Railway Law – Refund of Freight – "Overcharge" vs. "Illegal Charge" – Section 106(3) of the Railways Act, 1989 – NRL booked petroleum products from Numaligarh Refinery Siding (NMGS) during April 2005 to July 2009 — Railways collected both "through distance" charges (9 km) and "siding charges" for the same railway service — Railways admitted the duplication vide letters dated 11.11.2008 and 08.07.2009 and the CGS/NMGS certified Rs. 2,98,22,483/- as refundable vide certificate dated 07.01.2013 — Railways resisted the claim on the ground that notice under Section 106(3) was not served within six months from the date of payment — Held: "Overcharge" means a charge in excess of prescribed rates; where the Railways themselves contend that the siding charges were legal and valid, the charge cannot simultaneously be described as an "overcharge" — a charge that is either illegal or subsequently admitted to be refundable does not attract the mandatory notice requirement under Section 106(3) [Paras 19–21].

Railway Law – Section 106(3) – Applicability Limited to Overcharges – Section 106(3) of the Railways Act, 1989 specifically applies to claims for refund of "overcharges" and uses the words "paid" and "date of payment" — if on the date of payment, the charge was not an overcharge, subsequent events cannot make it one for the purpose of triggering the limitation under Section 106(3) — a fine and clear distinction exists between an "overcharge" and an "illegal charge" — Section 106(3) has no application to claims for refund of illegal charges — Held: The mandatory notice requirement under Section 106(3) does not apply to the present claim [Para 19, relying on Union of India v. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Limited, 2024 INSC 242].

Railway Law – Challenge to Condonation Order Barred by Time – The Railway Claims Tribunal had condoned the delay in filing the claim application vide order dated 21.10.2016 — no challenge was preferred by the Railways against that order within the 90-day period prescribed under Section 23(3) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 — Held: Challenge to the condonation order is hopelessly time-barred and stands repelled [Para 8].

Railway Law – Authenticity of CGS Certificate – Railways Cannot Disown Admissions of Authorised Officials – CGS/NMGS certified the refundable siding charges at Rs. 2,98,22,483/- in 2013 and reaffirmed the same through RTI response in 2017 — Railways sought to deny authenticity by claiming records could not be found — Held: Authenticity of the certificates cannot be disproved by a mere assertion that records are unavailable — Railways cannot abjure responsibility for the actions of their own authorised officials [Paras 25–28].

Railway Law – Interest – Enhancement Refused – NRL in cross-appeal sought enhancement of interest from 6%/9% to 12% per annum — identical issue decided against NRL by a Coordinate Bench in MFA 12/2009 in a similar matter — Tribunal had no specific statutory provision for interest and granted it in exercise of inherent powers — Held: Once the Tribunal has consciously exercised its discretion in granting interest, the same cannot be re-agitated in appeal unless perversity or patent illegality is demonstrated — cross-appeal dismissed [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed — MFA No. 142/2019 filed by Union of India (Railways) dismissed — MFA No. 82/2019 filed by M/s Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. dismissed — Railway Claims Tribunal's order directing refund of siding charges with interest at 6% per annum till date of judgment and 9% per annum thereafter on default, upheld — parties to bear their own costs.

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Perversity – Respondent contractor awarded a work order by ONGC in September 1995 for completion within one month six days — contract rescinded on 13.11.1995 by a letter which the respondent received only on 18.11.1995 — no inquiry conducted prior to rescission to verify the respondent's claim that 97% work was completed — trial court dismissed the suit; First Appellate Court reversed and decreed — in second appeal, question was whether the First Appellate Court committed perversity in holding that 97% work was completed ignoring the time stipulation — Held: Finding of First Appellate Court based on uncontroverted documentary evidence (Exhibits 8, 11, 21 to 527) and absence of any rebuttal evidence by ONGC is not perverse — a finding based on acceptable evidence, howsoever compendious, cannot be interfered with in second appeal [Paras 20–27].

Contract Law – Rescission of Contract – Reasonable Opportunity of Hearing – ONGC rescinded the contract alleging that the respondent had failed to start work, while the respondent had written letters on 10.11.1995 and 13.11.1995 informing about completion of 90-97% of work — notice calling for joint inspection sent on 16.11.1995 and contract rescinded by letter dated 13.11.1995 received by respondent on 18.11.1995, before he could respond — no inquiry conducted by ONGC to verify the extent of work done — Held: Contract rescinded without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and without verifying the respondent's claims — rescission illegal [Para 24].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Party Failing to Enter Witness Box – ONGC as defendant did not adduce any evidence to contradict the plaintiff's case — no witness was examined on behalf of ONGC — Held: When a party does not appear into the witness box and state its own case on oath, a presumption may be drawn that the case set up by it is not correct — uncontroverted evidence of plaintiff stands accepted [Para 17, relying on Vidyadhar v. Manikrao].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Scope – Probative Value of Documents – Questions regarding probative value of documents admitted in evidence are essentially factual — First Appellate Court is the final court on facts — in second appeal, this Court cannot re-examine factual findings unless perversity is established — questions regarding probative value not being substantial questions of law, not gone into [Para 28].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed with costs — Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court (Additional District Judge, Cachar, Silchar) in Title Appeal No. 35/2006 dated 29.08.2011 decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent, confirmed — records of trial court and First Appellate Court to be sent back along with copy of judgment.

Criminal Law – Probation – Grant of Probation to First-Time Offenders – Prolonged Trial – Compromise as One Factor – Accused convicted by Trial Court under Sections 323, 452, 506 and 365 IPC for forcible entry into house and assault on elderly couple — Appellate Court, upon compromise by parties and on consideration of prolonged trial since 1998, no criminal antecedents and reformative purpose of sentencing, released accused on probation for six months — Revision filed on ground that accused failed to honour terms of compromise — Held: Compromise was one of several factors considered by Appellate Court and not the sole basis; other independent considerations including prolonged trial and first-offender status justified probation on legally sustainable grounds independent of the compromise [Paras 18–20].

Probation – Cancellation – Non-Compliance with Compromise – Compromise not Condition of Probation – Failure by convicted persons to comply with terms of a private compromise entered into at the appellate stage does not ipso facto entail cancellation of probation — Order of probation is governed by statutory provisions and judicial discretion and is not contingent on enforcement of private arrangements between parties — Once probation is granted on legally sustainable grounds, it cannot be withdrawn merely on account of alleged breach of compromise [Para 21].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Limitation on Interference – High Court in revision does not sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions — Interference warranted only where there is patent illegality, gross perversity, material irregularity or manifest miscarriage of justice — No such infirmity found in concurrent orders of courts below — Moreover, 11 years having elapsed since release on probation without violation, interference would be inequitable [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed — Order of the Appellate Court granting probation upheld — Copy of order directed to be sent to High Court Legal Services Committee [Paras 23–27].

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – CRPF – Absence of Departmental Enquiry – Petitioners, Constables (GD) in the 39th Battalion CRPF, dismissed w.e.f. 09.11.2009 by invoking Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27-CC(ii) of the CRPF Rules, 1955, on the basis of FIR No. 12/2009 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 506-B and 307 IPC – Disciplinary authority formed opinion that regular departmental enquiry was not reasonably practicable and no enquiry was held – No witness examined, no opportunity of hearing granted – Held: Procedure under Section 11 of the CRPF Act read with Rule 27-CC(ii) of the CRPF Rules not followed in its true spirit – Impugned orders of dismissal, appeal and revision set aside [Paras 3, 6, 11].

Natural Justice – Major Penalty – Mandatory Procedural Safeguards – Removal from service entails serious civil consequences – Delinquent employee must be afforded adequate opportunity at every stage including show cause notice, framing of charges, supply of documents, examination of evidence and cross-examination – Mere assertion that witnesses were unwilling to depose cannot justify dispensing with a full-fledged enquiry – Satisfaction recorded by disciplinary authority not supported by cogent or compelling material – Held: Imposition of major penalty without proper enquiry and reasonable opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained [Paras 12, 16, 21].

Criminal Acquittal – Effect on Departmental Action – Petitioners convicted under Section 323 IPC by Trial Court – Conviction set aside in Criminal Appeal No. 744/2012 vide judgment dated 15.05.2014 by this Court on benefit of doubt – Judgment of acquittal attained finality – Though departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct spheres, once departmental enquiry itself was not conducted in accordance with law and criminal conviction also did not survive, foundation of impugned dismissal becomes unsustainable – Held: Basis of dismissal ceased to exist [Paras 13, 14, 22].

Discrimination – Similarly Situated Employees – Reinstatement – Co-delinquents dismissed by same order dated 09.11.2009 and subsequently acquitted were reinstated in service – Denial of same benefit to present petitioners whose conviction was also set aside amounts to manifest arbitrariness and hostile discrimination – Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India – Held: Discriminatory treatment not justified [Paras 15, 23].

Relief – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Petitioners entitled to reinstatement in service – However, back wages denied having regard to long period during which petitioners remained out of service – Period from date of removal till reinstatement to be treated as service for all other purposes including continuity of service and retiral benefits – No order as to costs [Paras 25, 26, 27, 28].

Decision: Writ petitions allowed — Orders of removal from service, appellate and revisional orders quashed — Petitioners directed to be reinstated in service — Back wages denied — Period of absence to count for continuity of service and retiral benefits.

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review Not an Appeal in Disguise – The petitioners, claiming to be in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 277 for 30-40 years under a valid Patta dated 09.09.1998, challenged the order dated 06.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2266 of 2025 on the ground that they were neither impleaded nor heard despite being directly affected parties, and that their residential house was now under threat of demolition pursuant to consequential dispossession proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code – Held: The scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is extremely limited and is confined to cases of error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence not producible earlier despite due diligence, or any other sufficient reason analogous to the specified grounds – Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked for rehearing or rearguing the matter on merits – An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record [Paras 7–20].

Review – Non-Impleadment of Affected Parties – Order Merely Directing Authorities to Act in Accordance with Law – Not an Adjudication of Rights – The petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as they were not heard – Held: Upon careful perusal of the order dated 06.05.2025, this Court had not adjudicated the inter se rights of the parties but merely directed the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law – Such a direction simpliciter does not determine any substantive rights of the petitioners – Non-impleadment in such proceedings does not, by itself, constitute an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction – Petitioners always had appropriate remedies available against any consequential action by the authorities [Paras 9, 14, 15].

Review – Grounds Raised Going to Merits – Not Examinable in Review – Illegality of Demarcation, Applicability of Section 250, Validity of Revenue Authority Orders – All questions requiring detailed examination on merits – Held: The grounds urged by the petitioners including alleged illegality of demarcation conducted without notice, bar on applicability of Section 250 where a residential house has already been constructed, and validity of concurrent orders of revenue authorities including the Board of Revenue, are all issues requiring detailed examination on merits and cannot be adjudicated in review jurisdiction – The petitioners had already exhausted remedies up to the level of the Board of Revenue and the attempt in review is to reopen the entire controversy indirectly, which is impermissible [Paras 12, 14, 15].

Decision: Review petition dismissed — No order as to costs — Liberty to petitioners to avail such remedies as may be available in accordance with law against specific consequential actions of the authorities.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115 — Maintainability of Civil Revision Against Order Under Section 24 — Preliminary Objection — Respondents contended that a revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable against an order passed under Section 24 CPC — Held: A transfer application under Section 24 CPC, when allowed by the District Court, amounts to final disposal of the proceedings — Though ancillary to the suit, the proceedings under Section 24 are judicial in nature, requiring the court to consider the grounds for transfer urged by one party and opposed by the other and to arrive at a judicial decision after due application of mind — The order passed on the transfer application is a 'case decided' as it disposes of the proceedings finally — No appeal lies against such order — Therefore, the civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC is maintainable [Para 10].

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 24 — Transfer of Suits — Suppression of Facts — Bias of Presiding Officer — Respondents filed application for transfer of suits under Section 24 CPC alleging bias on part of the Presiding Officer on account of oral remarks — However, respondents did not disclose to the High Court, while the High Court was considering extension of time for disposal of suits, that they had already filed such transfer petition — The High Court had earlier imposed costs of Rs. 50,000/- on respondents for delaying proceedings through multiple interlocutory applications and non-cooperation — The Presiding Officer had been fully conversant with the facts since 29.05.2024 — Held: The Presiding Officer insisting on proceeding with the matter without granting adjournments, in light of directions of the High Court, cannot be painted as bias — Transfer of suits at this stage would require the new Presiding Officer additional time to understand the facts, resulting in further delay — Transfer order set aside — Trial court directed to conclude proceedings within three months [Paras 11, 12, 13].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition allowed — Impugned order dated 21.02.2026 in Misc. No. 785/2025 quashed and set aside — Trial court directed to conclude proceedings in O.S. No. 1453/2024, O.S. No. 2897/2024 and Misc. No. 576/2024 within three months from the next date of hearing.

Property Law – Forcible Dispossession by State – Road Construction on Private Land Without Acquisition – Compensation – Article 300-A – The respondents' land comprised in Khasra Nos. 240, 241 and 1051/438 measuring 0313-03 bighas situated in Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi was utilized by the State for construction of Karsog-Kunnu Road between 1993 and 1998 without resorting to any process of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and without payment of compensation – The trial court dismissed the suit but the First Appellate Court reversed and directed the State to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay appropriate compensation – Held: The State being a welfare State cannot forcibly dispossess a citizen of property without due process of law – Article 300-A guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law and the obligation to pay compensation is implicit in this provision – Defendants produced no document showing consent of plaintiffs for construction of road through their land – Concurrent findings of courts below affirmed [Paras 12–22].

Adverse Possession – State Cannot Plead Against Own Citizens – Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – The State contended that the suit was time-barred as it was filed approximately 35 years after construction of road, and pleaded principles of acquiescence and estoppel – Held: A welfare State cannot claim adverse possession against its own citizens so as to defeat the title of the owner – The cause of action arising from deprivation of property without legal sanction is a continuing one and delay and laches cannot defeat the claim of the landowner in such circumstances – No period of limitation can be prescribed to bar courts from doing substantial justice where the demand for justice is compelling – State's plea of limitation and laches rejected [Paras 13–16].

Second Appeal – Scope of Interference Under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings of Fact – Held: The first appellate court is the final court of fact and the High Court exercising power under Section 100 CPC can interfere with findings of fact only where the finding is based on inadmissible evidence, is in ignorance of relevant admissible evidence, is based on misreading of evidence, or is perverse – None of these contingencies present in the instant case – Concurrent findings of both courts below based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence – No substantial question of law arises – Appeal dismissed [Paras 23–27].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed — Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court affirmed — State directed to initiate acquisition proceedings and pay appropriate compensation as per law — Pending applications disposed of.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 149(2)(a)(ii) — Invalid Driving License — Liability of Insurance Company — Pay and Recover — Avoidance Clause in Policy — Deceased was traveling in a three-wheeler tempo when the offending tanker driven rashly and negligently on the wrong side collided with the tempo, causing his death — Driver of the tanker found to be holding driving license valid only till 9th September, 2004, the accident having occurred on 9th June, 2010 — Driver was also carrying hazardous chemical (Hydrochloric Acid) — Driver and owner chose not to appear before the Tribunal — Insurance company established its defence of invalid driving license through RTO certificate and driving license extract — Held: Defence under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of absence of valid driving license was duly established — However, considering the avoidance clause in the standard commercial vehicle package policy which provides that nothing in the policy shall affect the right of any person indemnified by the policy to recover amounts under the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the entire award to the claimants at first instance — Insurance company granted liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle in execution [Paras 14, 15, 18, 20].

Motor Accidents — Quantum of Compensation — Income of Deceased — Skilled Labourer — Minimum Wages — Conventional Heads — Pranay Sethi — Deceased was an idol-maker earning his livelihood through skilled craft — Tribunal had assessed income as Rs. 4,000/- per month in absence of direct proof — Held: In absence of direct proof of claimed income of Rs. 10,000/-, income to be fixed based on minimum wages for skilled labour prevailing at the time of accident i.e. Rs. 4,210/- per month — Deceased being self-employed, 25% addition towards future rise of income as per Pranay Sethi principles — Deduction of 1/4th towards personal expenses justified as deceased was survived by 5 dependents — Multiplier of 13 correctly applied for age group of 46-50 years as per Sarla Verma — Dependency loss redetermined at Rs. 6,15,732/- — Conventional heads enhanced applying 10% rise — Funeral expenses and loss of estate at Rs. 18,150/- each — Loss of spousal consortium Rs. 48,400/-, filial consortium for both aged parents Rs. 96,800/-, parental consortium for two major sons Rs. 96,800/- — Total compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,63,200/- to Rs. 8,94,032/- [Paras 21-27].

Decision: First appeal partly allowed — Cross objections allowed — Award enhanced to Rs. 8,94,032/- with interest at 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition — Insurance company directed to deposit enhanced amount of Rs. 3,30,832/- with the Tribunal within six weeks — Liberty granted to insurance company to recover amount from owner of offending vehicle in execution.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC – Bar of Jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 – Plaintiff, a subsequent mortgagee, challenged the DRT proceedings, Recovery Certificate and auction sale by a civil suit on grounds of fraud and collusion — defendants sought rejection on the ground of statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act — plaintiff contended that the bar operates only against Banks and Financial Institutions and not against individual plaintiffs — Held: Section 18 is absolute in its operation — the bar extends to all persons including borrowers, guarantors, purchasers and subsequent mortgagees — once the reliefs sought relate to matters falling within Section 17, the civil court's jurisdiction stands excluded regardless of the identity of the plaintiff — plaint liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) [Paras 20–31].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation – Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 – Suit for Declaration – Ex Facie Bar – Plaintiff admitted knowledge of DRT proceedings and Recovery Certificate as early as 2009 by filing I.A. No.2 of 2009 before the Recovery Officer — auction sale confirmed on 03.03.2010 — suit filed only on 20.07.2016, well beyond the three-year period — plaintiff's claim of continuing cause of action rejected as the acts complained of are completed events — Section 22 of the Limitation Act applies only to continuing breach or tort, not to completed transactions — Held: Suit ex facie barred by limitation, plaint liable to be rejected [Paras 32–45].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Not a Ground for Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – Held: Plea of res judicata cannot be made a ground for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC — issue not decided on this ground [Para 46].

Civil Procedure – Abuse of Process – Vexatious Suit – Same Grounds Previously Decided – Third defendant (guarantor) had filed C.S. No.796 of 2009 seeking identical reliefs; plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 and confirmed up to the Supreme Court — plaintiff had also challenged the same proceedings in I.A. No.2 of 2009 before the Recovery Officer and failed up to the DRAT — present suit founded on the same grounds and is wholly derivative of the rights asserted by the third defendant — Held: Suit amounts to clear abuse of process of law and is vexatious; liable to be rejected at threshold [Paras 47–52].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed with costs — Fair and decretal orders passed in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2019 in O.S. No.3969 of 2019 rejecting the plaint confirmed — connected miscellaneous petitions closed.