Motor Accident Compensation – Death of Minor Child – Enhancement of Compensation – Tribunal assessed notional income at Rs.30,000 per annum and awarded lump sum compensation – High Court held that a deceased minor cannot be equated with a non-earning person merely due to absence of gainful employment – Minimum wages of skilled workman applicable – Income reassessed at Rs.10,000 per month – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 1, 9–10, 14].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166 – Assessment of Income – Minimum Wages – Reliance placed on recent Supreme Court pronouncement holding that minimum wages of skilled workman must be adopted for deceased minor – Tribunal committed manifest error in adopting arbitrary notional income – Corrected by High Court [Paras 9–10].

Future Prospects – Minor Deceased – Addition Mandatory – Considering age of deceased (15 years), future prospects @ 40% added in terms of Pranay Sethi – Tribunal erred in not granting any amount under this head – Rectified in appeal [Paras 11, 14].

Personal and Living Expenses – Deduction – Minor Victim – Deduction of 1/2 towards personal expenditure applicable – Tribunal erred in not making any deduction – Corrected in accordance with Sarla Verma principles [Paras 12, 14].

Multiplier – Selection – Age of Deceased – Tribunal wrongly applied multiplier of 15 – Correct multiplier for age group of 15 years held to be 18 – Compensation recalculated accordingly [Paras 13–14].

Conventional Heads – Loss of Estate – Funeral Expenses – Consortium – Tribunal failed to grant loss of estate and awarded meagre amounts under funeral expenses and consortium – High Court awarded amounts as per Pranay Sethi with applicable escalation – Filial consortium awarded to both parents [Paras 13–14].

Interest on Enhanced Compensation – Rate of Interest – In view of Supreme Court judgments, interest on enhanced compensation awarded @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit enhanced amount within stipulated time [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.03.2017 modified – Total compensation enhanced to Rs.16,45,100/- – Enhanced amount of Rs.11,45,100/- awarded with interest @ 9% per annum – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months – Tribunal to disburse amount to claimants as per ratio fixed earlier [Paras 14–17].

Service Law – Gratuity – Conflict between Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Service Rules – CMD of Government Company – Applicability of MSTC CDA Rules – Appellant-company challenged Single Judge judgment upholding entitlement of respondent (former CMD) to gratuity under the 1972 Act – Held: Where service conditions are governed by CDA Rules permitting continuation of disciplinary proceedings and recovery of pecuniary loss from gratuity, such Rules prevail – Single Judge erred in applying the Payment of Gratuity Act in exclusion of the Rules [Paras 27–38].

Service Jurisprudence – Disciplinary Proceedings after Superannuation – Legal Fiction of Continuation in Service – Rule 30A of MSTC CDA Rules – Disciplinary proceedings initiated prior to retirement and concluded thereafter – Punishment of recovery from gratuity imposed – Held: Rule 30A(i) creates a legal fiction of deemed continuation in service – Authority competent to impose punishment including recovery from gratuity even after superannuation [Paras 28–35].

Gratuity – Forfeiture / Recovery – Section 4(6), Payment of Gratuity Act – Interpretation – Respondent contended forfeiture impermissible absent termination – Court held that Rule 30A(ii) of CDA Rules operates disjunctively – Recovery permissible either for misconduct under Section 4(6) of the Act or for negligence causing pecuniary loss proved in disciplinary proceedings – Compliance with Section 4(6) not mandatory in every case of recovery under CDA Rules [Paras 31, 35–37].

Service Rules – Primacy over Gratuity Act – Effect of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey – Supreme Court held that Payment of Gratuity Act does not fetter power of employer to continue disciplinary proceedings or impose punishment under applicable service rules – Single Judge relied on overruled decision in Jaswant Singh Gill – Held: Impugned judgment contrary to settled law and unsustainable [Paras 7–8, 32–38].

Judicial Review – Limits – Gratuity Proceedings – Controlling and Appellate Authorities under Gratuity Act cannot examine legality or propriety of disciplinary proceedings – Single Judge erred in traversing into disciplinary findings while adjudicating gratuity claim – Held: Such exercise beyond permissible scope [Paras 38].

Service Law – Finality of Disciplinary Punishment – Respondent did not challenge punishment order dated 30/04/2013 imposing recovery from gratuity – Accepted and allowed to attain finality – Held: Subsequent gratuity claim cannot indirectly unsettle final disciplinary order [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Single Judge dated 25/03/2025 in WPA No. 15908 of 2019 set aside – Order of Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act dated 30/04/2019 set aside – Order of Controlling Authority dated 20/02/2018 upheld – Respondent not entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Wage Revision – Onward Revision of Wages and Allowances – Tribunal Award Set Aside – Tribunal answered reference in favour of workmen on revision of wages and additional dearness allowance – High Court held that Tribunal failed to analyze oral and documentary evidence and jumped to conclusions by merely reproducing Supreme Court precedents – Award held unsustainable [Paras 9–10, 17, 23–25].

Industrial Adjudication – Non-Consideration of Material Evidence – Perversity – Learned Tribunal did not discuss comparative wage data, settlement during pendency of reference, or effect of majority settlement with workmen – Figures regarding profits and additional burden not supported by specific evidence – Held: Non-consideration of relevant material vitiates award [Paras 21–22, 27, 29].

Wage Fixation – Industry-cum-Region Principle – Application – Tribunal relied on Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. and Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd. without applying principles to facts of Theruballi Unit specifically – Annual Reports relied upon related to multiple units and not exclusively to concerned unit – Held: Mechanical application of precedents impermissible [Paras 15, 22–24].

Dearness Allowance – All India Consumer Price Index – Additional DA – Tribunal directed payment without determining entitlement details or basis of computation – Failure to state mode and quantum of benefit rendered findings incomplete – Award liable to be interfered with [Paras 24–25].

Judicial Review – Article 227 – Scope – High Court reiterated that interference is justified where Tribunal fails to exercise jurisdiction, ignores material evidence or records findings based on no evidence – Present case found fit for interference and remand [Paras 27–29].

Settlement – Effect on Reference – During pendency of dispute, majority of workmen entered into settlement with management and opted out of adjudication – Tribunal referred to settlement but failed to examine its effect in light of law laid down in TELCO case – Held: Tribunal erred in ignoring relevant development [Paras 21, 23].

Remand – Fresh Adjudication – Considering passage of time and scope for additional evidence, High Court refrained from deciding merits – Matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh consideration with liberty to parties to adduce further evidence [Paras 28–30].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Award dated 10.10.2013 in Industrial Dispute Case No.6 of 2006 set aside – Matter remitted to Industrial Tribunal for fresh adjudication – Parties directed to appear before Tribunal on 06.01.2026 – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Right of Way – Agreement to Create Easement – Unregistered Document – Appellant sought injunction against obstruction of a passage allegedly created through an agreement dated 13.03.1988 – Trial court and first appellate court dismissed suit holding the agreement inadmissible for want of registration – High Court upheld that agreement created and extinguished rights in immovable property with specific valuation (Rs. 20,000/- damages clause), thus attracting Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act – Held: Since document was unregistered and valuation threshold crossed, it could not be read into evidence – Rights under agreement not enforceable [Paras 20-22].

Registration Act – Section 17(1)(b) – Test of Valuation – High Court applied twin conditions for compulsory registration: whether rights in immovable property were created/limited/extinguished, and whether the value exceeded ₹100 – Held: Agreement created reciprocal rights of passage and imposed a ₹20,000 compensation clause for breach – Thus, value of rights created was determinable and above threshold – Registration was mandatory – Ex.P1 inadmissible [Paras 14-22].

Limitation – Mandatory Injunction – Suit Not Barred – Trial court had dismissed suit as barred by limitation – High Court reversed this finding – Held: Suit for mandatory injunction, though not governed by specific article, falls within residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act – Limitation is 3 years from accrual of cause – Since alleged encroachment occurred in 2001 and suit filed within months, suit was within limitation [Paras 23-25].

Evidence – Revenue Records – Presumption of Truth – Appellant relied on jamabandis and khasra girdawaris showing ‘rasta’ entries – Court noted revenue entries do carry presumption of correctness – However, presumption rebutted by absence of action to enforce rights, conflicting witness depositions, and lack of other corroborative evidence – Held: Concurrent findings that agreement was not acted upon not interfered with – Conduct of plaintiff (e.g., inaction against co-party Iqbal Singh who blocked path) weighed against claim [Paras 26-30].

Second Appeal – Scope under Punjab Courts Act – High Court reiterated that second appeals in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh are governed by Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act, allowing reappreciation of evidence where lower courts’ findings are perverse or based on misreading – However, findings in this case found to be reasonable and supported by record [Para 26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Agreement held compulsorily registrable and inadmissible – Suit not barred by limitation, but failed on merits – Concurrent findings upheld – Pending applications also disposed of.

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Reply to Counter-Claim – Failure to File – Plaintiff failed to file reply to counter-claim and replication to written statement within prescribed time – Trial Court struck off defence – Revision petition filed challenging curtailment of right [Paras 1-2].

Counter-Claim – Nature – Treated as Plaint – Applicability of CPC – Counter-claim to be treated as plaint and provisions of CPC applicable as in a regular suit – Plaintiff required to file reply within 30 days, extendable up to 90 days and beyond on sufficient cause [Para 4].

Limitation for Filing Reply – Order VIII Rule 1 CPC – Period of 90 Days Not Mandatory – Court empowered to permit filing beyond 90 days on showing of sufficient cause – However, party must disclose cogent and convincing reasons for delay [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Order – Jurisdictional Error – Order Passed by Wrong Forum – Order curtailing defence passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class instead of Civil Judge having jurisdiction – Such procedural irregularity noted by High Court [Para 5].

Equitable Relief – Interest of Justice – One Opportunity Granted – Though petitioner failed to justify delay, prejudice caused by striking off defence and jurisdictional lapse warranted indulgence – One opportunity granted to file reply and replication subject to heavy costs [Paras 5-6].

Costs – Deterrent Measure – Rs. 50,000/- imposed – Rs. 20,000/- to be deposited with District Legal Services Authority, Panipat and Rs. 30,000/- payable to respondents – Condition precedent for filing reply [Para 6].

Decision: Civil Revision disposed of – Impugned order modified – Petitioner granted one opportunity to file reply to counter-claim and replication subject to payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/- – Directions issued in interest of justice.

Rape and POCSO – Conviction – Repeated Penetrative Sexual Assault on Minor – Accused convicted for offences under Sections 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 r/w Section 5(l) POCSO Act – Prosecution alleged repeated sexual assault on a 13-year-old girl between September 2015 and February 2016 – Trial Court imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine – Held: Evidence on record proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 1–4, 31].

Evidence – Testimony of Child Victim – Reliability – Victim’s deposition consistent, cogent and free from embellishments – Clear narration of repeated sexual assault inside her house – Medical evidence showed torn hymen and signs consistent with sexual intercourse – Testimony corroborated by mother of the victim – Held: Sole testimony of victim of sterling quality sufficient to sustain conviction [Paras 8–12].

POCSO Act – Section 29 – Presumption of Guilt – Foundational facts of penetrative sexual assault proved through oral and medical evidence – Statutory presumption under Section 29 attracted – Accused failed to rebut presumption – Held: Trial Court rightly invoked presumption against accused [Paras 11–12].

Age of Victim – Proof – Birth Certificate and Oral Evidence – Ext.P2 birth certificate showed date of birth as 18.08.2002 though name of child not recorded – Victim’s unchallenged testimony regarding date of birth corroborated by certificate – Absence of child’s name in birth certificate not fatal – Held: Age of victim proved on cumulative appreciation of evidence [Paras 13, 28–30].

POCSO Act – Determination of Age – Applicability of Juvenile Justice Acts – Principles in Jarnail Singh and Yuvaprakash considered – Held: Provisions of Juvenile Justice Acts provide guidance but are not the exclusive mode for determining age of a victim under the POCSO Act – Courts may rely on evidence admissible under the Evidence Act – Rigid application of JJ Act norms would defeat object of POCSO Act [Paras 15–27].

Sentence – Leniency – Refusal – Nature of offence grave involving repeated sexual assault on a minor – Young age of accused not a mitigating circumstance – Minimum statutory punishment justified – Compensation awarded to victim upheld [Paras 5–6, 31].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 r/w Section 5(l) POCSO Act confirmed – Compensation to victim sustained.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 Constitution of India – Bail application rejected where commercial quantity of Heroin and Charas were recovered from a vehicle linked to the applicant, and bank transactions indicated involvement in drug trafficking – Applicant sought bail citing prolonged pre-trial detention (over three and a half years) as a violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21, relying on Supreme Court precedents like Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb and Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha – Court noted that the co-accused, Bashir Ahmed, was granted bail by the trial court despite similar allegations – Prosecution argued that the applicant was involved in criminal conspiracy, acted as a courier for Bashir Ahmed, and had significant bank transactions related to drug trade – Court found sufficient evidence of prima facie involvement in illicit traffic of commercial quantity contraband – Held that the statutory bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, and the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail, particularly regarding non-involvement in the offence – The plea of prolonged incarceration was rejected in light of the nature and gravity of the offences and their impact on society – Bail application dismissed. [Paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17]

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Speedy Trial – Article 21 Constitution of India – Section 37 NDPS Act – While prolonged incarceration can be a ground for bail, especially under Article 21, this principle is not absolute and must be harmonized with statutory restrictions in special statutes like the NDPS Act – The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb held that Section 43D(5) of UAPA (analogous to Section 37 NDPS Act) does not oust the ability of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on grounds of Article 21 violation, particularly when there is no likelihood of trial completion within a reasonable time and incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence – However, the present case involves commercial quantity of contraband, triggering the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act – The Court, relying on Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, emphasized that a finding of non-guilt based on prolonged incarceration must be supported by a careful appraisal of material and cannot be a casual observation – In the absence of material to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 37, the plea of prolonged incarceration alone is insufficient to grant bail, especially given the gravity and societal impact of drug trafficking offences – The application for bail was dismissed. [Paras 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Bail application dismissed along with connected application(s) – [Paras 17, 18].

Criminal Law – Murder – Common Intention – Evidence of Eye-witnesses – Conviction Upheld – Appellants convicted under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC for murdering a 13-year-old boy and grievously injuring his father and other family members – Trial Court convicted 3 out of 8 accused – High Court found that all three convicted accused acted with common intention and came armed to assault the deceased and others – Medical and ocular evidence corroborated each other – Minor inconsistencies in testimonies did not affect core of prosecution’s case – Held: Conviction justified and supported by credible eye-witnesses including injured witnesses [Paras 3, 39-41, 48-49]

Criminal Law – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Not Attracted – Sudden Fight – Premeditation – Defense Plea Rejected – Appellants argued that the incident occurred due to a sudden quarrel arising from a dispute over cattle – Held: Evidence revealed prior threats, premeditated attack, and targeted killing – Deceased was chased, dragged from hiding, and fatally attacked – Injured witnesses consistently testified to intent and brutality – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC not applicable – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 42-47]

Witness Testimony – Family Members as Eye-Witnesses – Credibility – PW.1 (mother), PW.4 & PW.8 (sisters), and PW.11 (father) were injured eye-witnesses – Testimonies corroborated and supported by VDP Secretary (PW.3) and others – Held: Relationship with the deceased does not discredit testimony if otherwise credible and consistent – No reason to disbelieve their statements [Paras 36, 39-41]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 324/34, and 325/34 IPC confirmed – No grounds for interference.

Civil Writ - SARFAESI Act – Priority of Secured Creditor – Refusal to Register Sale Deed – Bank conducted e-auction of secured asset after borrower defaulted and deposited full sale consideration – Sub-Registrar refused registration citing later attachment for State tax dues – Held: Secured creditor’s charge created earlier in time has priority over subsequent attachment for State dues – Sub-Registrar cannot refuse registration on basis of later revenue entry [Paras 1–3, 5–8].

Charge – Priority – Bank’s Mortgage vs State Dues – Mortgage in favour of Bank created in 2013 by deposit of title deeds – Charge in favour of State Food and Supply Department created only in 2018 – No statute conferring first charge on State for dues arising from Custom Milling Agreement – Held: Such dues are contractual and do not override prior mortgage of secured creditor [Paras 5–7].

Revenue Entry – Legal Effect – Rapat Entry – Attachment entry in revenue records does not determine or extinguish rights of parties – Such administrative entry cannot defeat statutory right of secured creditor under SARFAESI Act – Refusal to register sale deed based solely on rapat entry held illegal [Paras 8–8.1].

Crown Debt – Priority – Settled Law – Right of secured creditor to recover secured debt has precedence over crown debts and Government dues unless statute expressly provides otherwise – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decisions reaffirming primacy of secured creditor’s claim [Paras 8.1–9].

SARFAESI Amendment – Section 26E – Clarification – Though Section 26E was notified later and not directly applicable to facts of case – Court clarified that for transactions after 24.01.2020, statutory priority to secured creditors would operate in terms of Section 26E of SARFAESI Act [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Mandamus issued directing Sub-Registrar to register sale deed in favour of auction purchaser within two months – Attachment/charge in revenue records in favour of State quashed – Liberty reserved to State to recover dues after satisfaction of Bank’s claim or by other lawful means – Costs of Rs.25,000/- imposed on State of Haryana.