The actual valuation should be determined by the assessing authority based on the sales transactions [Paras 45-65].

Decision:

Appeals allowed – Penalties imposed under Section 51(7)(b) quashed. The Court concluded that the action of the respondents was arbitrary and based on presumptions. The imposition of penalties without proper valuation by the assessing authority was held to be unlawful. All pending applications stand disposed of.

Contract Law – Recovery of Debt – Hypothecation Agreement – Appellant challenged the trial court’s decree for recovery of Rs. 2,88,667.50 with interest at 15.5% p.a. The High Court upheld the decree with modifications to the interest rate. It ruled that while the plaintiff bank (SBI) is entitled to recover the principal amount and simple interest, the contractual rate of interest is not applicable post-decree. Instead, the court awarded simple interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the suit until redemption and 6% p.a. thereafter until realization [Paras 20-21].

Interest Rate – Judicial Discretion – The High Court exercised its discretion to modify the interest rate from the contractual 15.5% p.a. to 12% p.a., citing precedents on excessive interest rates and the special circumstances of the case, including the appellant’s financial condition and adherence to Reserve Bank guidelines [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – Held – The appeal was allowed in part by modifying the rate of interest from 15.5% p.a. to 12% p.a. from the date of suit till redemption and 6% p.a. thereafter till realization – The judgment of the Trial Court was otherwise affirmed, and each party was directed to bear their own costs – Miscellaneous petitions related to the appeal were dismissed [Paras 20-21].