Railway Accidents Claim – Untoward Incident – Bona Fide Passenger – Appellant injured after falling from overcrowded train due to sudden jerk – Tribunal rejected claim alleging self-inflicted injury and contributory negligence – High Court held that presence of valid journey ticket and contemporaneous medical and police records establish bona fide passengership and untoward incident – Rejection of claim was based on misdirection in law and contrary to evidentiary burden under Section 124A [Paras 2, 12, 15–17, 21–22]

Strict Liability – Compensation under Section 124A – Court reiterated that liability of Railways is strict and automatic upon proof of injury arising out of untoward incident during lawful travel – Exceptions to liability must be narrowly construed – No cogent evidence produced by Railways to attract any statutory exception – Tribunal’s finding overturned [Paras 13–14, 23–24]

Standard of Proof – Evidentiary Burden – Recovery of valid ticket and corroborative public documents like medical and police reports sufficient to establish claimant’s case – Burden then shifts to Railways to disprove claim – Reliance by Railways on speculative DRM inquiry and absence of Alarm Chain Pulling held insufficient – Appeal allowed and compensation awarded [Paras 19–22]

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned order of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 06.01.2020 set aside – Appellant entitled to compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest from date of claim till payment – Amount to be deposited within three months before the Tribunal for disbursal [Paras 26–28]

Civil Procedure Law – Execution of Decree – Power of Attorney – Validity of Execution Application Signed by Agent – Held Valid – Judgment-debtors challenged maintainability of execution application signed by decree-holder’s father acting as power of attorney – Contended POA was only for trial, not execution – Court held Rule 11(2) of Order XXI CPC allows application to be signed by “some other person” acquainted with facts – Gurudas Mal, having acted throughout proceedings for over 40 years, satisfied requirement – No defect found in execution application [Paras 1, 5–15, 19].

Order XXI Rule 11(2) CPC – Interpretation – Application Need Not Be Signed by Decree-Holder Alone – Rule 11(2) permits execution application to be signed either by the decree-holder or any other person shown to the satisfaction of the court to be acquainted with case facts – POA holder who handled proceedings since inception qualifies under this rule – Application not defective or invalid [Paras 13–15, 20].

Execution Proceedings – Delay and Abuse – Frivolous Objections to Delay Execution – Strong Disapproval by Court – Court noted the decree was passed in 1993 and affirmed by Supreme Court in 2000 – Petitioners’ objections were seen as technical, aimed at stalling the execution – Held: Power of attorney objections were frivolous – Courts must avoid delay in execution as per Supreme Court mandate in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi [2021] and Periyammal v. Rajamani [2025] [Paras 21–24].

Execution vs. Pleadings – Distinction in Verification Requirements – Execution application differs from pleadings under Order VI Rule 15 CPC – Verification of execution application requires only satisfaction of court, not formal paragraph-wise assertion – Objections comparing execution verification to plaint verification held misplaced [Para 17–18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Execution application held valid – No requirement for decree-holder to personally sign application under Rule 11(2) – Executing court directed to conclude Execution Case No. 27 of 2002 within two months as per Supreme Court’s guidelines [Paras 21–24].

Hindu Succession Act – Right of Preemption – Undivided Joint Family Property – Plaintiffs, being sons of deceased Balkrushna, filed suit against purchasers asserting right of preemption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act – Suit lands held to be undivided joint family property descended from common ancestor Keshav – Plaintiffs and vendors (defendants 6 to 9) held to be Class I heirs entitled to exercise preemptive right – Held: Preferential right under Section 22 available to Class I heirs only – Plaintiffs rightly declared entitled to exercise preemption over undivided share alienated to strangers [Paras 21–26]

Civil Procedure Code – Order XX Rule 14 – Deposit of Purchase Money – Courts below granted 90 days for deposit of purchase price – Objection taken that time was impermissibly extended – Held: There was no extension of time by appellate court – Stay to trial court decree was operative during pendency of appeal – Upon lifting of stay, plaintiffs given fresh 90-day period to deposit – No illegality in procedure adopted [Paras 30–32]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 44 – Purchaser of Undivided Share – No Partition Sought – Strangers to joint family who purchased undivided share did not sue for general partition or claim separate possession – Held: Purchasers cannot claim independent possession – Injunction restraining interference with plaintiffs’ possession upheld – Section 44 protection inapplicable [Para 33]

Civil Procedure Code – Declaration to Set Aside Sale Deeds – Not Mandatory – In suit for preemption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, once sale consideration is paid within time, title automatically accrues to plaintiff – Held: No need to seek declaratory relief for setting aside sale deeds – Courts below rightly declined to grant such declaration [Paras 34–35]

Limitation – Delay in Exercising Preemption – Objection raised that plaintiffs were aware of sale transactions and did not assert right earlier – Held: No foundation in written statement for estoppel or waiver – No offer proved to have been made to plaintiffs before alienation – Objection rejected [Para 29]

Appeal by Plaintiffs – Claiming Lower Price and Fraud – Plaintiffs also challenged quantum of consideration and alleged fraud in alienation – Held: No evidence to establish fraud – Valuation held reasonable – Second Appeal No. 109 of 2014 dismissed [Paras 36–37]

Decision:

Second Appeal No. 1705 of 2005 (by purchasers) and Second Appeal No. 109 of 2014 (by plaintiffs) dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court dated 30.07.2005 confirmed – Plaintiffs directed to deposit purchase amount with 6% simple interest from 31.12.1992 within 90 days from date of judgment, if not deposited earlier.

Money Laundering – Property – Allocation of Coal Block – Property Defined – Coal block allocation obtained through fraudulent misrepresentation held to constitute “property” under Section 2(1)(v) of the PMLA – Such allocation conferred valuable commercial rights enabling economic benefit – Allocation letter deemed a legal asset triggering financial activity and forming part of the offence of money laundering [Paras 31–39].

Proceeds of Crime – Post Allocation Gains – Scheduled Offence – Misrepresentations led to coal block allocation followed by extraction of over 84 lakh MT of coal – Resulting financial benefit of Rs. 951.77 crores deemed proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) – Held: Learned Single Judge erred in holding allocation per se did not give rise to proceeds of crime – Utilisation of allocation forms nexus with criminal activity [Paras 40–52].

Continuing Offence – Scope of Directorate's Powers – Money laundering is a standalone and continuing offence – Directorate not bound by the time period of the chargesheet filed by predicate agency – Held: LSJ erred in restricting ED’s jurisdiction to pre-allocation events – Use of tainted property post allocation forms part of laundering process [Paras 58–65].

Attachment of Property – Equivalent Value – Validity of PAO – Directorate justified in attaching value of coal extracted post illegal allocation – Calculation of Rs. 951.77 Cr upheld – PIL failed to rebut presumption of illegality or provide untainted funding trail – PAO held valid under Section 5 of PMLA [Paras 53–57].

Maintainability – Nature of Jurisdiction – Article 226 vs 227 – Writ Petition before LSJ challenged executive action (Provisional Attachment Order) and invoked Article 226 – Not a supervisory order under Article 227 – Held: Intra-court appeal under Clause X of Letters Patent is maintainable [Paras 19–26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of the learned Single Judge quashing Provisional Attachment Order and consequential proceedings is set aside – ED’s attachment order upheld – Matter remitted for further proceedings under PMLA.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegation of Sexual Harassment by Child Welfare Committee Chairman – Lack of Sexual Intent – Petitioner, a statutory authority under Child Welfare Committee, was alleged to have made sexually coloured remarks during counselling of two minor girls – Statements attributed to the petitioner included reference to the girls’ relationships and questioning their attire – Held: Alleged words, though intemperate and inappropriate in tone, do not amount to sexually coloured remarks or indicate sexual intent – Interaction occurred in official capacity and in the presence of another counsellor – Prosecution under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 6-10]

POCSO Act – Section 11 r/w Section 12 – Requirement of Sexual Intent – To attract offence of sexual harassment under POCSO, act must involve sexual intent – Mere inappropriate or offensive language, without such intent, held insufficient – Petitioner’s conduct, viewed in totality, lacked sexual intent and did not amount to harassment under the Act [Paras 8-10]

Abuse of Process – Frivolous Prosecution – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioner alleged that complaint was motivated by enmity after he reported sexual exploitation of minor girls by their lovers – Court accepted that prosecution appeared retaliatory and not based on genuine grievance – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of judicial process [Paras 5, 10]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 2457/2022 and 2464/2022 allowed – Proceedings in SC Nos. 466/2021 and 467/2021 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery quashed

Negotiable Instruments Act – Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case – Appeal Dismissed – Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt – Presumption under Section 139 Not Attracted –

Cheque Dishonour – Alleged Liability – Appellant-complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of cheque for ₹24,00,000 issued by Respondent in lieu of cash payment towards proposed sale of land – Cheque returned with remark “Insufficient Funds” – Legal notice issued and duly received – Respondent failed to pay within statutory period – Trial Court acquitted accused holding that complainant failed to establish existence of legally enforceable debt – Acquittal challenged in appeal [Paras 1, 3–7, 8–9, 22–23]

Issuance and Signature of Cheque – Respondent admitted signature on cheque but denied issuance – Claimed cheque was misplaced along with others from cheque book – No FIR or written complaint made – Cheque allegedly never delivered to Appellant – Trial Court found that admission of signature alone without proof of delivery and debt not sufficient to attract presumption under Section 139 NI Act – High Court concurred [Paras 4, 24, 26, 28, 32]

Burden of Proof – Legally Enforceable Debt – Held: Existence of legally recoverable debt must be proved before presumption under Section 139 arises – Appellant admitted cash transaction but failed to produce any documentary evidence or records showing payment of ₹24,00,000 – No written agreement, receipt, or corroboration from witnesses – PW2 and PW3 (Appellant’s brothers) admitted ignorance about cheque and confirmed separate unrelated transactions – Burden under Section 138 not discharged [Paras 25, 28–29, 32]

Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Not Applicable – Held: Presumption arises only after execution and issuance of cheque is admitted – Mere admission of signature not sufficient – When accused denies issuing cheque and complainant fails to prove foundational facts, presumption not triggered – Appellant failed to show debt or delivery – Respondent successfully rebutted presumption through probable defence [Paras 28, 32–33]

Financial Capacity and Income Tax Returns – Appellant filed returns showing ₹24,00,000 as receivable – However, no proof of actual cash transaction or mode of transfer – No ITR entries or documents specifically linked to the transaction in question – Appellant failed to establish financial capacity at time of alleged payment – Mere ITRs insufficient to prove actual cash handover [Paras 16–18, 32]

Credibility of Evidence – Contradictions – Complainant’s version inconsistent and uncorroborated – Witnesses failed to support case – Absence of contemporaneous records undermined credibility – Trial Court's appreciation of evidence not perverse – Acquittal not interfered with [Paras 25–27, 30–31]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – No Perversity Found – Weight of Evidence Favoured Accused – High Court held that reappreciation of evidence did not reveal any perversity or illegality in Trial Court’s reasoning – Acquittal not contrary to settled law or evidence – Appeal dismissed [Paras 29–33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Trial Court under Section 138 of NI Act upheld – No costs imposed.

Banking Law – One Time Settlement (OTS) – Judicial Review under Article 226 – Commercial Discretion of Bank – Petitioner, guarantor of defaulting borrower, challenged rejection of OTS proposal and sought mandamus to direct the bank to disclose benchmarks and accept settlement—Held: No borrower or guarantor can claim OTS as a matter of right—OTS being a policy-based concession, its application depends on the bank’s commercial wisdom—Courts cannot compel banks to accept OTS or rewrite contract terms [Paras 9–11, 18–19, 27–29].

SARFAESI and IBC Proceedings – Parallel Remedies – Since bank had already invoked SARFAESI Act and initiated proceedings under Section 7 of IBC, interference under Article 226 would defeat the special mechanisms provided for recovery and insolvency resolution—Judicial review cannot be used to obstruct statutory recovery process [Paras 17–18].

Legitimate Expectation – Doctrine Inapplicable – Absence of Policy or Assured Practice – Doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot apply where no specific OTS scheme or RBI-mandated guideline was shown—Mere hope of settlement does not create enforceable right—Distinguished Mohanlal Patidar v. Bank of Maharashtra, 2022 (2) MPLJ 276 [Paras 25–26].

OTS Policy – Disclosure of Benchmark – Not Mandatory – Bank’s non-disclosure of benchmark for OTS rejection does not amount to arbitrariness—No statutory provision mandates such disclosure—Discretion lies with financial institution to determine eligibility [Paras 18–19].

Public Money – Contractual Obligation – Judicial Restraint – Bank deals with public funds; compelling acceptance of reduced payment under OTS contrary to public interest—Courts cannot interfere with loan contracts or alter repayment terms under writ jurisdiction—Followed Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Meenal Agrawal, (2023) 2 SCC 805 and SBI v. Arvind Electronics Pvt. Ltd., (2023) 1 SCC 540 [Paras 27–28].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed – No mandamus can issue compelling bank to accept or disclose OTS benchmark – Interim stay on recovery to continue for six weeks and thereafter to stand vacated automatically [Paras 29–30, Final Order].

Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Termination for Union Activity – Reinstatement with Backwages – Workers terminated allegedly for failing to produce original educational certificates after 5 years of service – Industrial Court found the action was selective, targeted only union members, and violated interim orders protecting employment – Held: Termination amounted to unfair labour practices under Items 1(a), 1(b), 4(a), 5 of Schedule II and Items 2, 5, 6, 9 of Schedule IV – Reinstatement with backwages justified [Paras 25–27, 29–33, 42–43].

Industrial Law – Jurisdiction – Industrial Court vs. Labour Court – Objection that complaint ought to be before Labour Court rejected – Held: Industrial Court had jurisdiction since complaint involved victimisation for trade union activity, not mere dismissal simpliciter – Complaint under correct schedule items – Option to approach Industrial Court valid as per settled law [Paras 22–28].

Employment Law – Requirement of Qualification – Discriminatory Enforcement – No mandatory qualification at recruitment stage – ITI certificates demanded only from union-affiliated employees – Held: Management's selective action was discriminatory and not bona fide – Clause 17 of appointment letter cannot override statutory rights under industrial law [Paras 29–36, 42–45].

Natural Justice – No Inquiry – Violation of Interim Orders – Workers terminated without charge-sheet, domestic inquiry, or compliance with due process – Interim orders from Industrial Court were in force – Held: Termination in violation of natural justice and court orders – Loss of confidence plea rejected [Paras 31, 35, 45].

Service Law – Reinstatement – Backwages – Employer failed to prove that workmen were gainfully employed during termination period – Workers remained ready to work, but employer opted to pay partial wages – Held: Backwages justified under Deepali Gundu Surwase principle – Employer cannot benefit from own unlawful conduct [Paras 46–50].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Industrial Court’s order upheld – Reinstatement of terminated workers with 50% backwages confirmed – Termination found to be illegal and motivated by union victimisation.

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – Appeal by grandchildren of original owner claiming 1/8th share in suit property on ground that it is ancestral – Trial Court dismissed suit finding that property was self-acquired by Krishnama Raju and succession governed by Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – High Court upheld finding – Held: Property purchased in 1957 and owner died in 1983, making it self-acquired – No evidence of ancestral nucleus – Mere recital in sale agreement that property was ancestral is insufficient – Plaintiffs have no right by birth [Paras 13–15]

Specific Performance – Binding Nature of Decree – Suit property was subject of earlier specific performance decree in O.S. No. 69 of 2007 – Appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 2009 dismissed – Plaintiffs not parties to earlier suit – Held: Agreement of sale executed by wife and two daughters of deceased owner – Decree confirmed by High Court – Present plaintiffs (grandchildren) cannot challenge decree without establishing independent title – Attempt to reopen settled decree impermissible [Paras 9–10, 14, 17]

Succession Law – Applicability of Section 6 vs. Section 8 – Deceased left behind wife and two daughters, no male heir – Plaintiffs claimed right by birth – Held: Section 6 not applicable when no son survives – Property devolved on wife and daughters absolutely under Section 8 – No coparcenary interest arises – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 17]

Will – No Proof of Execution – Respondents referred to registered Will dated 21.04.1980 in favour of one daughter – However, Will not marked or proved – Held: In absence of proof, succession to be considered as intestate – But plaintiffs’ claim still fails as succession under Section 8 does not support birthright claim of grandchildren [Para 13]

Abuse of Process – Plaintiffs Set Up by Defendants – Trial Court found that plaintiffs were instigated by earlier unsuccessful defendants to stall execution of decree – All lived under same roof – Held: Suit a device to obstruct lawful execution – No merit in appeal [Para 18]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment upheld – No costs – CMP closed [Para 19]