Facts: The petitioner sought to quash orders related to the appointment of a Lambardar. Multiple candidates applied for the position after Arjan Singh’s death. The petitioner was 30 years old with a 10+2 qualification, while respondent No.5 was 40 years old with a criminal case registered against him (FIR No.94 dated 20.07.2005) under Sections 325, 323, 148, 149 of IPC. The District Collector appointed respondent No.5 despite these facts.

Issues: The primary issue was the selection process for the Lambardar appointment. The petitioner challenged the decision, citing age, qualification, and the criminal case against respondent No.5 as factors that were not properly considered.

Observations:The Court observed that although respondent No.5’s prosecution in the FIR was acknowledged, the authorities did not consider this when making the decision. Additionally, the petitioner’s age and qualifications were not given proper weight. The Court referred to the precedent in Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram, establishing that when candidates’ merits are equal, the younger candidate should be preferred.

Decision: The Court found the impugned orders flawed and set them aside. The case was remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision, with proper consideration of the merits of all three candidates, the petitioner’s age, qualifications, and the criminal prosecution of respondent No.5. The Collector was directed to decide promptly, preferably within two months.

Civil Revision - Rejection of plaint - Application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Revision petition challenging the order rejecting the application - Suit for declaration of ownership and related claims - Allegations of oral partition amongst brothers in earlier suit - Plaintiffs filed a fresh suit seeking declaration of ownership - Defendant moved application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of plaint on the ground of res judicata - Trial Court dismissed the application - Revision filed before the High Court - Principles for deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Whether a plaint can be rejected on the ground of res judicata - Scope of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and inherent powers of the Court - Res judicata as a ground for rejection of the plaint - Examination of the statements in the plaint - Plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of material outside the plaint - Principles laid down by recent Supreme Court judgment - Rejection of plaint upheld, but liberty granted to raise an issue of maintainability of the suit before the trial Court - Trial Court to consider framing a preliminary issue regarding the plea of res judicata - Petition dismissed. [Para 1-13]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under POCSO Act – Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 6 @ 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for sexually assaulting a 4½-year-old girl – Accused sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and fined Rs. 5,000/- – Appellant contended non-examination of vital witnesses and contradictions in statements – Public Prosecutor argued child’s truthful testimony – Appeal dismissed [Para 2, 5.3, 5.4, 7].

Evidence – Victim’s Testimony – Court found evidence of the victim convincing – Child’s statement to pediatrician and testimony of other witnesses considered credible – Defense counsel criticized for inappropriate questions to young victim – Non-examination of certain witnesses not fatal to the case [Para 6.1, 6.2].

Societal Concern – Sexual Assault on Minors – Court expressed concern over the safety of young girls – Emphasized need for strict laws and effective implementation to eradicate sexual assault – Conviction and sentence need no interaction [Para 6.3, 6.4].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under POCSO Act, Chennai, confirmed [Para 7].

Civil Appeal – Compensation and Title Dispute – Aggrieved by the trial court’s judgment, the appellants/plaintiffs filed this appeal challenging the decree passed by the trial court. [Para 1]

Evidence – Authenticity of Unregistered Will – Plaintiffs claimed ownership based on an unregistered Will but failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its authenticity. The scribe and attestors were not examined, weakening the plaintiffs’ case. [Para 15]

Government’s Claims – Suit lands classified as assessed waste lands – Defendants presented documentary evidence showing suit lands were classified as assessed waste lands, with no D.K.T. pattas granted. Defendants 6 and 7 were in possession and enjoyment of the land. The plaintiffs’ reliance on documents, including an Adangal and Passbook, was undermined by the dubious authenticity of related records. [Para 16-22]

Maintainability of the Suit – Plaintiffs sought a declaration of their right to receive compensation – Court suggested their claim for compensation could be more appropriate if they established title and possession, given the compensation’s dependence on ownership. [Para 24-25]

Conclusion – Court upheld trial court’s findings – Plaintiffs failed to establish ownership, possession, and entitlement to compensation – Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment confirmed. [Para 28-29]

Criminal Appeal – Anticipatory Bail – Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C – Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail against charges under various sections of the Wild Life Protection Act – Petitioner apprehends arrest – Prosecution alleges possession of prohibited commodity – Confession statement of co-accused implicates the petitioner – Key issue revolves around whether the recovered articles are indeed banned commodities as per the provisions of the Act. [Para 1-4]

Consideration of Evidence – Laboratory examination pending to determine if recovered fillets are prohibited – Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner, allowing for custodial interrogation if necessary upon conclusive evidence – Order not barring initiation of proceedings based on future findings – Conditions imposed on petitioner’s bail, including executing a bond and daily reporting to police. [Para 6]

Conclusion – Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner, pending laboratory examination – Court’s focus on objective evidence and legal provisions related to the alleged offence. [Para 6, Conclusion]

Friendly Loan - Nature of Transaction - Loan Agreement - Defendant approached plaintiff for a personal loan of Rs. 10 Crores for a hotel project - Plaintiff agreed to provide Rs. 5 Crores as per Loan Agreement - Defendant requested additional loan of Rs. 2.5 Crores through email - Plaintiff provided the additional loan - Defendant claimed it was not a loan but an investment - Plaintiff's claim supported by emails and documents - Defendant failed to prove defense. [Para 48-64]

Interest Rate - Usurious Loans Act, 1918 - Stipulated interest rate of 5% per month - Court finds it excessive - Interest awarded at 6% per annum from disbursement till payment. [Para 71-79]

Limitation - Defendant's acknowledgment through emails creates a fresh contract - Suit not barred by limitation. [Para 87-92]

Relief Granted - Plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 2.4 Crores as loan amount - Transaction fee of 2% awarded - Interest at 6% per annum from disbursement till payment - Costs of the suit awarded to the plaintiff. [Para 94-97]

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ of Mandamus - Widow's right to enter temple - Archaic beliefs and discriminatory practices - Petitioner, widow of the former Poojari of Periyakaruparayan temple, seeks police protection to participate in temple festival - Respondents 5 and 6 objecting to petitioner's entry based on widowhood - Held, archaic beliefs and dogmas demeaning women have no place in a civilized society governed by rule of law - Widow retains status and identity, cannot be denied rights based on widowhood - Respondent police directed to ensure petitioner's and her son's safety and participation in the temple festival - Writ petition allowed.(Para No.4-5)

Facts: Conviction of the appellant for offenses including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and violation of the Bombay Money Lender's Act related to an incident on 18th November 2010. [Para 1-4]

Issues: Examination of the reliability of child witnesses, determination of intentional murder under section 302 of the IPC, and involvement in illegal money lending. [Para 8-9, 16]

Observations: No material contradictions in child witnesses' testimony, evidence proving intentional murder, and support for the charge of money lending against the appellant. [Para 8-9, 18-19, 20-24]

Decision: Confirmation of convictions under Section 363 of IPC (kidnapping), Section 302 of IPC (murder), and Section 32-B(b) of the Bombay Money Lending Act. Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 21, 23, 24, 27]

Insurance Law - Repudiation of Claim - Pre-existing Illness - Writ Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus – Insurance company repudiated claims for two life insurance policies on grounds of suppression of material facts, specifically chronic diseases (diabetes mellitus and hypertension) of the insured – Insurance Ombudsman upheld the repudiation – High Court found no independent investigation by the insurance company connecting the cause of death to these chronic diseases – Held, no element of fraud by the insured pleaded or proved – Materiality of suppressed fact not established as claim was repudiated after two years of policy issuance – Writ petition allowed – Insurance company directed to pay the insurance amount with interest. [Paras 1-15]

Role of Evidence in Insurance Claims – Analysis – Held, evidence did not establish any connection between the chronic diseases and the cause of death – Mere existence of a chronic disease without evidence of its contribution to the cause of death does not justify claim repudiation – The fact to be material must have a direct bearing on the cause of death – No fraud by the insured established – Repudiation based on the suppressed fact is invalid under Section 45 of the Insurance Act. [Para 10]

Decision – Allowance of Writ Petition and Payment of Claim – Court quashes the Insurance Ombudsman’s order rejecting the claims – Orders the insurance company to pay the insurance amount with 9% interest per annum from the due date until actual payment – Suppression of pre-existing illnesses not proven to be material or fraudulent – Claims deemed to have been rejected based on non-material facts. [Para 14]