Judicial Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings Against Judicial Officer – Judicial Immunity – Scope of Article 226 – Petitioner, a judicial officer, challenged disciplinary action initiated against him for awarding excessive compensation in motor accident claims cases – Petitioner contended that judicial decisions are immune from disciplinary scrutiny unless malice or extraneous considerations are proven – Held: Judicial decisions per se are not grounds for departmental enquiry, but if allegations suggest judicial misconduct or extraneous considerations, a disciplinary enquiry can be initiated without violating judicial independence [Paras 2-4].

Award of Excessive Compensation – Extraneous Considerations – Validity of Charge-Sheet – The High Court alleged that the petitioner awarded substantially heavy amounts as compensation in certain Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cases without citing legal precedent or justification – Petitioner argued that his decisions were partially upheld by higher courts, thus barring disciplinary action – Held: While non-specification of extraneous considerations in the charge-sheet could be a weakness, the extraordinary nature of the compensation amounts (nearly ten times the expected amount) justified the enquiry to examine potential judicial impropriety [Paras 5-6].

Judicial Independence vs. Accountability – Disciplinary Proceedings Not Barred – The Court held that while judicial independence must be protected, it does not preclude judicial officers from accountability – A prima facie case of misconduct justifies disciplinary action unless the charge-sheet is mala fide or devoid of any allegations of misconduct – Held: Disciplinary proceedings should not be interfered with at the pre-enquiry stage unless clear mala fides or illegality is established [Paras 7-8].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Disciplinary Proceedings to Continue – The Court refused to quash the charge-sheet or halt disciplinary proceedings – Interim relief granted earlier was vacated – High Court directed to proceed with the departmental enquiry expeditiously in accordance with law [Para 9].

Contract Law – Recovery of Amount – Suit for Recovery – Contractor claimed recovery of ₹3,85,371/- comprising security deposit, earnest money, and payment for additional work completed under supplemental agreement – Trial Court decreed the suit – Appellants contended substandard work and deductions due to deficiencies – No evidence produced to prove alleged substandard work – Held: Plaintiff entitled to recovery of the amount as the defendants failed to substantiate their defense with credible evidence [Paras 15–19].

Interest on Recovery – Discretion of Court – Trial Court awarded interest at 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and 6% per annum thereafter – Appellate Court noted steep fall in bank lending rates – Reduced interest rate to 6% per annum from date of suit till realization – Held: Discretion under Section 34 CPC rightly exercised to award reasonable interest, modifying excessive rate granted by Trial Court [Paras 20–23].

Defendant’s Obligations – Withholding of Payments – Contractor completed work as per agreement and supplemental agreement – No evidence that amounts due under supplemental agreement were cleared – Withholding of ₹1,85,371/- as security deposit, ₹50,000/- as earnest money, and ₹50,000/- for Package No.3 Road work found unjustified – Held: Defendants failed to prove their claims of deficiencies or justification for withholding payment [Paras 14–17].

Quality Control Report – Unsubstantiated Allegations – Appellants relied on Quality Control Wing report alleging substandard work to justify deductions – Report not supported by cogent evidence or witness testimony – Held: Allegation of substandard work without evidence insufficient to defeat contractor’s claim [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree modified to reduce the rate of post-suit interest to 6% per annum – Principal sum of Rs. 3,85,371/- payable with interest from the date of filing the suit until realization – No costs awarded [Paras 24-25].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Eyewitness Testimonies – Reliability Questioned – Conviction challenged on the grounds of delay in lodging FIR and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – Held: Delay of eight hours in filing the complaint and further delay in dispatching FIR to the Magistrate cast significant doubt on the prosecution's case – Contradictions between the testimonies of eyewitnesses (P.Ws. 4 and 9) regarding the number of accused involved, coupled with no injuries on P.Ws. 4 and 9, weakened the prosecution's claims – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 19, 26–29].

Delay in FIR – Implications on Prosecution Case – FIR filed eight hours after the incident despite the proximity of the police station – Held: Unexplained delay undermined the credibility of the complaint and indicated possible afterthoughts – Delay also observed in FIR reaching the Magistrate [Paras 10, 28].

Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies – Impact on Conviction – P.W.4 identified six accused, while P.W.9 claimed 50 individuals attacked the deceased – Divergence in testimonies undermined the prosecution's version – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 19, 29].

Decision: Conviction in S.C. No. 1 of 2012 dated 31.12.2016 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 30–31].
 

Temporary Injunction – Rejection – Lack of Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Loss – The appellant challenged the trial court's order dismissing her application for a temporary injunction. The appellant claimed a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in her favor, arguing that the land was purchased from the income of joint business, and the mutation was fraudulently obtained by the respondent. The trial court had dismissed the application citing lack of possession by the appellant and the significant delay in challenging the mutation. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that without possession and a timely challenge to the mutation, no prima facie case was established. [Paras 1-26]

Analysis – Civil Court Jurisdiction – ‘Hiba’ under Muslim Law – The appellant's arguments regarding the wrongful mutation based on ‘hiba’ (gift) were rejected, as affidavits supporting ‘hiba’ were not rebutted by the appellant. The court held that civil courts could not adjudicate on matters pertaining to revenue records without a declared khatedari right. The trial court’s reliance on the judgment in Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania was deemed appropriate, establishing that civil suits without a declaration of khatedari rights are not maintainable. [Paras 5-18]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court had not erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application. The appellant's failure to prove possession and the significant delay in challenging the mutation were decisive factors. The appellant was advised to seek appropriate relief in the revenue court. [Paras 26-27]
 

Revenue Records – Mutation Dispute – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Writ Petition dismissed – Appellants (writ petitioners) claimed title through registered sale deeds executed in 1985 by original owner Meka Venkata Ram Mohan Appa Rao – 6th respondent (his sister) asserted rights based on unregistered Will dated 20.01.2014 and obtained mutation in her favour via ROR Appeal No.19/2017 – Revenue Divisional Officer and Joint Collector upheld her claim – Writ Petitions dismissed by Single Judge directing parties to approach civil court – Held: Mutation proceedings are fiscal and do not determine title – Disputed questions of title and validity of Will must be adjudicated by competent Civil Court [Paras 6–16, 24–36].

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Repeated Challenges to Same Revenue Order – Earlier writ petition (W.P. No. 14411/2020) and appeal (W.A. No. 316/2020) arising from same mutation orders were dismissed without relief – Held: Re-litigation by same or similarly placed parties barred – Coordinate bench rightly avoided conflicting decisions – Writ Appeals rightly dismissed [Paras 25–31].

Administrative Law – Revenue Authorities' Jurisdiction – Section 5B ROR Act – Mutation based on Will – Held: Revenue officials cannot adjudicate title based on contested Will – Determination of genuineness and effect of Will requires proof under Succession Act and Evidence Act – Proper remedy lies in civil suit [Paras 13–16, 32–34].

Relief – Status Quo and Interim Directions – High Court set aside portion of Single Judge’s order that directed “forthwith implementation” of mutation orders – Status quo as to possession maintained for three more months to enable civil litigation – Writ Appeals dismissed with modification of implementation clause [Paras 37–39].

Decision: Writ Appeals dismissed – Direction to implement mutation orders forthwith set aside – Status quo as to possession extended by three months – Parties to seek civil remedies – No order as to costs [Paras 38–39].

Personal Injury Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident - Claimant suffered multiple fractures to the left ankle, underwent surgeries, and incurred medical expenses - Claimant's income assessed based on income tax return prior to the accident - Assessment of permanent physical disability and future loss of earnings - Award for pain and suffering, transportation charges, attendant charges, and loss of amenities of life - Interest awarded from the date after 30 days of injury - Appeals by claimant and insurance company dismissed, as compensation awarded by the Tribunal upheld. [Para 1-23]

Criminal Law – POCSO Act – Applicability – The appellant argued that incidents of sexual harassment and assault occurred either before the enforcement of the POCSO Act or after the prosecutrix attained majority – Held, incidents in 2011 occurred before the POCSO Act, but continued harassment in 2012 and 2013 fell within its purview – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-52].

Sexual Harassment – Repeated Incidents – Detailed Testimony – The prosecutrix's detailed testimony about repeated incidents of harassment was considered credible despite the appellant’s claims of improvements in her statements – Court found her deposition consistent with the evidence [Paras 24-34].

Delay in FIR – Context of Reluctance – Delay of over a month in filing the FIR explained by the prosecutrix's hesitation and the sensitive nature of the allegations against her mother and close relative – Court accepted her explanation as reasonable under the circumstances [Paras 43-44].

Applicability of Section 42 of POCSO Act – Overlapping Offences – Section 42 of POCSO Act mandates greater punishment between IPC and POCSO for overlapping offences – Trial court erred in convicting under both Section 354A IPC and Section 8 POCSO Act – Conviction under Section 354A IPC set aside [Paras 49-51].

Decision: Appeals and revision petition dismissed – Conviction and sentences upheld except for the setting aside of the conviction under Section 354A IPC due to overlap with POCSO Act [Para 52].

Will – Registration – Validity – Whether a will is invalid if signed by the testator and attesting witnesses before an official rather than the Registrar – Court held that although ideally, the signatures should be obtained before the Registrar, the will is not invalidated solely on this ground – Registration of a will is not compulsory, and the execution of the will was otherwise duly proved – Appellate court’s finding that the will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances reversed [Paras 1-23].

Joint Hindu Family Property – Proof – Whether mere joint residence and common ration card prove property is Joint Hindu Family property – Court held that these factors alone are insufficient to establish the property as Joint Hindu Family property – Plaintiff failed to prove the property was ancestral – Appellate court’s findings based on insufficient evidence set aside [Paras 24-32].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed – Findings of the appellate court reversed on both substantial questions of law [Paras 33].

Judicial Discipline – Repeated Petitions – Abuse of Process – Petitioner repeatedly filed petitions under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking similar relief – Court dismissed previous petitions on the same grounds – Petitions considered as 'bench hunting' and abuse of process – Courts bound by doctrine of judicial discipline, findings of higher courts or coordinate benches must be respected – Current petition dismissed with costs [Paras 1-19].

Perjury – False Affidavit – Previous Judgments – Petitioner alleged respondent filed false affidavit leading to dismissal of her writ petition – Earlier courts found no basis for inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner’s repeated attempts to re-litigate same issue deemed frivolous and misleading – Petition dismissed for lack of merit and non-disclosure of full facts [Paras 2-18].

Judicial Conduct – Clean Hands Doctrine – Petitioner concealed previous court orders and facts – Court emphasized that litigants with intent to deceive and mislead are not entitled to relief – Petition dismissed with costs imposed on petitioner for wasting judicial time during COVID-19 pandemic [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Petition Dismissed with Costs – Held – Petition dismissed as non-maintainable – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed to be deposited with Haryana Corona Relief Fund [Paras 18-19].