Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation Awarded for Death – Appeal against Tribunal’s decision by both insurer and claimants – Accident involving motorcycle and truck, leading to motorcyclist’s death - Tribunal held truck driver solely liable, awarded Rs. 20,71,630 compensation plus interest - Insurance company appealed, alleging contributory negligence and error in income assessment - Claimants appealed for higher compensation considering future prospects and actual general damages - High Court upholds truck driver’s sole liability, recalculates compensation including future prospects, adjusts for personal living expenses, and corrects income assessment error - Final compensation set at Rs. 26,04,908, with directions for balance payment with interest from date of original claim till final payment [Paras 3-16]

Property Law – Validity of Gift Deeds – Prior Execution – The case involved multiple appeals and cross-objections arising from disputes over two gift deeds executed by Raj Kishan. The first gift deed, dated 01.09.1997, favored Raj Pal, while the second, dated 14.10.1997, favored Raj Kishan's five daughters. The court held that the earlier executed gift deed took precedence under Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, rendering the subsequent gift deed subservient [Paras 13-20].

Doctrine of Feeding the Grant by Estoppel – The court invoked this doctrine, determining that after the death of Ram Kala, his five daughters, as his legal representatives, became the owners of the property. The sale deed in favor of defendant Nos. 10 to 12 was upheld based on this doctrine, ensuring the proper transfer of ownership [Para 20].

Legal Representatives and Procedural Aspects – Delay in Filing – The court condoned the delay in re-filing and filing cross-objections, recognizing the supporting affidavits and justifiable reasons presented in the applications [Paras 1-4].

Adverse Inference and Evidence – The court noted that Ram Kala's failure to appear in evidence allowed for an adverse inference against him. It emphasized the necessity of cross-examination opportunities for the defendants, which were missed due to procedural lapses [Paras 22-23].

Decision: The judgments of the lower courts were set aside due to subsequent developments. Raj Pal remained the owner of the land by virtue of the earlier gift deed, and defendant Nos. 10 to 12 were confirmed as owners through the sale deed dated 17.03.1998. Cross-objections regarding Ram Kala's mental state were deemed unnecessary to address following his death [Paras 23-25].

Civil Law - Partition of Property – Appeal against the trial court’s decree for partition of properties managed by the eldest brother under familial agreement - First defendant managed the properties on behalf of his brothers, with deeds in his name - Claims of prior partition by defendants not substantiated by documentary evidence or credible witness testimony - Trial court’s decision to decree partition affirmed. [Paras 13-21]

Burden of Proof – Defendants failed to substantiate the claim of prior partition which allegedly excluded certain properties from the current suit - Lack of documentary evidence such as revenue records or credible witness accounts to support defendants' claims of earlier partition - Plaintiffs’ unchallenged testimony and factual background led to the confirmation of joint family property status. [Paras 15, 17]

Non-joinder of Parties – Contention regarding non-joinder of necessary parties dismissed - Defendants failed to prove that their relatives were put in possession under an unregistered sale agreement claimed by them - Trial court’s decision not to implead additional parties upheld due to the failure of defendants to prove the genuineness of the transaction. [Paras 19, 20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed, confirming the trial court’s judgment dated 03.08.2000 for partition of the plaint A schedule properties, with each party bearing their own costs.

Defamation and Proceedings – Revision against orders of lower courts in defamation proceedings initiated by Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay against Dr. Sima Banerjee for alleged defamatory remarks made during a televised interview – Analyzed whether statements made fall within exceptions provided under Section 499 IPC, and whether there is intent to harm reputation as required under Section 500 IPC – High Court finds lacking in intent and applicability under specified exceptions; quashing of proceedings ordered [Paras 1-36].

Political Influence and Academic Disputes – Accusations involve complex backdrop of political influence and disputes over college administration roles, leading to legal contests impacting reputations of involved parties – High Court observes misuse of defamation laws in context of internal college politics and disputes [Paras 4-12].

Legal Assessment and Precedents – Reliance on previous judgments regarding scrutiny required at magistrate level in defamation cases, importance of safeguarding reputational rights without stifling free speech – References to Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016) and its interpretation of Sections 499 and 500 IPC [Paras 23-29].

Application of Exceptions in Defamation – High Court concludes remarks fall within the ninth exception of Section 499 IPC (statements made for protection of interest in good faith) – No intent to harm established; proceedings against petitioner not justified [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR and consequent legal proceedings against Dr. Sima Banerjee under Sections 499/500 IPC quashed by High Court, citing absence of necessary ingredients for defamation and application of relevant exceptions under IPC [Para 34-35].

Procedural Violation in Show-Cause Notice – Appellant contested the show-cause notice issued by the WBGST Authorities on the grounds of procedural violations and denial of credit without verification from the supplier’s end – High Court found the show-cause notice and subsequent order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the appellant as procedurally flawed and lacking jurisdiction– Held: Show-cause notice and subsequent orders set aside, authorities directed to first proceed against the supplier and only then consider penalizing the appellant under exceptional circumstances. Allowed.[Para 3-9]

Bail Application – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act – Application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for regular bail in case registered under various sections of the NDPS Act, involving the recovery of 230 kg of poppy husk – Petitioner neither driver nor owner of the truck; co-accused granted bail – Prolonged incarceration without charge framing or witness examination considered – Held, considering petitioner’s period of custody (over one year) and absence of criminal antecedents, bail granted subject to conditions – Precedents from Supreme Court applied concerning bail under NDPS Act in prolonged custody cases – [Paras 1-11]

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Applicant accused in connection with Delhi riots involving murder and multiple felonies – Bail sought under Section 439 CrPC after being implicated in the murder and riots as part of a violent mob based on eyewitness and police testimonies – Charges under multiple sections of IPC including murder, rioting, and destruction of property – Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC used for prosecution, with discrepancies in identification and roles ascribed to the applicant in court testimonies – Prosecution relied on presence and general accusation in mob for invoking Section 149 IPC, but primary public witnesses did not confirm applicant’s specific role in violent acts [Paras 1-20]

Evidence and Trial – Contradictions in witness statements concerning the applicant’s direct involvement – Senior counsel for applicant highlights discrepancies and no direct identification in key testimonies – Prosecution stressed on collective liability under Section 149 IPC, but lacks specific evidence against the applicant directly linking him to the murder or commanding role in riots [Paras 11-20]

Court Analysis – Acknowledgment of grave nature of accusations but consideration of the quality and relevance of evidence against the specific role of applicant – References made to precedents on bail considerations and principles, stressing not to delve deep into evidence credibility at bail stage – Discussion on legal standards and judicial discretion in bail matters, emphasizing nature and seriousness of offence, likelihood of fleeing, community ties, and impact on society [Paras 21-34]

Decision – Bail granted based on cumulative discrepancies in witness identification, the non-specific role of the applicant provided in testimonies, and substantial period already spent in custody – Bail conditions set including surety, regular court appearances, and restrictions on interactions with witnesses and co-accused – Observations made without prejudice to the merits of the main trial [Paras 35-40]

Criminal Procedure – Transfer of Investigation – Allegations of improper handling of a severe assault case – Petitioner’s son was attacked and sustained severe head injuries; initial charges under Section 307 IPC only; no charges under Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt by dangerous weapons – Justice Sengupta ordered the transfer of the case to the Anti Rowdy Section of Kolkata Police for proper investigation – Highlights police negligence in recording victim’s statement and seizing crucial evidence, leading to the decision for a more capable investigation body – Case transfer aims at thorough and unbiased investigation [Paras 1-15].

Evidence Handling and Police Conduct – Criticism of police action – No initial statement under Section 164 of the Code from the victim or the witness who transported him to the hospital – Victim’s blood-stained clothing discarded from a vehicle, not seized for evidence – Court questions why no action was taken against those who disposed of evidence under Section 201 IPC – Indicates systemic lapses and possible influence, necessitating transfer to ensure fair proceedings [Paras 8-14].

Decision: Transfer of Investigation Ordered – Due to serious procedural flaws and inadequate initial investigation, the investigation is transferred to the Anti Rowdy Section, Kolkata Police, to be monitored by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) – Directed for expeditious and lawful conclusion [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Bail application – Regular bail granted based on parity with co-accused who was previously granted bail – FIR involved charges under various sections of IPC and CGST Act related to economic offenses including evasion of tax and forgery – Previous judgments emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the exception, stressing the importance of fair trial and liberty while being mindful of the nature of the offenses [Paras 1-3] –

Legal Precedent – Referenced case law highlighted the judiciary’s approach towards bail in economic offenses, underscoring the balance between ensuring effective legal procedure and safeguarding individual rights against the backdrop of the severity of allegations and economic impact [Paras 2, 5-6] –

Investigation and Judicial Custody – Observations made on the completion of investigation and the unnecessary prolongation of judicial custody without trial commencement – Emphasized that continued custody post-investigation completion contradicts the principles of liberty and fair trial [Paras 7-12] –

Decision – Bail granted under conditions including surety to the satisfaction of the trial court and other measures to ensure the accused’s availability for trial proceedings – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case to maintain judicial impartiality [Para 13] –