Civil Law – Accident Claim - Negligence in Driving – Proof of Rash and Negligent Driving – Compensation Awarded – The appellant argued that the accident occurred due to a blue cow crossing the road, which was beyond the driver’s control. However, the Court held that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently at high speed during nighttime, as corroborated by an eyewitness and the conductor’s admission of high speed. The appellant failed to produce the driver as a witness. Consequently, the tribunal’s finding of negligent driving was upheld. [Paras 12-13]

Dependency of Father – Legal Principles and Evidence – Compensation Upheld – The appellant contended that the father of the deceased could not be considered a dependent without proof. The Court, relying on the evidence presented, found that the claimant-father had no independent income and was residing with the deceased along with his wife. The Court held that the father was dependent on the deceased, and the dependency was not effectively challenged during cross-examination. The finding of dependency was upheld. [Paras 14-16]

Multiplier Application – Error Corrected – Multiplier of 16 Applied – The tribunal applied a multiplier of 17 for the deceased, aged 33 years. The Court, relying on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, held that the correct multiplier for the age group of 31-35 years was 16. Accordingly, the multiplier was reduced to 16, and the award was modified. [Paras 18-19]

Future Prospects – 50% Enhancement Applied – Tribunal's Omission Corrected – The Court found that the tribunal failed to award 50% enhancement towards future prospects for the deceased, who was in a permanent job and below 40 years of age, as mandated by Pranay Sethi. The Court applied the enhancement, increasing the compensation. [Paras 24-25]

Interest on Future Prospects – Entitlement Recognized – The Court held that interest is payable on the entire compensation, including the component of future prospects, as the future prospects form an integral part of the compensation. This decision was supported by precedents from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other High Courts. The interest rate was enhanced from 7% to 9% per annum. [Paras 27-38]

Just Compensation – Duty of Tribunal and Courts – Enhanced – Emphasizing that the Motor Vehicles Act is a welfare legislation, the Court reiterated that tribunals and courts have a duty to award “just compensation” irrespective of the specific claims made by the parties. Accordingly, the award was revised to Rs.50,35,456/- with 9% interest. [Paras 20-23]

Criminal Law - Juvenile Justice – Bail Application – Expedited Consideration Sought – Interim Measures Permissible - The petitioner, a juvenile, sought a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide his bail application on the same day of surrender – Held: A juvenile should not be unnecessarily detained in an observation home pending a bail decision – As per Sections 10(2) and 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, if bail is not refused, juveniles may be placed in the custody of parents/guardians instead of being sent to observation homes – Decision: Petition allowed with a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to consider the bail application on the same day of surrender [Paras 6-8, 10].

Juvenile in Conflict with Law – Custody Pending Bail Proceedings – Non-Mandatory Detention in Observation Home - The Juvenile Justice Act provides that juveniles may be placed under parental or guardian custody pending bail proceedings, especially when offences are not heinous – Held: Sending the juvenile to an observation home should not be automatic and must only follow a bail rejection order – Juvenile Justice Board may ascertain antecedents through probation officer reports without mandatory detention – Decision: Petition disposed of with specific directions to the Board [Paras 6-10].

Juvenile Justice Board Procedure – Probation Officer Reports – Permissible Interim Custody - The Court clarified that while the Board may obtain probation officer reports for assessing antecedents, such procedural steps should not result in unwarranted detention – Instead, interim custody with parents or guardians is permissible under Rule 9 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules – Decision: Juvenile to be placed under parental custody if bail is not refused on the same day [Paras 7-9].
Decision: The Juvenile Justice Board, Madurai, is directed to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day of surrender. The Board is further instructed to avoid sending the juvenile to an observation home unless bail is specifically rejected, and interim custody with parents/guardians is not feasible. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
 

Permanent Injunction – Possession in Dispute – Ownership Not Established – Suit Dismissed – In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiffs must establish possession independent of ownership – Concurrent findings by both the Trial and Appellate Courts demonstrated that the plaintiffs failed to prove possession or ownership over the suit property, as the defendants were found to be in occupation and use of the property – The High Court upheld the dismissal of the suit, holding that the findings were supported by evidence [Paras 6-8].

Vacant Land – Presumption of Possession with Ownership – Not Applicable in Presence of Contradictory Evidence – Injunction Denied – The argument that possession follows ownership for vacant land was rejected, as evidence showed the land had constructions used by the defendants – Courts emphasized the need for concrete proof of possession in such cases – Appeal dismissed due to lack of such proof [Para 7].

Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – High Court held that no substantial question of law arose as both lower courts provided well-reasoned judgments based on evidence – Regular second appeal dismissed for being devoid of merit [Para 8].

Criminal Law – Passport Renewal – Pending Criminal Case – Permission Granted – Petitioner sought renewal of passport amid trial under Sections 498-A IPC and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Trial Court dismissed application citing risk of non-return and trial impediment – High Court reversed, allowing renewal upon compliance with terms – Court noted petitioner’s established employment, history of foreign travel for professional obligations, and absence of evidence suggesting flight risk [Paras 4–7].

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of Judicial Discretion – Arbitrariness – Trial Court’s refusal to grant NOC for passport renewal deemed arbitrary – Court failed to consider petitioner’s employment and prior adherence to return obligations – Discretion re-evaluated and corrected [Paras 7–8].

Conditions for Travel – Limited Duration and Reporting Back – Permission to travel abroad granted from 13/12/2024 to 17/12/2024 for professional meeting, with a direction to furnish itinerary in advance and return to India by the end of December 2024 – Reporting to Magistrate mandated [Paras 7–8].

Precedent – Notification and Case Law – Renewal of Passport Permissible – Principles laid down in Chapala Venugopal v. Union of India and Khadar Valli Shaik’s Case applied – Pendency of criminal proceedings alone insufficient to deny renewal, subject to compliance with notification dated 25/08/1993 [Para 5].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Trial Court's order dated 17/10/2024 set aside – Application for passport renewal and travel permission granted with conditions – Petitioner to submit travel details to the concerned Magistrate and ensure timely return [Paras 8].

Transfer of Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Distinct Causes of Action – Transfer Denied – The petitioner sought transfer of two rent petitions, one under Section 13-B (NRI eviction) and the other under Section 13 (non-payment of rent), to the same court. The Court held that although the premises in dispute were the same, the causes of action were distinct, and the applicable procedures were entirely different. Hence, the transfer was not warranted. [Paras 6-7, 9]

Summary Nature of Section 13-B Eviction Proceedings – Special Procedure under Section 18-A – Transfer Not Justified – Proceedings under Section 13-B of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act are to be conducted summarily as per the procedure laid down in Section 18-A of the Act, whereas proceedings under Section 13 follow a regular trial process. The Court emphasized that the difference in the nature and procedure of the two petitions militated against their consolidation. [Paras 6, 8]

Convenience of Parties – No Common or Joint Issues Between Petitions – Convenience Not a Ground for Transfer – The petitioner argued that transferring the petitions to the same court would be convenient for both parties. The Court rejected this argument, observing that the two petitions were based on different causes of action and involved no overlapping issues or potential conflicts in judicial findings. [Para 6]

Non-Payment of Rent vs. NRI Eviction Rights – Distinct Grounds – The rent petition under Section 13-B was based on the special right of eviction granted to NRIs, while the petition under Section 13 was based on non-payment of rent. The Court held that these grounds are distinct and unrelated, further justifying the decision to keep the proceedings separate. [Paras 5-6]

Tenant's Obligation Under Section 18-A – Summary Procedure in NRI Cases – Section 18-A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act mandates a summary procedure for Section 13-B petitions. The Court highlighted that the tenant's application to contest such petitions must meet specific procedural requirements, and the matter could not be equated with proceedings under Section 13, which involve a full-fledged trial. [Paras 6, 8]

Decision – The Court upheld the District Judge's order refusing the transfer of proceedings. It found that the transfer application lacked merit and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. [Para 9]

Administrative Law – Adherence to Guidelines – Population Categorization – HPCL's Rejection of Offer Land – Petitioner challenged rejection of land offered for retail outlet dealership under HPCL, citing reliance on outdated Census 2011 data for categorizing the area as a rural stretch – HPCL relied on NHAI guidelines mandating Census 2011 as the reference for population assessment – Held: NHAI guidelines are binding, and local panchayat certification of population is not an authoritative substitute for Census data [Paras 14–16].

Land Evaluation – Compliance with Brochure and NHAI Guidelines – Petitioner argued that the offered land satisfies urban stretch requirements, considering the current population – Court upheld HPCL's reliance on specified norms in the selection brochure and NHAI guidelines, rejecting deviation based on local certificates – Brochure norms upheld as binding [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Rejection of offer land by HPCL upheld as compliant with NHAI guidelines and selection brochure – No interference warranted with the impugned memo dated 22/04/2022 [Paras 17–18].

Arbitration - Maintainability of Appeal – Section 37(2)(a), Arbitration Act – Procedural Orders Not Appealable – Appeal Dismissed - The Appellant sought relief under Section 37(2)(a), asserting that the rejection of its Counter-Claim by the Sole Arbitrator amounted to declining jurisdiction – Held: Procedural orders, including refusal to condone delay in filing a Counter-Claim, do not qualify as decisions under Section 16(2) or (3) of the Arbitration Act, and hence are not appealable under Section 37(2)(a) – Appellant directed to await the final award or pursue independent arbitration proceedings – Appeal Dismissed [Paras 8.1-8.11, 10.3].

Counter-Claim – Procedural Rejection – Not an Interim Award – Appellant’s Rights Unaffected - The Counter-Claim was not adjudicated on its merits or limitation but was excluded for procedural delay – Such exclusion does not constitute an ‘Interim Award’ under Section 2(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act and is not challengeable under Section 34 – Appellant retains the right to pursue independent arbitration – Appeal Dismissed [Paras 9, 10.3].

Tribunal’s Procedural Powers – Section 19 of Arbitration Act – Arbitrator’s Discretion – Procedural discretion exercised by the Sole Arbitrator under Section 19, including adherence to pre-decided schedules, cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse or outside jurisdiction – Held: Arbitrator rightly refused to condone delay in filing Counter-Claim to avoid procedural disruption in the final stage of proceedings – Appeal Dismissed [Paras 5.6, 8.6, 8.10].

NDPS - Bail – Prolonged Custody – Concession Allowed – The petitioner, a first-time offender, was in custody since 05.09.2021 with only 09 out of 20 prosecution witnesses examined – Held: Delay in trial and prolonged custody warranted relaxation of Section 37 NDPS Act conditions in light of Article 21 of the Constitution – Bail granted [Paras 9-10].
Judicial Precedents – Applicability to Bail Cases – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act Diluted – Relying on precedents set in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos. 5769/2022, and Hasanujjaman & Others v. State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. 3221/2023, the Court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and extended bail to the petitioner [Paras 6-8].
Bail Conditions – Safeguards Imposed – The petitioner directed to provide monthly reporting at the police station, deposit an FDR of ₹1,00,000 with the Trial Court, and comply with trial requirements to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of bail [Paras 11-12].
Decision – Petition allowed – Bail granted to Balwinder Singh subject to conditions, emphasizing adherence to trial obligations and accountability [Paras 10-13].
 

Public Servant – Necessity of Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 of PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC – Charges Quashed – The petitioner, who was the Sarpanch at the time of the alleged offense, was charged under Sections 13(1)(c)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, and Sections 409 and 467 IPC, for misappropriation of public funds and forgery in connection with the construction of a public facility – Held: Sections 19 of the PC Act and 197 of CrPC mandate prior prosecution sanction before a court can take cognizance of such offenses committed by a public servant in discharge of official duties – In the absence of such sanction, the trial court's decision to frame charges was unsustainable – Framing of charges against petitioner No. 1 was quashed [Paras 19-23].

Reasonable Connection Between Act and Official Duty – Protection Under Section 197 CrPC – The alleged acts had a direct and reasonable nexus with the discharge of the petitioner’s official duties as Sarpanch, making prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC mandatory – It was established that the alleged acts of forgery and misappropriation were committed in the course of performing official functions, thus falling under the protection afforded by Section 197 CrPC [Paras 17-20].

Prosecution Sanction – Safeguard Against Malicious Prosecution – Section 19 of the PC Act is a legislative safeguard to protect public servants from vexatious or frivolous prosecution – The lack of prosecution sanction rendered the proceedings against the petitioner invalid, barring the trial court from framing charges or proceeding further [Paras 21-23].

Decision – Revision petition was partly allowed – Framing of charges against petitioner No. 1 (Kesar Singh) quashed for want of prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC – Dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioners No. 2 (Bhanwar Singh), No. 3 (Mohan Lal Jat), and No. 4 (Rajendra Singh) [Para 24].