Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Determination and Enhancement – High Court modified the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in a case involving death due to a road accident caused by rash and negligent driving – The High Court increased the compensation amount from Rs. 12,75,108/- to Rs. 26,16,366/- by considering factors such as the deceased’s monthly income, future prospects, and general damages under conventional heads – High Court directed the insurance company to pay the compensation with interest and granted it the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner due to the driver’s lack of a valid driving license at the time of the accident [Paras 9-20].

Insurance Law – Pay and Recover Principle – The High Court invoked the "pay and recover" principle, ordering the insurance company to compensate the claimants and recover the amount from the vehicle owner, as the driver did not have a valid license at the time of the accident – Relied on precedents where such directions were issued to meet the ends of justice despite the insurance company not being liable under normal circumstances due to breach of policy conditions [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Modification of Tribunal’s Award – Held – The appeal was disposed of by enhancing the compensation and modifying the Tribunal’s order to allow the insurance company to recover the amount from the vehicle owner – No order as to costs [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law – Bail – Offenses under IPC and IT Act – The Gujarat High Court dismissed the bail application of the accused, Labhshankar Duryodhan Maheshwari, who was charged with serious offenses including conspiracy against the state and cybercrime. The Court emphasized that the evidence on record, including the use of a SIM card for illegal activities, the applicant's connection with Pakistan, and the alleged involvement in transmitting sensitive information, was sufficient to deny bail [Paras 6-7].

Bail Principles – Seriousness of Allegations – The Court acknowledged the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception but clarified that in cases involving national security and serious criminal conspiracy, the seriousness of the allegations cannot be overlooked in deciding bail [Paras 4-7].

Decision: Application dismissed. The Court found that the applicant's involvement in activities detrimental to national security, along with his connections to Pakistan, posed a significant risk, justifying the denial of bail.

Suits for Permanent Injunction – Necessity of Title Proof – Requisite Pleading – Suit Dismissed: Where the plaintiff fails to prove ownership of the disputed property, a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. Both lower courts correctly applied the principles laid down in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 – Held: Plaintiff temple failed to substantiate ownership through admissible evidence such as rent receipts, and reliance on revenue records was insufficient [Paras 12, 14].

Title Established by Defendant – No Trespass – Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Claim: The defendant successfully traced title to Town Survey No. 1001 through documentary evidence (Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.8) dating back to 1955. Plaintiff failed to counter this evidence, and no proof of tenancy under the temple was presented. Held: Defendant cannot be labeled a trespasser in absence of evidence of plaintiff’s ownership [Paras 12-13, 15].

Prohibitory Injunction – Relief Restricted by Law – Declaratory Suit as Remedy: Following Anathula Sudhakar, suits for injunction without a claim of ownership or declaration of title are not maintainable when title is in dispute. Plaintiff temple failed to include a prayer for declaratory relief and relied solely on injunction despite clear denial of ownership by the defendant [Para 12].

Revenue Records – Limited Evidentiary Value – Not Conclusive of Title: Revenue records (Ex-A.2) serve only administrative purposes and cannot override registered sale deeds presented by the defendant. Entry in a Town Survey Register (Ex-A.2) or Demand Register (Ex-A.5) does not confer ownership or negate title established through valid sale deeds [Paras 12, 14].

No Substantial Questions of Law – Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts – Appeal Dismissed: The High Court, exercising its powers under Section 100 CPC, refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts. Plaintiff failed to establish ownership or possession over Town Survey No. 1001, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration [Paras 13, 16].

Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are upheld. Plaintiff temple's suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable as the temple failed to prove ownership or possession over Town Survey No. 1001, while the defendant established title and possession dating back to 1955.

Administrative Law – Tender Process – Judicial Review – Rejection of Bid – Petitioner challenged the rejection of its bid for selection as Mine Developer and Operator (MDO) by HPGCL, alleging arbitrary and unjust decision-making – The petitioner, a Joint Venture Company, was declared non-responsive due to not meeting the "Direct Holding Requirement" – Both parties reached a consensus to refer the petitioner’s concerns to the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) for reconsideration – Held, the TEC to re-examine the matter and pass orders after hearing both the petitioner and the successful bidder – Previous rejection orders deemed withdrawn, and the writ petition was disposed of as per the agreement between the parties [Paras 1-5].

Decision: Petition disposed of – TEC to reconsider the petitioner’s bid and pass necessary orders after a hearing.

Negotiable Instruments – Liability of Drawer – Notice of Dishonour – Recovery of Dues – Plaintiff bank sought recovery of dues from the defendant based on the dishonor of bills and Hundis – Both lower courts dismissed the suit, finding that the bank failed to issue a dishonor notice as required under Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and failed to prove the execution of relevant documents by the defendant – Held, the plaintiff’s argument that no notice was required under Section 30 is untenable – Appeal dismissed as the bank failed to provide necessary evidence and follow due legal procedure [Paras 7-9].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court upheld, confirming the dismissal of the suit for recovery of dues.

Attachment of Retirement Benefits – Jurisdiction under Section 78 of the KCS Act – The Kerala High Court addressed whether retiral benefits can be attached under Section 78 of the KCS Act. It held that while retirement benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, and pension are generally immune from attachment, the attached amounts in this case need careful examination to determine if they include exempted sums. The Court also emphasized that the writ petition was not maintainable as alternative remedies were available under the KCS Act, which the respondent failed to exhaust [Paras 1-19].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedies – The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked if statutory remedies are available. The High Court should only interfere when statutory authorities have not followed the law, or there is a violation of fundamental judicial principles. The Court found that the respondent should have pursued the statutory remedies provided under the KCS Act and Rules [Paras 12-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment was set aside. The respondent was directed to pursue alternative remedies under the KCS Act and KCS Rules. All factual and legal contentions were left open for determination by the appropriate statutory authorities [Paras 18-20].
 

Recovery of Earnest Money – Competence of SPA to Depose – The appellant’s suit for recovery of Rs. 12,00,000/- along with interest was dismissed by the Trial Court on the grounds that the earnest money was rightly forfeited due to non-payment of the balance consideration – Appellant challenged the judgment arguing the inability of the respondent to produce title documents, which justified the refund of the earnest money – High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal, emphasizing that the appellant's Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder, being merely a witness to the agreement and lacking personal knowledge of the transaction, was incompetent to depose on behalf of the appellant – It was held that only the principal, who has personal knowledge, could have competently testified to prove the facts of the case – The court relied on precedents asserting that the SPA holder can only testify about acts done in his capacity as SPA, not on matters outside his personal knowledge [Paras 18-27].

Adverse Presumption – Non-Appearance of Plaintiff – The High Court observed that the non-appearance of the plaintiff (appellant) to testify led to an adverse presumption against him, as established by precedent – The court reiterated that the plaintiff must stand on his own legs to prove his case and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case [Paras 28-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment and holding that the appellant’s father, who was the SPA holder, could not validly act as a witness for the plaintiff’s case due to lack of personal knowledge [Paras 36-37].

Civil Law – Property Law – Ancestral Property – Inheritance under Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiff claimed co-parcenary rights in the suit land, alleging it to be ancestral property inherited from her grandfather – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found the plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence proving the ancestral nature of the property – Appellate Court held that the suit property was self-acquired by the father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act after the death of the grandfather in 1989 – Held, no cogent evidence was provided by the plaintiff to establish that the property was ancestral – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The findings of the lower courts upheld, affirming that the property in question was not ancestral and therefore could not be claimed as co-parcenary property by the plaintiff.

Recall of Witness – Section 311 CrPC – Denial of Adjournment – The petitioner’s counsel sought to recall the prosecutrix for cross-examination after the right to cross-examine was closed on the same day as re-examination due to counsel’s personal reasons – Trial Court rejected the application, noting that adequate opportunity had been provided – High Court emphasized that Section 311 CrPC allows recall to prevent a failure of justice, especially when the testimony is crucial for a fair trial – The Court held that while unwarranted adjournments should be avoided, the denial of cross-examination after a single opportunity was insufficient, especially given the critical nature of the witness's testimony [Paras 10-21].

Fair Trial – Opportunity to Cross-Examine – The Court highlighted that ensuring the accused has a fair trial is paramount, and it is better to err on the side of caution – The Court found that a final opportunity should be granted for cross-examination, balancing the need to avoid undue harassment of the prosecutrix as mandated under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Petition allowed – The Trial Court’s order was set aside, and one final opportunity was granted for the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, with a direction that no further adjournments be sought by the petitioner [Paras 22-24].