Wills – Validity and Proof – Dispute over the execution of multiple wills by Pohlo Ram – The trial court ruled in favor of the will dated 17.10.1997 – The appellate court allowed the appeal for the will dated 4.2.2000, finding it suspicious – High Court emphasized the need for clear proof and dismissed the appeal, reinstating the trial court’s decision [Paras 70-90].

Burden of Proof – Suspicious Circumstances – The burden lies on the propounder of the will to prove its genuineness and dispel any suspicious circumstances – Appellant failed to prove that the will dated 4.2.2000 was executed in sound mind and free of undue influence – Evidence highlighted inconsistencies and potential forgery [Paras 84-90].

Indian Succession Act – Sections 63 and 68 – Will must be attested by two or more witnesses – Evidence presented failed to confirm due attestation and mental state of the testator during execution – The appellate court’s reliance on procedural aspects without addressing core evidentiary issues resulted in the High Court overturning its decision [Paras 77-83].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment and decree reinstated – Will dated 17.10.1997 recognized as the last valid will of Pohlo Ram – Mortgage deed declared null and void [Para 74-75].
 

Administrative Law – Handover of Sites – Failure of Respondent Authorities to Provide Clear and Hindrance-Free Sites for Toll Booth Installation – Petitioner faced resistance from local authorities and public, impacting operations – Court directed recalculation of annual fees proportionately based on the actual number of operational toll booths – No coercive steps until recalculated demand is issued [Paras 1-41].

Contractual Obligations – Compliance and Breach – Respondent’s delayed execution of the work order and agreement despite payment by petitioner – Court emphasized the importance of timely and clear handover of sites as per the contractual agreement – Issues raised involving disputed facts unsuitable for writ jurisdiction – Contract terms and statutory obligations discussed [Paras 24-35].

Relief and Redress – Demand Notices Quashed – Directed District Magistrate to revisit issue, recalculate demands proportionate to actual operations, and consider the impact of COVID-19 on operations – No direction for refund of investment as it was not part of writ petitions [Paras 39-42].
 

Examination Process – OMR Sheet Filling Errors – Petitioners excluded from selection process due to improper filling/darkening of bubbles on OMR sheets – The court underscored the importance of strict adherence to instructions to maintain the sanctity and efficiency of the selection process – Emphasis on the mandatory nature of instructions and the lack of provision for rectification post-submission [Paras 1-12].

Sanctity of Selection Process – Upholding Instructions – Court referred to the Supreme Court’s precedent on strict compliance with examination guidelines – Allowing corrections post-submission would undermine the selection process and open possibilities for misuse – Highlighted that the process is automated, and errors cannot be manually corrected without disrupting the fairness and transparency [Paras 6-10].

Mandatory Nature of Instructions – Supreme Court’s Dictum – Reinforced the principle that instructions issued during examinations are mandatory and must be strictly followed – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. G. Hemalathaa, stating that deviations from mandatory instructions cannot be condoned, and the High Court cannot relax such instructions under Article 226 [Paras 10-11].

Decision: The petition is dismissed. The court affirmed that the mandatory instructions for filling OMR sheets must be adhered to strictly. Any lapses by the candidates cannot be rectified post-submission, and such candidates must be excluded from the selection process.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Proceedings under Sections 406/506/120B IPC sought to be quashed by petitioners – Dispute over unpaid rent for scaffolding material provided during a construction project – Petitioners argued the issue is purely civil and there is no criminal breach of trust or intimidation – Held, no prima facie case for criminal charges – Allegations do not disclose criminal intent or misappropriation – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-19].

Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust – Essential ingredients under Section 405 IPC not satisfied – No dishonest misappropriation or use of property – Dispute over non-payment of rent and removal of scaffolding materials should be addressed in a civil court – Criminal proceedings inappropriate for resolving contractual disputes [Paras 10-13, 15-16].

Application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings – Recognized duty of magistrate to assess prima facie case before issuing summons – Summons issued without adequate basis constitutes abuse of legal process – Emphasized distinction between civil and criminal wrongs [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Petition allowed – Criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. CN/1169/2021 before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, quashed – Court directed to resolve disputes through appropriate civil litigation channels.
 

Criminal Law – Maintenance for Children – The revision petition arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mavelikkara, affirming the trial court’s decision granting maintenance to the petitioner’s children under the PWDV Act. The petitioner challenged the continuation of maintenance payments after the children reached majority. The Kerala High Court emphasized that under Section 20(1)(d) of the PWDV Act and Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., only minor children are entitled to maintenance. Therefore, maintenance obligations cease once the children attain the age of majority.

Section 2(b) of the PWDV Act – Definition of Child – The court reiterated that a ‘child’ under Section 2(b) of the PWDV Act refers to any person below the age of eighteen years. This definition restricts the entitlement to maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) only to minor children, invalidating the appellate court’s observation that maintenance can continue beyond the age of majority.

Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act – Obligation to Maintain – The court also discussed Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, clarifying that while a male child is entitled to maintenance only until he attains majority, an unmarried daughter may claim maintenance beyond majority if she is unable to maintain herself. The court concluded that the appellate court misapplied the law regarding maintenance post-majority.

Decision – The revision petition was allowed to the extent that the obligation of the petitioner to pay maintenance to his sons ceases upon their attaining majority. The appellate court’s contrary observation was reversed.

Customs Law – Suspension of Broker License – Appeal against suspension of Customs Broker License – CESTAT upheld suspension citing proportional penalty for facilitating fraudulent exports – Supreme Court found suspension under Regulation 16 as an interim measure, not a penalty – CESTAT erred in construing suspension as penalty and perpetuating it indefinitely – Order set aside [Paras 1-9].

Customs Broker Obligations – Regulation 10(n) – Violation Alleged – Appellant accused of failing to verify client details per Regulation 10(n) – Evidence showed appellant relied on official documents (IEC, GSTIN) – Physical verification not required – CESTAT misinterpreted obligations under Regulation 10(n) – No violation established [Paras 10-12].

Evidence and Procedure – Statement of authorized representative recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Statement confirmed official documentation and business activities of the exporter – Tribunal's reliance on this evidence deemed insufficient to prove violation [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order of CESTAT set aside – No violation of Regulation 10(n) established – Suspension of license lifted [Para 14].

Guardian Appointment – Vegetative State – Petitioners requested the court to appoint the petitioner no.1 as the guardian and manager of the properties of her husband, who is in a vegetative state since 2019. The court reviewed the medical condition and the affidavits filed by the family members, noting the absence of legislative provisions for appointing a guardian in such cases and invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to provide the requested relief [Paras 1-18].

Parens Patriae Doctrine – Application in Absence of Legislation – The court referenced judgments emphasizing the role of parens patriae when no statutory remedy exists for appointing guardians for persons in comatose states. The court outlined specific guidelines and conditions for the guardianship to ensure the best interest of the patient and prevent misuse of power [Paras 10-13].

Decision: The petition was partly allowed. The petitioner no.1, Anjuben Karansinh Dodiya, was declared as the guardian and manager of the movable and immovable properties of the patient, Karansinh Rajusinh Dodiya, subject to periodic reporting and monitoring by the Registrar General of the High Court of Gujarat and a public official/Social Welfare Officer. The guardianship will remain effective until the patient recovers from the comatose state [Para 15-18].

Promissory Note – Validity and Execution – Suit for recovery based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the appellant – Trial court ruled in favor of the respondent – Appellant contested the authenticity of the note and its execution – High Court affirmed trial court’s decision, citing sufficient evidence supporting the genuineness of the note and the transaction [Paras 1-19].

Promissory Note – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff’s evidence substantiated the execution and consideration of the promissory note – Appellant’s denial of the signature and transaction deemed unconvincing – High Court highlighted the importance of corroborative testimony from attestors and the scribe of the promissory note [Paras 14-18].

Evidence Act – Section 73 – Court’s power to compare signatures – Trial court’s comparison of disputed signatures with admitted ones upheld – High Court stressed the judicial discretion allowed under Section 73 for comparing signatures without necessarily seeking expert opinion [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s decree and judgment affirmed – No costs awarded.

Service Law – Regularization of Service – Petitioner seeking regularization of service from 1992 to 2016 on notional basis without financial benefits and from 2016 onwards with financial benefits – Petitioner continuously worked since 1992 – Government had conferred ‘Temporary Status’ in 2013 and regularized service in 2016 – Citing precedents on regularization for long-term temporary employees – Held: Denial of retrospective regularization and financial benefits by authorities upheld, considering financial implications and lack of direct comparability with cited cases.
Normal rule mandates similar treatment for identically situated employees – Exception made for laches and acquiescence – Held: Petitioner, having served over decades, merited consideration for regularization, but financial constraints and policy consistency justified limiting benefits.
Discussed in context of judicial decisions and administrative orders – Once an order is passed and action is taken, revisiting the decision is limited to specific circumstances – Held: Court found no grounds to alter previous administrative decisions based on functus officio principle.
Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner’s claim for notional regularization from 1992 to 2016 and monetary benefits from 2016 rejected. Authorities instructed to consider financial constraints and policy impacts. Liberty granted to petitioner to seek other remedies as per law.