Selection of Melsanthies – Non-Compliance with Court Orders – Eligibility Criteria for Selection – The petition raised issues concerning the selection process for the appointment of Melsanthies at Sabarimala and Malikappuram temples – The court observed that the Travancore Devaswom Board permitted candidates to submit fresh experience certificates, contrary to earlier court directions in DBA No. 5 of 2022 – Such substitution of certificates violated the prescribed guidelines, which disallowed changes to the certificates after submission – The selection process and interviews were found to lack fairness and transparency, warranting judicial interference [Paras 2.1-2.6, 5-6].

Non-Recording of Reasons – Failure to Adhere to Vigilance Recommendations – Appeal Process – The Board allowed candidates whose applications had been rejected by the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer to participate in the selection process without recording adequate reasons – Court emphasized that reasons must be recorded when appeals against rejection are allowed, in compliance with the principles of natural justice – The Board’s failure to provide clear reasons for overruling the Vigilance Officer’s recommendations was arbitrary and without legal justification [Paras 2.6-2.10, 8].

Judicial Review of Selection Process – Fairness and Transparency – The court found that the procedure followed by the Travancore Devaswom Board in reviewing rejected applications lacked transparency and fairness – The disparity in marks awarded by different interviewers (Tantris) also raised concerns about the integrity of the process – The court directed the Board to ensure compliance with established guidelines and reconsider the applications based on the correct procedures [Paras 7-9].

Decision – The court quashed the results of the selection process and ordered the Travancore Devaswom Board to conduct the selection afresh, adhering strictly to the guidelines issued by the court in previous orders – The decision emphasized the need for transparency, fairness, and proper documentation in the selection of Melsanthies [Paras 8-10].
 

Bail – UAPA Offences – Right to Liberty – Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention – The appellant sought bail on the grounds that despite serious allegations, no arms or incriminating material were recovered, and the money allegedly transferred by the appellant to a co-accused lacked evidence of being used for illegal activities – Held: While UAPA contains stringent provisions for bail, prolonged pre-trial detention of over 1 year and 9 months without the framing of charges and examination of witnesses entitles the appellant to bail under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to liberty and speedy trial [Paras 2, 5, 6].

Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Long Incarceration – The Supreme Court has held in various cases, including Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb and Shoma Kanti Sen vs. State of Maharashtra, that long pre-trial detention justifies granting bail, especially when there is no likelihood of the trial concluding soon – The appellant, having been in custody for nearly two years without charges being framed, was granted bail on this basis [Paras 6, 7].

Bail under UAPA – Statutory Restrictions – Court’s Discretion – Even though Section 43-D(5) of UAPA imposes restrictions on bail, Constitutional Courts have the discretion to grant bail when there is an unreasonable delay in the trial – In this case, with 62 witnesses yet to be examined, the appellant’s continued detention without trial was held to be unjustified [Paras 6, 8, 9].

No Recovery of Arms – Lack of Evidence for Criminal Use of Funds – Despite allegations of illegal activities, there was no recovery of arms or evidence linking the money transferred by the appellant to any unlawful purchase – The Court found insufficient grounds for further detention [Paras 5, 6].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Bail granted subject to conditions – Impugned order set aside [Paras 11, 12].

Simplicitor Suit for Possession – Requirement to Set Aside Sale Deeds – Suit Dismissed – The plaintiffs sought possession of land based on pre-emption rights without seeking a declaration to set aside prior sale deeds from 1978 and 1984 executed by their father, the natural guardian. The Court, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Murugan vs Kesava Gounder, held that the sale executed by a natural guardian is voidable, not void, and must be explicitly challenged within the statutory period. Since the plaintiffs did not seek to set aside the sale deeds, their suit was not maintainable and was dismissed [Paras 11-15].

Limitation Act – Article 60 – Failure to Challenge Sale Deeds within Three Years – Suit Barred – Under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, a suit to set aside a sale by a guardian must be filed within three years after the plaintiff attains majority. In this case, one of the plaintiffs, Satpal Gir, failed to challenge the sale within the prescribed period, making his claim time-barred. The finding of the First Appellate Court on this issue was upheld, and Satpal’s suit for 1/3rd share was dismissed [Paras 6-7].

Bona Fide Purchasers – Equitable Relief – Legal and Equitable Balance Favors Bona Fide Purchasers – The appellants, having purchased the property in good faith and for valuable consideration, were deemed bona fide purchasers. The Court emphasized that in cases involving disputes between bona fide purchasers and plaintiffs asserting pre-emption rights, equity leans in favor of the bona fide purchasers. Both on legal grounds and principles of equity, the suit was dismissed, and the appellants' ownership was upheld [Paras 14-15].

Judgment Set Aside – Lack of Challenge to Sale Deeds Fatal to Plaintiffs' Case – The First Appellate Court’s ruling, which had granted possession to the plaintiffs without requiring them to seek a declaration to set aside the sale deeds, was found to be contrary to settled legal principles. The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit in toto for failure to challenge the sale deeds [Paras 15-16].

Decision – The Regular Second Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The suit for possession filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed entirely [Paras 15-16].

Fraud Classification – RBI Master Circular – Natural Justice – The petitioner company sought to quash PNB's action of declaring its account as 'fraud' without prior notice or hearing – The court held that the declaration of the petitioner's account as fraud, without following the principles of natural justice, violated RBI guidelines – Held: The petitioner was neither given a chance to respond nor was the fraud declaration substantiated through proper procedure, making the declaration invalid [Paras 18-21].

Suspension of Credit Facilities – Illegal Action – The court quashed SBI's letter suspending the petitioner's credit facilities based on PNB's fraud classification – It was held that since the fraud declaration itself was invalid, the consequent suspension of credit facilities by SBI could not stand – Held: The suspension of credit facilities was unlawful and must be reversed [Paras 19, 22].

Compensation for Damages – Costs Imposed – The court acknowledged the financial loss and reputational damage suffered by the petitioner due to PNB's wrongful action – As compensation, PNB was ordered to pay Rs. 5,00,000 to the petitioner, failing which an 18% per annum interest would apply from the date of filing the petition [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Petition allowed – The court directed PNB to remove the petitioner's account from the fraud list and notify RBI and SBI accordingly – SBI was instructed to restore the petitioner's credit facilities [Paras 22-24].

Customs Law – Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) – Interest on Delayed Refund – The petitioner sought interest at 6% per annum on the delayed refund of SAD under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 – The refund application was filed on 04 August 2014, and despite multiple remands and delays, the refund was sanctioned only in 2024 – Held: The interest should be calculated from 04 August 2014, the date of the original refund application, and not from 08 August 2022, as contended by the respondent – The petitioner is entitled to interest at 6% per annum for the delay in refund [Paras 2-5, 18-23].

Section 27A of Customs Act – Interpretation – The court rejected the respondent's argument that the interest period should begin only from the petitioner's subsequent request for refund on 08 August 2022 – Held: Section 27A provides for interest on delayed refunds starting from three months after the receipt of the original refund application, not from a later follow-up application [Paras 28-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – The respondent was directed to pay Rs. 421,940 as interest on the delayed refund within two months, failing which interest at 8% per annum would apply – Costs of Rs. 15,000 were also awarded to the petitioner [Paras 40-45].

Land Revenue Law – Validity of Sale Deed – Ownership of Tribal Land – The petitioner challenged the orders of the revenue courts declaring his sale deed null and void under Section 170(B) of the MPLR Code on the grounds that the land originally belonged to an individual from a Scheduled Tribe – Held: The petitioner failed to provide evidence of the allotment of land to Pandri, who sold the land to him – The case is remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) to allow the petitioner to submit the allotment proceedings and prove ownership of Pandri, which was not placed before the revenue courts earlier – Orders of the revenue courts quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 10-20].

Res Judicata – Civil Court Findings on Title – The petitioner argued that a prior civil court decision granting him permanent injunction would preclude the respondents from claiming the land under Section 170(B) of the MPLR Code – Held: The civil court’s findings on ownership, while granting an injunction, do not operate as res judicata because the appellate court refused to consider the petitioner’s amendment application seeking declaration of title due to jurisdictional limitations under Section 257 of the MPLR Code – The revenue court’s decision on title must be reconsidered without being influenced by the prior civil court's findings [Paras 12-18].

Opportunity to Prove Title – Allotment Proceedings – The court allowed the petitioner to present the allotment proceedings to prove that the land was lawfully acquired by Pandri, from whom the petitioner purchased the land – The SDO is directed to reopen the case and decide on the petitioner’s claim in light of these new documents [Paras 20-21].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed – The orders passed by the SDO, Collector, and Board of Revenue are quashed – The case is remanded to the SDO, Chhindwara for fresh adjudication with directions to consider the allotment proceedings to determine whether the land falls under Section 170(B) of the MPLR Code – Parties to appear before the SDO on 13/11/2024 – No order as to costs [Paras 19-23].

Contract Law – Breach of Compromise Agreement – Liquidated Damages Awarded – The plaintiff claimed recovery of ₹3.5 crore, asserting that the defendant breached an agreement by filing a criminal complaint despite receiving ₹3 crore as part of the settlement – Held: The defendant breached the contract by filing a police complaint, violating Clause 4 of the compromise agreement, which stipulated the return of ₹3 crore in case of any action against the plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to liquidated damages of ₹3 crore, as the breach caused inconvenience and humiliation – The sum was found to be a genuine pre-estimate of damages [Paras 46-51].

Criminal Complaint Filed Despite Settlement – Consequences on Contractual Obligations – Defendant's filing of an FIR against the plaintiff, despite receiving settlement amounts, constituted a breach of the settlement agreement – The defendant failed to appear and provide legitimate justification for filing the complaint after accepting the settlement, reinforcing the breach of contract [Paras 43-45].

Liquidated Damages – Compensation under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act – The return of ₹3 crore was upheld as liquidated damages under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, as the plaintiff faced mental agony and inconvenience due to the breach – Plaintiff awarded ₹3 crore with interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of recovery [Paras 47-53].

Decision: The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of ₹3 crore with interest at 4% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of payment – The claim for ₹50 lakhs is rejected – The defendant no.2 is not held liable under the agreement – Costs awarded to the plaintiff [Paras 52-57].

Family Law – Guardianship – Jurisdiction of Family Court – The appellant, Amit Dhansing Jagtap & Ors., challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Navsari, which rejected their application under Exh.14 – The custody of minor Varad was disputed between the father and maternal grandparents after the death of the mother – Appellants claimed that Varad resided in Maharashtra, making Navsari Court incompetent – The court held that the issue of whether Navsari was the ordinary place of residence of the child needed further factual inquiry and could not be determined solely on past residence in Navsari – Order quashed and remanded to the Family Court for re-consideration [Paras 5-9].

Interpretation of "Ordinarily Resides" – The Family Court relied on the father's claim that Varad was forcibly taken to Pune by the maternal grandparents and that his past residence was at Navsari – Appellants argued that Varad had been residing in Maharashtra since his mother's death – The High Court emphasized that the term "ordinarily resides" under Section 9 of the Guardians & Wards Act must be determined based on a factual inquiry, considering both the child's welfare and actual place of residence before custody was contested [Paras 8.9-8.12].

Welfare of the Child – The court reiterated that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, and the factual situation, including the forced removal and current residence, should guide jurisdictional determinations – The case was sent back for the Family Court to decide the issue afresh, with the current custody arrangement (with maternal grandparents) remaining until further orders [Paras 8.12-9].

Decision: First Appeal No. 1268 of 2023 allowed – Order of Family Court quashed – Case remanded for fresh consideration of jurisdiction – First Appeal No. 4464 of 2023 not pressed by the respondent-father and dismissed accordingly – Family Court directed to expedite proceedings and decide within six months [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of BNSS – The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving an assault on the complainant due to political rivalry – The complainant suffered grievous injuries, including a dislocated shoulder – The petitioners argued that the delay in filing the FIR and the complainant's choice of a distant hospital raised doubts about the case – Held: The delay in filing the FIR was justified as the complainant first sought medical treatment – The serious nature of the injuries and specific overt acts alleged against the petitioners weighed against granting anticipatory bail [Paras 1-20].

Overt Acts – The court noted that the petitioners were accused of picking up sticks and beating the victim, causing significant injuries – These specific allegations, supported by medical evidence, disproved the petitioners' claim that there were no overt acts alleged against them [Paras 21-30].

Political Motive – Both parties belonged to rival political factions, and the court recognized the political motive behind the attack – However, this motive did not diminish the severity of the offense or the gravity of the injuries sustained by the complainant [Paras 31-40].

Decision: Both criminal petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed.