Mandatory Injunction – Failure to Prove Ownership and Possession – Suit Dismissed – The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking removal of a gate installed by the respondents after demolishing a wall, claiming ownership of the suit property – The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellants failed to prove their ownership or possession over the suit property – The first appellate court upheld this decision, noting that there was no evidence of ownership or possession, and the only document relied upon was an Urdu document marked as "Mark-A," which lacked evidentiary value – Held: The concurrent findings of the lower courts were upheld, as there was no evidence of ownership or possession to support the claim for mandatory injunction [Paras 6-8].

No Substantial Question of Law – The court held that no substantial question of law arose in the case, as both lower courts had based their findings on an appreciation of evidence, and the appellants failed to show any error in the findings [Para 9].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits, and no substantial question of law was found.

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.

Quashing of FIR – Delay in Lodging Complaint – Section 354, IPC – The petitioner sought to quash the FIR, citing a 127-day delay in lodging the complaint and the absence of evidence to support charges of sexual harassment and criminal intimidation – The complaint alleged that the petitioner, a teacher and Director of the Youth Welfare Board at CUSAT, had touched the complainant inappropriately and threatened her after the University Youth Festival – Held: The delay in filing the complaint and FIR, coupled with contradictions in the complaint and the absence of prima facie evidence, indicated that the FIR was an afterthought and lacked bona fides – FIR quashed [Paras 10, 16].

Intention to Outrage Modesty – Section 354 IPC – The petitioner’s conduct was examined in the context of the guidelines issued by the university to enforce discipline during the festival – No evidence of intention to outrage the complainant’s modesty was found – Held: The petitioner’s actions were in line with enforcing university guidelines and did not amount to sexual harassment or assault – FIR quashed [Paras 13-15].

Criminal Intimidation – Section 506 IPC – The allegations of threats made by the petitioner were also found to be unsupported by evidence – Held: Prosecution failed to establish criminal intimidation [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Murder or Culpable Homicide – Section 300 IPC – Conviction Modified – The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for pouring acid on the deceased during a quarrel, leading to her death over a month later due to infection – The court observed that the incident occurred without premeditation, in the heat of passion, during a sudden quarrel – Held: The case falls under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which reduces the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC – Conviction altered accordingly [Paras 9.1-9.3, 10].

Conviction Reduced – Sentence Commuted – The court considered the facts, including the absence of prior enmity or premeditation, and the time gap between the injury and death – The appellant's sentence was reduced to the period already served (13 years), which was deemed sufficient to meet the ends of justice [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to time served – Appellant to be released upon payment of the fine imposed by the trial court [Paras 14-15].

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.

Environmental Law – Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment – Article 21 – The Court expressed concern over the proposed deforestation of 1.19 lakh trees in Baran District, which could severely affect the local ecology and climate by increasing carbon emissions and threatening biodiversity – The Right to a Healthy Environment is part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution – The State has a responsibility to protect and preserve the environment and must explore alternative solutions to avoid large-scale deforestation [Paras 2-4].

Climate Change – Adverse Effects of Deforestation – Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India, the Court emphasized that citizens have the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, and that the destruction of forests near protected areas could exacerbate climate-related impacts such as carbon emissions and biodiversity loss – The Court highlighted the importance of preserving forests and avoiding displacement of flora and fauna [Para 4.1].

Public Interest – Need for Alternatives and Environmental Safeguards – The Court directed the State and Union Government to explore alternative land options for the project and to consider afforestation in the same region to mitigate carbon loss – No trees to be cut for at least 15 days, pending further orders [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Suo Moto PIL initiated – The Court treated the matter as a Public Interest Litigation and appointed Amicus Curiae to assist in the case – The respondents were directed to submit a detailed response, exploring alternatives to tree cutting and afforestation measures [Paras 5-6].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Fraud Allegations – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of visa fraud and cheating – Court held: The petitioner had joined the investigation and provided all relevant documents – No recovery was to be effected from the petitioner, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary – Bail was granted with conditions [Paras 1-5].

Multiple FIRs – Consideration of Criminal Antecedents – The petitioner was involved in another FIR under Section 420 IPC, but was already on bail in that case – The Court noted that as per the ruling in Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab (2023), criminal antecedents alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail – The appreciation of evidence should be based on the specific case at hand [Paras 4].

Decision – Anticipatory bail granted – The petitioner was directed to join the investigation within one week and to furnish personal and surety bonds – Failure to comply with the court’s directions would result in the cancellation of the bail order [Para 5].