Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Reception of Additional Documents – Delay and Admissibility – Judicial Discretion – Trial Court allowed plaintiff’s petition to receive certain documents obtained under RTI Act during 2021–22 though produced belatedly in 2024 – Revision petitioner contended that documents were neither certified nor originals and delay was unexplained – Held: Procedural rules are handmaids of justice and cannot be used to defeat substantive rights – Delay in production not fatal unless it causes serious prejudice or necessitates a de novo trial – Order of trial court allowing reception of documents upheld [Paras 8–11].

Evidence – Admissibility vs. Reception – Stage of Consideration – Relevancy and admissibility of documents are distinct issues – At the stage of reception, the court is only concerned with whether documents may be taken on record; their evidentiary value can be decided at the trial – Objections regarding proof under Sections 63–65 of Evidence Act premature [Para 12].

Procedural Law – Delay – Liberal Approach – Costs as Remedy – Court emphasized that procedural law should facilitate justice and not obstruct it – Though delay was established, it did not justify exclusion of material evidence – Delay compensable by costs – Plaintiff directed to pay ₹5,000 to revision petitioner to offset inconvenience caused [Paras 10–13].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Interference under Article 227 – Scope – High Court declined to interfere under Article 227, finding no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s reasoning – Observed that the trial court’s omission to record elaborate reasons was not sufficient to vitiate the order when conclusion was otherwise just and equitable [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 28.03.2025 in I.A. No. 788 of 2024 upheld – Plaintiff directed to pay ₹5,000 as costs to revision petitioner – Interim orders vacated – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 13–End].

Railways Act, 1989 – Section 124-A – Untoward Incident – Strict Liability – Bona Fide Passenger – Compensation – Deceased allegedly fell from an overcrowded passenger train due to a sudden jerk and succumbed to injuries during treatment – Tribunal dismissed claim holding that deceased was not a bona fide passenger and the ticket recovered was fabricated – On appeal, held: Documentary evidence including Inquest Report, Post-Mortem Report, and Final Investigation Report conclusively established accidental fall from train – Once it is shown that death occurred in an “untoward incident” while travelling with a valid ticket, Railways’ liability arises irrespective of fault – Strict liability under Section 124-A applies – Tribunal erred in rejecting claim on suspicion of ticket authenticity [Paras 13–16].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Bona Fide Passengership – Initial burden on claimant can be discharged by affidavit and production of journey ticket – Once prima facie case made, burden shifts to Railways to rebut – Mere absence of ticket or clerical error in train name does not negate bona fide travel – Reliance placed on Union of India v. Rina Devi, (2019) 3 SCC 572 and Kamukayi v. Union of India, (2023) 19 SCC 116 [Paras 15–17].

Pleadings – Amendment of Claim Petition – Procedural Fairness – Refusal of Tribunal to allow amendment correcting train name from “Puri–Rourkela Passenger” to “Konark Express” held hyper-technical – Such inadvertent clerical error caused by appellants’ illiteracy and distress on son’s death cannot defeat substantive rights under a beneficial statute – Liberal construction warranted [Paras 17–18].

Relief – Remand and Compensation – High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication on amended pleadings – However, directed Union of India to pay ₹8,00,000 compensation with 6% interest p.a. from the date of claim application till realization, to be deposited before Tribunal within three months [Paras 19–22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh adjudication – Compensation of ₹8,00,000 with 6% interest awarded to appellants – Interim orders vacated [Paras 20–23].

Municipal Law – Trade Licence – Renewal – Firecrackers Sale – Petitioners operated licensed firecracker business since 1983 and maintained separate storage since 2001 – Respondent City Municipal Council refused renewal of trade licences citing absence of fire department NOC and location in densely populated area – Held: No provision in law requiring NOC from fire department for renewal – Licences previously renewed without such NOC [Paras 1–6, 11]

Administrative Law – Requirement Must Be Backed by Law – Health Inspector and Municipality cannot insist on compliance with conditions not mandated by law – Citing prior coordinate bench ruling in WP No. 25099/2023, Court reiterated that administrative authorities cannot impose extra-statutory requirements – Impugned endorsements refusing renewal quashed [Paras 12–13]

Public Safety – Conditional Relief – While allowing writ petitions, Court imposed terms that petitioner must not cause harm or injury during business – Directed to maintain fire safety measures including fire extinguishers and water hose – Liberty reserved to authorities to act in case of violation [Para 15]

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Endorsements dated 15.01.2025 refusing trade licence renewals quashed – Petitioner to comply with safety obligations – Respondent may act in case of breach [Paras 13–15]

Criminal Law – Gang Rape – Acquittal – Appellants convicted for gang rape and murder of a college student who was set ablaze – Medical evidence confirmed genital injuries but no proof that intercourse was against her will or without consent – Dying declaration did not mention rape – Held: Prosecution failed to prove charge of gang rape beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Sections 376(d), 376(2)(m), 376(2)(n) IPC set aside [Paras 40–42, 44].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Deceased found with 96% burns – Accused seen at the crime scene and gave false explanation about presence – Motorcycle parked at rear of house, burn injuries on accused unexplained – Dying declaration recorded by Tehsildar confirmed victim was set on fire by accused – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence complete – Conviction under Section 302 IPC affirmed [Paras 26–39, 44].

Criminal Procedure – Dying Declaration – Validity Without Doctor’s Certificate – Victim’s dying declaration recorded in question-answer form by Tehsildar without formal certification of fitness by doctor – Held: Dying declaration voluntary, consistent, and reliable – Doctor present and no signs of tutoring – Medical certification not mandatory if fit mental state established otherwise – Conviction can be based solely on such declaration [Paras 30–35].

Criminal Law – House Trespass with Intent to Commit Murder – Offence under Section 449/34 IPC upheld – Accused entered house knowing victim was alone and committed heinous offence – Presence and conduct of accused proved criminal intent [Paras 26–27, 43].

Indian Evidence Act – Section 106 – Adverse Inference – Appellants failed to explain their presence at the scene or injuries found on them – Held: Adverse inference justified under Section 106 – Strengthens prosecution case [Para 36–38].

Sentencing – Recalibration Post Acquittal on Rape Charge – Trial Court sentenced under 376(d)/34 IPC treating it as graver offence, omitting separate sentence for murder – On acquittal under rape charge, High Court imposes life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC separately along with ₹5,000 fine and six months RI in default – Set-off granted for period already undergone [Paras 44–45].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 376(d), 376(2)(m), 376(2)(n) IPC set aside – Conviction under Sections 302 IPC and 449/34 IPC upheld – Fresh sentence under Section 302 IPC imposed – Judgment forwarded to jail and trial court for compliance [Para 45].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Writ Petition against TDSAT Order – Maintainability – Karnataka High Court lacks jurisdiction – Petitioners challenged execution order dated 01.09.2022 passed by TDSAT, New Delhi, under Article 226 – Petitioners contended that since notices for personal appearance were served in Bengaluru, Karnataka High Court had jurisdiction – Held: Mere service of notice does not constitute integral part of cause of action – All material acts including impugned order occurred at New Delhi – Company and its Directors had submitted to TDSAT’s jurisdiction and led evidence – Petition not maintainable before Karnataka High Court – Appropriate remedy lies before Delhi High Court [Paras 9-26].

Execution Proceedings – Director’s Personal Liability – Lifting of Corporate Veil – Improperly Impleading Directors – TDSAT directed issuance of notice to all Directors in execution of decree passed against the company – Petitioners contended they were not parties to original proceedings and could not be personally proceeded against without lifting corporate veil – Held: Determination of such issues lies within execution jurisdiction of TDSAT – Writ under Article 226 cannot bypass this statutory mechanism – Proper remedy is through execution court or appellate jurisdiction [Paras 5-6].

Cause of Action – Meaning and Scope – Small Fraction Not Sufficient – Petitioners relied on Kusum Ingots and Om Prakash Srivastava to claim that even small part of cause of action confers jurisdiction – Court held: While small fraction of cause of action may suffice, facts must have nexus with the prayer sought – Service of notice for appearance alone not an integral fact giving rise to maintainable writ – Forum conveniens principle invoked [Paras 15-21, 24].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed as not maintainable before Karnataka High Court – Liberty granted to approach Delhi High Court.

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].

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Appeal under Section 16 – Right of Appeal – Maintainability – Whether appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only by senior citizens or parents or also by any aggrieved person – Larger Bench of High Court constituted due to conflicting views among coordinate benches – Held: Appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only at the instance of a senior citizen or a parent – Appeal by any other aggrieved person (such as children or relatives) not maintainable [Paras A-1 to A-24, C-1, C-2]

Welfare Legislation – Beneficial Interpretation – Senior Citizens Act, 2007 enacted to provide effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and parents – Entire scheme, definitions, and procedural framework designed solely for benefit of senior citizens and parents – Object is to provide speedy, summary remedy to senior citizens without exposing them to prolonged litigation – Hence, restrictive interpretation of appellate rights justified [Paras A-2 to A-6, A-17, A-18]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 16(1) – Plain and Clear Language – Section 16(1) restricts right of appeal to “any senior citizen or a parent” – No ambiguity or scope for expansion to include “any aggrieved person” – Legislature consciously excluded children and relatives – Rule-making power under Section 32 does not authorize expansion of appellate rights – Any such inclusion would amount to judicial legislation [Paras A-10 to A-13, A-19, A-20, A-22]

Interpretive Doctrines – Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Inapplicability – No inadvertent omission by legislature in Section 16 – Omission of children or relatives from appellate provision is deliberate and intentional – Courts cannot supply words not found in statute – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions reaffirming that casus omissus cannot be judicially supplied unless omission is evident and defeats statute’s object [Paras P-12 to P-15, A-21]

Proviso to Section 16 – Scope – First proviso requiring continued payment of maintenance by children during appeal does not imply that children can file appeal – It only ensures continuity of support to senior citizen during pendency of appeal filed by them – Cannot be interpreted to extend appellate rights to children or relatives [Para A-13]

Availability of Alternate Remedy – No Violation of Natural Justice – Though appeal is not maintainable at the instance of children or relatives, they are not remediless – Remedy under Article 226 of Constitution always available to challenge Tribunal’s orders on jurisdictional or legal grounds – Hence, exclusion from appellate remedy does not violate principles of natural justice [Para A-24]

Constitutional Provisions – No Violation of Articles 14 or 21 – Restriction of appeal to senior citizens or parents does not offend equality clause under Article 14 – Classification is reasonable, based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of statute – Protection of elderly is a constitutionally recognized goal under Articles 21, 41, 46 [Paras P-1 to P-5, A-6, A-17, A-18]

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction – Rejected in Present Case – Argument that proviso to Section 16 implies children can also appeal rejected – Harmonious construction cannot override clear legislative intent and express statutory language [Para A-13]

Reference to Larger Bench – Justification – Conflicting decisions by coordinate benches of same High Court – Larger Bench constituted to resolve interpretive inconsistency – Held: Previous view in Nitin Jaat (which allowed appeal by children) overruled – View taken in Anil Choupda and Dilip Marmat upheld [Paras F-3, F-13, F-14, C-1, C-2]

Comparative Statutory Schemes – Not Applicable – Reference to other social welfare legislations like Domestic Violence Act, Consumer Protection Act, RERA, etc., where appeal is allowed to both sides, held irrelevant – Senior Citizens Act is unique and designed to grant limited appellate remedy only to the beneficiary class [Paras S-7, S-8, A-16]

Legislative Amendment – Pending Amendment Not Applicable – Reliance placed on proposed 2019 Amendment Bill which seeks to include “children or relatives” in Section 16 – Held: Until amendment is passed, Court cannot read into statute what is consciously omitted – Pending amendment reinforces current exclusion [Paras P-16, A-15, A-21]

Decision: Reference answered in negative – Appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 maintainable only at the instance of senior citizen or a parent – Not maintainable at the instance of any other aggrieved person – Writ petition to be listed before Single Bench for adjudication [Paras C-1, C-2]

Land Revenue – Mutation Entries – Competing Claims – Dispute over entry of name in revenue records concerning 30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 – Appellant claimed title through Jayaramaiah based on Inams Abolition grant of 5 acres 4 guntas – Respondent No.5 traced title to Appashetty based on separate Inam grant and mutation in 1962 – Held: Appellant failed to establish grant of full 5 acres 4 guntas – Authorities justified in entering Respondent’s name for 30 guntas [Paras 3–6, 10, 18–20]

Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Limitation on Title Adjudication – Contention raised that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter entries amid pending civil suit on title – Held: While revenue officials cannot adjudicate title disputes, they may enter names based on available documents evidencing title – Mutation does not confer title but reflects source – No infirmity found in orders passed [Paras 16–17]

Maintainability of Appeal under Section 136(2) – Objection on maintainability of appeal before Assistant Commissioner due to alleged absence of order under Section 129(4) – Held: Mutation entry reflects an operative decision by Tahsildar – Section 136 appeal lies – Objection not raised before Single Judge or in appeal memo – Rejected [Paras 21–23]

Procedural Grounds – Waiver and Non-pleading – Grounds related to procedural defects and jurisdiction not raised at earlier stages – Court declined to entertain at appellate level – Legal principle affirmed that grounds not urged before learned Single Judge cannot be raised for first time in appeal [Paras 22, 26]

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Orders of revenue authorities and Single Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28]

Goods and Services Tax – Cancellation of Registration – Non-filing of Returns – GST registration of petitioner cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to failure to file returns for six months – Petitioners contended they were unaware of the online procedure and could not respond to the show cause notice – Registration cancelled ex parte without assigning reasons [Paras 2–3]

Revocation of Cancellation – Technical Barrier – Petitioners filed all pending GST returns up to March 2023 along with applicable dues and late fees – Application for revocation of cancellation could not be processed on GST portal due to expiry of 270-day timeline [Paras 4–5]

Rule 22(4) Proviso – Compliance – Petitioners willing to comply with Rule 22(4) proviso of CGST Rules by filing returns and clearing tax dues – Held: Proper officer may drop proceedings and restore GST registration if petitioners fulfil all requirements under Rule 22(4) proviso – Petitioners directed to approach concerned authority within 2 months – GST authority to consider and process restoration expeditiously [Paras 10, 12–13]

Limitation – Computation of Time – For the purpose of proceedings under Section 73(10), limitation to be computed from the date of this order, except for FY 2024–25 which will be governed by Section 44 of the CGST Act [Para 14]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioners granted liberty to seek restoration of registration on compliance – No cost [Para 15]