Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner accused of sexual assault under sections 376, 417, 420, and 354(D) of IPC – Allegations based on a promise to marry, which later did not materialize – The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual, and the promise to marry was not false from the outset – High Court examined the distinction between breach of promise and false promise – Held: The factual disputes raised require evidence to be recorded, and it cannot be quashed at this stage [Paras 1-9].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – The victim alleged that the consent for a sexual relationship was based on the petitioner’s promise to marry her, which he did not fulfill – The court considered whether the promise was made with mala fide intentions or if the circumstances changed subsequently – Held: The issue of whether consent was obtained through a misconception of fact must be decided after a full trial, as the material prima facie indicates a possible false promise [Paras 10-15].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Invocation – The court dismissed the petition to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., citing the need for the trial to resolve contested facts – It noted that the allegations made by the complainant were not inherently absurd or baseless – Held: Criminal petition dismissed, as this case does not meet the criteria for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 16-20].

Decision: Criminal Petition dismissed – Proceedings under P.R.C. No. 38/2022 to continue in the trial court – Interlocutory applications, if any, are also dismissed.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action, Locus Standi, Limitation, Court Fees, Non-Joinder of Parties – Plaintiffs (appellants) sought declaration and injunction regarding property inherited from Tej Partap Singh – Suit challenged the validity of a Will dated 20.03.1971 and alleged oral Wills of other deceased family members, and contested over 23 sale deeds – Trial Court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, ruling that plaintiffs lacked locus standi, the suit was time-barred, and there was non-joinder of necessary parties – Findings upheld by First Appellate Court [Paras 2, 8-9].

Locus Standi and Cause of Action – Grandchildren’s Claim Over Ancestor's Property – Court held plaintiffs, as grandchildren of the deceased Tej Partap Singh, lacked locus standi to challenge his Will, as inheritance rights crystallize upon death – Grandchildren are excluded from Class-I heirs when direct children are alive under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs could only claim a share in their mother’s (deceased daughter of Tej Partap Singh) property, but not directly challenge the Will or other transactions regarding Tej Partap Singh's estate [Paras 30-32, 35, 40-41].

Limitation Period – Bar on Challenging Old Transactions – Claims against transactions executed from 1971 to 2005 were time-barred – Trial Court observed plaintiffs’ attempt to circumvent the limitation law by asserting a later "discovery" of facts – Held: Plaintiffs cannot claim inheritance rights directly from Tej Partap Singh or his wives as their mother never contested the Will during her lifetime, and limitation cannot be bypassed by creative drafting [Paras 50-51, 53, 58].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Numerous transactions involved third-party transferees who were not joined in the suit, making the suit defective under Order I Rule 9 CPC – Effective decree could not be passed in their absence, thus defeating the relief sought [Paras 59-62].

Court Fees – Applicability of Ad Valorem Fees on Challenged Transactions – Plaintiffs required to pay ad valorem Court fees as they sought cancellation of transactions executed by the deceased without being in possession – Relief sought was substantive and plaintiffs were held liable to pay fees based on transaction values, rather than a nominal amount [Paras 63-65, 71].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court’s rejection of plaint upheld as plaintiffs lacked cause of action and locus standi – Suit was barred by limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and improper valuation of Court fees – Reaffirmed that plaintiffs, as non-Class I heirs, have no direct claim over the ancestral property while direct heirs are alive, and inheritance rights cannot be challenged decades after the succession is settled [Paras 73-74].
 

Murder - Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence - Chain of Events Incomplete - The accused was convicted of murdering the deceased based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of events leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused, leaving room for doubt. The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The conviction was overturned, and the accused was acquitted [Paras 25, 28, 33, 49].

DNA Evidence - Delay in Collection and Chain of Custody - Acquittal - The prosecution relied on DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime. However, due to significant delays in collecting and forwarding samples for DNA testing, and a broken chain of custody, the court found the DNA evidence unreliable. The absence of proper documentation for the transfer of samples further weakened the prosecution's case, leading to acquittal [Paras 42, 44, 46].

Absence of Corroboration - “Last Seen Theory” Insufficient to Convict - The prosecution’s reliance on the “last seen theory” was insufficient for conviction due to a significant time gap between the accused being seen with the deceased and the time of death. The court held that in the absence of corroborative evidence, the accused could not be held guilty of murder solely based on the last seen theory [Paras 52, 55].

Benefit of Doubt - Evidence Inconsistent with Prosecution's Case - The evidence provided by witnesses, particularly the minor son of the deceased, was inconsistent with the prosecution's case of enmity and animosity between the accused and the deceased. The court granted the accused the benefit of the doubt due to inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies and evidence [Paras 58, 62].

Decision - The appeal was allowed, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside. The accused was acquitted and ordered to be released if not required in any other case [Paras 67, 69].

Locus Standi – Plaintiffs' Lack of Standing – Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiffs, grandchildren of the deceased Tej Pratap Singh, lacked locus standi to challenge his Will as they did not fall within the Class-I legal heirs during the lifetime of their mother, Ravinder Kaur, who was one of the legal heirs – The succession rights crystallized upon Tej Pratap Singh’s death, and plaintiffs cannot claim a higher right than their mother – Plaintiffs have no right to challenge transactions or Wills after 43 years since their mother had never challenged the same during her lifetime [Paras 35-37].

Bar of Limitation – Challenge After 43 Years – Suit Time-Barred – The suit challenging the Wills and numerous transactions, including mutations and transfers, dating back to 1971-2005, was found to be time-barred – The court held that clever drafting to create an illusion of a cause of action does not avoid the statute of limitations – Plaintiffs' contention that they only became aware of these transactions after the death of their mother was rejected [Paras 50-53].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Transactions Challenged Without Involving Transferees – Plaintiffs failed to implead the necessary parties, including transferees and vendees in the numerous transactions they sought to challenge – The court held that no effective decree could be passed in the absence of these necessary parties, rendering the suit defective and unsustainable [Paras 59-62].

Court Fee – Plaintiffs Required to Pay Ad Valorem Court Fee – Plaintiffs sought declaration of transactions as null and void while also claiming joint possession – Since the properties had already been transferred to third parties, plaintiffs were required to pay ad valorem court fee on the challenged transactions – Plaintiffs could not avoid this requirement by merely claiming joint possession [Paras 63-71].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 for lack of locus standi, bar of limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties, and failure to pay the requisite ad valorem court fee [Paras 73-74].
 

Civil Procedure – Co-ownership – Suit for Possession – The appellants challenged the trial court's decree for possession of a portion of the suit property in favor of the respondent, who was a co-owner – The appellants contended that without a decree of partition, the suit for possession was not maintainable – The court held that in view of the oral settlement between the co-owners and the factual division of the property into two separate portions, a suit for possession was maintainable without a formal partition – The co-ownership was not denied, and the respondent's constructive possession was established through oral and documentary evidence [Paras 42-48].

Oral Settlement – Family Arrangement – The court recognized that an oral settlement between the co-owners concerning the division of property could be upheld if corroborated by evidence – In this case, the family arrangement dividing the property into two parts, with the respondent occupying one portion and the appellants the other, was proven through the testimony of witnesses and documents such as the lease deed – Held: The oral settlement is valid and enforceable, and no formal partition is required [Paras 45-53].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court upheld the trial court's judgment granting possession to the respondent – The appellants' argument regarding the requirement of a partition suit was rejected – The respondent was entitled to possession of the portion of the property and damages for wrongful occupation by the appellants [Paras 59-60].

Motor Accident – Compensation – Appellants, wife and children of the deceased, challenged the compensation awarded by the Tribunal – The deceased died due to injuries sustained in a two-wheeler accident – The Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident was self-inflicted and the insurance company was not liable – Held: The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s decision, ruling that the dismissal based on the delay in lodging the FIR and non-examination of the informant was incorrect – The appellants were awarded compensation [Paras 1-10].

Quantum of Compensation – The Court fixed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6000/- in the absence of proof – Applying the Sarla Verma multiplier of 14 and deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses, the Court awarded Rs.6,72,000/- for loss of dependency, along with amounts for loss of consortium, love and affection, and funeral expenses – Total compensation awarded: Rs.8,32,000/- [Paras 11-15].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Compensation of Rs.8,32,000/- awarded with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition – The Insurance Company directed to deposit the compensation within four weeks.

Civil Law - MACT - Power of Review – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Tribunal Lacks Power of Review – The Tribunal recalled its award and ordered recovery from the owner of the vehicle based on newly presented evidence – The Court held that the Tribunal has no inherent power of review under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and cannot review its orders unless there is fraud or misrepresentation – The application for review filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is not maintainable as the Tribunal is not a Civil Court [Paras 13, 32-36].

Fitness Certificate – Deemed Valid for New Vehicles – Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Tribunal Erroneous in Ordering Recovery – The Tribunal's order to recover compensation from the vehicle owner based on the absence of a fitness certificate was erroneous – The Court held that under Rule 62, a newly registered vehicle is deemed to have a fitness certificate for two years from the date of registration – Since the vehicle was newly registered and the accident occurred within two years, the vehicle was deemed fit, and recovery from the owner was improper [Paras 37-38].

Decision:

The appeal is allowed, and the Tribunal's award dated 28.05.2020 in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1042 of 2017 is set aside to the extent it orders the Insurance Company to recover compensation from the appellant-owner.

Election Law – False Affidavits – Misjoinder of Parties – The petitioner sought to annul the election of respondent No.1 and other candidates on grounds of submitting false affidavits with discrepancies in income and asset details – The court found no discrepancies in the affidavits filed by respondents No.1 and 2, who are husband and wife – Further, respondent No.2 was neither a contesting nor returned candidate, making her inclusion in the petition a misjoinder of parties, as per Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Paras 7-10, 12].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Frivolous Petitions – The court applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the election petition at the threshold – Held: The petition lacked any cause of action, and none of the reliefs sought by the petitioner could be granted as per law – The court emphasized that frivolous litigation should be curtailed early to prevent wastage of judicial resources [Paras 14-18].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The election petition was dismissed as it failed to disclose a cause of action and contained misjoinder of parties – The court rejected the plea for voiding the election and declaring the petitioner as the elected candidate [Para 19].

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax (GST) – Refund Restrictions – Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules – Ultra Vires Declaration – Refund of IGST – Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules – Ultra Vires Section 16 of the IGST Act – The court held that Rule 96(10), which imposed restrictions on exporters claiming refunds of IGST when certain benefits from government notifications were availed, was ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act – Subordinate legislation cannot impose restrictions that override substantive rights provided by the parent statute – The rule created unjust discrimination among exporters and was found to be manifestly arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution – Held: Rule 96(10) was invalid as it contradicted Section 16 and produced unreasonable and unjust outcomes [Paras 7, 12-14].

Subordinate Legislation – Compliance with Parent Statute – Subordinate legislation must align with the parent legislation and cannot restrict rights granted by the statute – The court held that Rule 96(10) exceeded its authority by imposing conditions that nullified the right to refunds under Section 16 of the IGST Act – The rule was declared ultra vires and beyond the legislative intent [Paras 11-13].

Constitutional Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Applying the doctrine from Shayara Bano v. Union of India, the court found Rule 96(10) to be manifestly arbitrary as it resulted in irrational and discriminatory outcomes – It denied IGST refunds even for minimal procurement benefits under certain notifications, producing excessive and disproportionate consequences – Such arbitrariness rendered the rule unconstitutional [Paras 13-14].

Discriminatory Impact on Exporters – Rule 96(10) created an arbitrary distinction between exporters claiming refunds under Rule 89 and those under Rule 96, leading to unequal treatment – The court held that this discriminatory outcome was not aligned with the legislative intent of Section 16 of the IGST Act [Para 14].

Retrospective Invalidity and Prospective Deletion – Though Rule 96(10) was deleted by Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax effective from 08-10-2024, the court ruled it invalid for periods prior to this date – Held: Refunds denied under Rule 96(10) during its enforcement period could not be recovered or withheld, safeguarding petitioners' refunds [Para 15].

Decision: Petitioners' writ petitions allowed – Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules declared ultra vires – Orders and actions based on this rule for the period from 23-10-2017 to 08-10-2024 quashed – Exporters protected from recovery of refunded IGST within the specified timeframe – Appeals and pending issues unaffected by Rule 96(10) to be pursued in compliance with the judgment.