Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Public Servant – Abuse of Position – Petitioner, a former Tahsildar, accused of illegally and hastily converting forest land for industrial use without due compliance of rules and forest clearance – Allegations supported by official enquiry and statements under Section 161 CrPC – Held: No mala fide in registration of FIR – Disciplinary exoneration cannot override findings in criminal proceedings – Petition dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 13–14, 19–22]

Corruption – PC Act – Section 13(1)(d) – Dishonest Intent – Petitioner argued that he acted in good faith relying on Revenue Inspector’s report and gained no pecuniary advantage – Court held: Conversion order passed with undue haste before bifurcation of Tahasil; lack of direct pecuniary benefit irrelevant when favour is conferred without public interest – Prima facie case made out for trial – No grounds for quashing [Paras 5, 15–16, 18]

Criminal Procedure – Standard of Proof – Disciplinary Proceedings vs Criminal Prosecution – Petitioner exonerated in departmental proceedings on ground of good faith – Court held: Disciplinary findings not binding on criminal court – Proceedings based on separate legal standards – No bar on continuation of trial [Paras 6, 19, 21]

Forest Conservation Act – Section 3B – Liability of Government Officials – Petitioner as Tahsildar held liable for illegal conversion without prior forest clearance – Held: Conversion granted without due diligence and verification; allegations support culpability under FC Act – No ground to interfere under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 2–4, 18]

Inherent Powers – Abuse of Process – Delay in Trial – Petitioner claimed continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of court’s process – Court held: Long pendency alone not ground for quashing where material indicates commission of cognizable offence – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 13, 22–24]

Decision: Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed – FIR, chargesheet and pending proceedings in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 53 of 2010 (TR Case No. 08 of 2018) to continue – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

Motor Vehicles Act – Injury Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Partial Disability – Reassessment of Income – Application of Multiplier Method – Claimant aged 23 years, final year engineering student, sustained fracture of left scapula with brachial plexus injury resulting in 25% permanent partial disability – Tribunal awarded compensation based on minimum wages – High Court held that mechanical adoption of minimum wages is impermissible where claimant is academically qualified with clear future earning potential – Monthly income reassessed at ₹20,000 – Future prospects @ 40% added – Multiplier of 18 rightly applied considering age – Loss of future earning recalculated on basis of functional disability – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 9–16, 27].

Disability – Functional Impact – Loss of Earning Capacity – Disability percentage certified by doctor cannot automatically be equated with loss of earning capacity – Court must assess functional disability having regard to nature of injuries, profession, age and prospects – Claimant’s upper limb movement compromised permanently – Tribunal erred in undervaluing impact of disability on future earning – Functional loss assessed at 15% for computation of future income loss [Paras 6, 18, 27].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – Human Dignity – Permanent disability not only causes physical impairment but also lifelong pain, mental agony and loss of dignity – Claimant hospitalized and suffered permanent weakness of limb not likely to improve – Tribunal awarded meagre amount – Following Supreme Court jurisprudence, pain and suffering enhanced to ₹3,00,000 – Separate compensation awarded for loss of amenities of life [Paras 16–20, 26–27].

Attendant Charges – Requirement of Assistance – Reasonable Lump Sum – Claimant suffered grievous injuries requiring assistance in daily activities – Tribunal failed to grant adequate attendant charges – Though disability not 100%, claimant entitled to reasonable attendant expenses – Attendant charges awarded as lump sum ₹30,000 keeping in view age, disability and nature of injuries [Paras 21–22].

Loss of Marriage Prospects – Young Claimant – Non-Pecuniary Loss – Claimant was 23 years old at time of accident – Tribunal failed to consider impact of permanent disability on matrimonial prospects – Loss of marriage prospects recognized as distinct head of compensation in injury cases – Award of ₹2,00,000 granted under this head as just and reasonable [Paras 23–25, 27].

Transportation, Special Diet and Future Medical Expenses – Inadequate Award by Tribunal – Tribunal awarded meagre or no amounts under these heads – High Court enhanced compensation towards transportation, special diet and future medical expenses considering prolonged treatment and continuing disability [Paras 26–27].

Interest – Rate – Exclusion of Delay Period – Enhanced compensation directed to carry interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Period of delay of 388 days in filing appeal excluded from interest computation as undertaken by appellant – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months [Paras 28–29].

Recovery Rights – Insurer’s Liberty – Insurance Company granted right to recover enhanced compensation from owner and driver of offending vehicle in accordance with Tribunal award [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.04.2024 modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹16,67,200 – Enhanced amount payable ₹11,16,200 with interest @ 9% per annum (excluding delay period) – Directions issued for deposit, disbursement and recovery.

Land Law – Common Land – Applicability of J&K Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956 – Section 1(4) of the Act expressly excludes applicability of the Act to areas declared as Municipalities – Land in question situated within Municipal Council, Udhampur – Respondents themselves admitted non-applicability of the Act – Held: Invocation of Common Lands Act, 1956 for passing impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction [Paras 11–12].

Writ Jurisdiction – Administrative Action – Lack of Statutory Authority – Impugned order directing seizure of building material and lodging of FIR passed by relying upon inapplicable statute – Action taken without affording opportunity of hearing – Held: Order unsustainable being arbitrary and dehors statutory powers [Paras 3, 11, 13].

Supreme Court Directions – Scope – Jagpal Singh Case – Directions in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 applicable only to Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Shamlat/Poramboke land – Land falling within municipal limits and recorded as proprietary land does not fall within said category – Held: Supreme Court directions wrongly applied [Paras 11–13].

Revenue Records – Gair Mumkin Talai – Proprietary Rights – Though land recorded as Gair Mumkin Talai, revenue record showed ownership of private individuals including respondent No.6 – Mere description as Gair Mumkin Talai does not automatically convert land into common or Panchayat land – Restrictions on alienation do not negate ownership [Paras 2, 13].

Seizure of Property – Third Party Rights – Petitioner did not claim ownership over land – Building material stored with consent of recorded owner – Even assuming violation, action could lie only against landowner and not against petitioner – Held: Seizure and FIR direction against petitioner unjustified [Paras 13–14].

Municipal / Water Resources Law – Plea Raised Without Action – Contention that land vests in Government or Municipal Council under Municipal Act or Water Resources Act unsupported by revenue entries or prior proceedings – Held: Such plea cannot sustain impugned action; liberty reserved to authorities to proceed under appropriate law if permissible [Para 15].

Relief – Release of Seized Property – Prayer for release of seized material rendered infructuous as material already released pursuant to earlier court directions – Writ petition confined to legality of impugned order [Para 10].

Decision: Impugned order dated 04.03.2017 quashed – Action taken under Common Lands Act held illegal – Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated.

Criminal Law – Section 323 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Conviction Unsustainable in Absence of Medical Evidence – Appellants convicted under Section 323 IPC – No medical evidence or doctor's testimony produced – No proof of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity as defined under Section 319 IPC – Held: Failure to prove nature and extent of injuries renders prosecution case incomplete – Benefit of doubt must be extended to accused [Paras 6–10]

Witness Testimony – Uncorroborated and Uncross-Examined Injured Witnesses – P.W.1 and P.W.4 claimed to be injured but not cross-examined – Absence of corroboration through medical report and lack of specific attribution of role to each accused – Held: Mere oral allegations without supporting evidence insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 323 IPC [Paras 7–10]

Non-Examination of Investigating Officer – Effect on Prosecution – Investigating Officer not examined – No contradictions elicited from witnesses – Held: While not fatal per se, non-examination of IO when combined with other lapses (absence of medical proof, general allegations) cumulatively weakens prosecution case [Paras 4, 6, 8–10]

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to prove individual culpability of each accused – No clear evidence linking specific acts of assault to particular accused – Held: Prosecution evidence vague and non-specific – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted giving benefit of doubt [Paras 10–11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2007 passed by Special Judge, Keonjhar in Special Case No. 19 of 1999 set aside – Accused-appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal appeal disposed of.

Arbitration Law – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Limited Judicial Review – Petition seeking setting aside of arbitral award directing borrower and guarantor to jointly and severally pay amounts exceeding Rs.43 crores with interest – Court reiterated that Section 34 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or appellate review – Award to be interfered with only if grounds under Section 34 are strictly made out [Paras 20, 39–40].

Arbitration Law – Proof of Debt – Alleged Dispensation with Burden of Proof – Challenge based on arbitral finding that borrower had “almost admitted” the claim – Court held that award must be read holistically – Statement of Defence of borrower admitted sanction of facilities, execution of guarantee and liability to repay – Use of expression “almost admitted” not perverse – Debt duly established on record – No patent illegality found [Paras 21–23].

Arbitration Law – Delay in Pronouncement of Award – Effect on Validity – Award challenged on ground of inordinate delay between conclusion of arguments and pronouncement – Court relying on Lancor Holdings Ltd. v. Prem Kumar Menon held that mere delay is not a standalone ground under Section 34 – Delay must be unexplained and must adversely reflect on findings – Petitioner himself contributed to delay by filing multiple applications – No prejudice demonstrated – Award not vitiated [Paras 24–33].

Arbitration Law – Guarantee – Novation / Variation of Contract – Plea that enhancement of credit limits discharged guarantor rejected – Arbitral Tribunal found that petitioner, as Director, himself signed applications for enhancement – Deed of Guarantee expressly covered enhanced limits and was unconditional, continuing and irrevocable – No novation or material alteration without consent established – Findings neither perverse nor contrary to law [Paras 34–38].

Arbitration Law – Reasoned Award – Adequacy of Reasons – Contention that arbitral tribunal adopted a casual and cavalier approach rejected – Court held that adequacy or elaborateness of reasons cannot be examined under Section 34 – As long as reasons are discernible and conclusions are intelligible, award cannot be set aside – Arbitral Tribunal is not required to write a judgment like a court [Paras 39–43].

Arbitration Law – Interim Applications – Non-decision – Natural Justice – Allegation that several interim applications were not decided rejected – Court found that applications related to belated and inconsistent plea of forgery after admission of guarantee – Applications either expressly dealt with in the award or implicitly rejected – Petitioner responsible for procedural delays – No violation of natural justice made out [Paras 44–53].

Arbitration Law – Conduct of Party – Abuse of Process – Court noted repeated attempts by petitioner to delay proceedings and evade liability after actively invoking arbitration – Filing of Section 34 petition held to be another attempt to avoid repayment of admitted dues [Paras 30, 52–54].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award dated 4 April 2024 upheld – No further costs imposed considering award of arbitral costs and interest already granted – Petition dismissed accordingly [Paras 54–56].

Co-operative Law – Review Jurisdiction – Reference to Larger Bench – Review petition filed against judgment restoring money decree passed by Co-operative Court – Review based on subsequent coordinate Bench decision holding that Co-operative Courts lack jurisdiction for recovery above ₹10 lakh – Court held that issue raises substantial questions of law requiring authoritative determination – Matter referred to larger Bench instead of deciding review on merits [Paras 1, 75–79].

Banking Law – Co-operative Banks – Applicability of RDB Act – Core issue whether State co-operative banks fall within definition of “bank” under Sections 2(d) and 2(e) of RDB Act – Petitioner relying on Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule contended that co-operative banks are banking companies and must approach DRT exclusively – Respondents contended that said judgment was confined to SARFAESI Act and did not extend RDB Act to State co-operative banks – Court held issue remains unresolved [Paras 2, 33–48].

Jurisdiction – Conflict between Central and State Laws – Section 91 MCS Act vs. Sections 17 & 18 RDB Act – Whether recovery proceedings by State co-operative banks before Co-operative Courts stand barred by RDB Act – Court noted absence of express inclusion of State co-operative banks under RDB Act, contrasted with express inclusion of multi-State co-operative banks – Held that jurisdictional exclusion cannot be conclusively determined without larger Bench ruling [Paras 49–71].

Constitutional Law – Legislative Competence – Entries 45 List I and 32 List II – Banking and recovery of bank dues fall under Entry 45 (Union List), while co-operative societies fall under Entry 32 (State List) – Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule weakened constitutional foundation of Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank but did not expressly overrule its conclusions on RDB Act – Striking down of Part IX-B in Rajendra N. Shah further complicates analysis – Issue held fit for reference [Paras 72–75].

Precedent – Overruling by Implication – Limits – Court reiterated that judgments cannot be treated as overruled by implication unless irreconcilable conflict exists on same issue – Held that Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule does not expressly overrule Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank on applicability of RDB Act – Coordinate Bench decision in Washim Urban raises debatable legal position [Paras 22–48].

Procedure – Reference under Appellate Side Rules – Exercising powers under Chapter I Rule 8 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, Court referred substantial question of law to Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench – Review petition to remain pending till reference is answered [Paras 76–79].

Decision: Question of law referred to larger Bench – Review Petition kept pending – Registry directed to place papers before Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Matter to be decided in accordance with law laid down by larger Bench [Paras 76–79].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance pendente lite – Section 24 HMA – Non-earning wife residing at parental home – Absence of ITRs and expense bills – Effect of Rajnesh guidelines – Prior MoU cannot override statutory right – Interim maintenance upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–25].

Maintenance – Pendente Lite – Section 24 HMA – Nature and object – Proceedings are summary in nature – Intended to provide immediate financial support to dependent spouse during pendency of matrimonial litigation – Court to take a prima facie view on available material and husband’s admitted income – Hyper-technical insistence on documents cannot defeat substantive right of maintenance [Paras 16–17, 24].

Maintenance – Guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha – Scope and applicability – Requirement of income affidavits and ITRs aimed at transparency and preventing concealment of income – Non-earning spouse or spouse with income below taxable limit not mandatorily required to file ITRs – Absence of ITRs, in such cases, corroborates claim of nil income rather than disproving it – Family Court not bound to insist on impossible compliance [Paras 16(i), 23].

Maintenance – Assessment of wife’s independent income – Bank transactions and savings – Isolated transaction and existence of mutual fund investments insufficient to infer steady or sufficient income – Financial assistance or transactions with family members natural when wife resides at parental home after separation – No proof of gainful employment or regular income placed on record – Maintenance cannot be denied on conjectures [Paras 18–20].

Maintenance – Prior settlement / MoU – Effect – Agreement entered years prior to litigation cannot override statutory right under Section 24 HMA – Maintenance pendente lite depends on present needs of wife and child and husband’s capacity to pay – Alleged MoU does not bar court from awarding interim maintenance, particularly when wife alleges coercion and circumstances have changed [Para 21].

Maintenance for child – Supervision over utilisation – Request for joint bank account – Held, issues relating to guardianship, custody or supervision fall outside scope of appeal against order granting maintenance pendente lite – Appellate court not required to introduce custodial oversight while determining quantum of interim maintenance [Para 22].

Appellate interference – Interim maintenance orders – Scope – Unless order is shown to be illegal, perverse or arbitrary, appellate court will not interfere – Family Court’s assessment based on husband’s admitted income and needs of wife and child found reasonable – No perversity or illegality established [Paras 23–25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Interim maintenance order upheld – All interim orders vacated – Appellant directed to clear arrears within one month – Pending applications closed [Paras 25–26].

Civil Law - Compromise Decree – Corporate authority – Alleged transfer of control under Share Purchase Agreement – Fraud on Court pleaded after decade-long delay – Prior execution findings negating fraud and collusion – Compromise lawful and binding – Recall rightly refused – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–50].

Company Law – Corporate Control – Share Purchase Agreement – Mere execution of SPA does not effect transfer of management or control – Statutory compliances under Companies Act and actual assumption of management essential – Absence of Form 32 filings, failure to convene meetings or take charge negates plea of transfer of control – “Alter ego” doctrine applied – Persons in de facto and de jure control bind the company [Paras 17–26].

Civil Procedure – Compromise Decree – Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Authority to compromise – Where statutory records and conduct show continuance of existing management, compromise entered by such management valid and binding – Subsequent claim of lack of authority by alleged transferee not accepted in absence of statutory recognition [Paras 25–29].

Fraud on Court – High threshold – Allegations of fraud must be clear, specific and supported by cogent evidence – Subsequent police report or speculative assertions regarding consideration insufficient to vitiate judicially recorded compromise – Earlier execution court findings rejecting plea of fraud and collusion carry significant weight [Paras 30–35, 43–44].

Execution Proceedings – Obstructionist claims – Failure to prove possession, mortgage or charge – Absence of books of account, balance sheets or statutory compliance under Companies Act and Transfer of Property Act – Obstructionist deriving claim from judgment debtor must “go with” judgment debtor – Compromise decree not undermined on such basis [Paras 35–42].

Delay and Acquiescence – Recall of compromise decree – Knowledge of decree and participation in execution proceedings through related entity – Recall application filed more than a decade later – Long acquiescence and repeated failed challenges undermine bona fides – Recall barred by limitation and conduct [Paras 45–49].

Appellate Interference – Scope – Where Single Judge has considered statutory records, prior adjudications and applied settled principles on fraud and corporate authority, no perversity or illegality warranting interference found [Paras 44–50].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 17.03.2025 upheld – Compromise decree dated 28.03.2003 held lawful and binding – All pending applications dismissed [Paras 49–50].

Succession – Validity of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Will executed by Satya Narayan Joshi (father) in favour of one son and his family excluding other legal heirs was challenged in a partition suit – Will was executed during pendency of suit but no pleading or statement filed by testator in court supporting it – Execution witnesses gave contradictory evidence regarding presence, registration, and awareness of contents by testator – Held: Execution of Will not proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act and Sections 68 & 69 of the Evidence Act – Concurrent finding that Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17–20].

Succession – Disinheritance of Legal Heirs – Father’s Will excluded daughters and children of predeceased son – No justification or strained relations pleaded – No medical evidence regarding mental state of 89-year-old testator – Court held exclusion without reason raises strong suspicion – Execution not free from doubt – Held: Bequest to only one branch of family without clear reasoning renders Will invalid in law [Paras 17–20].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – High Court admitted second appeal framing four substantial questions regarding necessity of strained relationship in Will, satisfaction for bequest, proof through one attesting witness, and claim for reimbursement for house construction – Held: All questions intertwined with factual findings of validity of Will – Concurrent findings supported by law and evidence – No perversity or legal error – Appeal fails [Paras 11, 15, 20–21].

Evidence Law – Attesting Witness – Requirements – Only one attesting witness examined who failed to confirm joint presence and acknowledgment of signature by testator – Scribe did not identify attesting witnesses or confirm testator’s intent – Held: Legal requirements under Section 68 not satisfied – Mere registration of Will not sufficient – Will not proved [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Will dated 28.01.1993 (Ext.A) not proved – Plaintiffs entitled to 1/4th share in suit properties as legal heirs of deceased son of testator.