Assessment of Compensation and Future Prospects – Tribunal awarded compensation based on deceased’s monthly income of Rs.11,840, applying 1/3rd deduction and multiplier of 18 – Insurance Company's argument for assessing income as per Minimum Wages Act rejected – Supreme Court precedents affirm assessing income with reasonable flexibility and consideration of future prospects – 40% addition towards future prospects warranted due to deceased’s young age and potential – [Paras 5-11].

Legal Principles on Deductions and Multiplier – Insurance Company's contention accepted for 50% deduction due to deceased being a bachelor – Tribunal’s application of multiplier and assessment methods upheld – Importance of 'just compensation' underscored to restore claimants to position prior to accident [Paras 10-11].

Conventional Damages and Loss of Consortium – Increased conventional damages under 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses' by 20% following Supreme Court guidelines – Loss of consortium awarded to parents of deceased, acknowledging emotional and support losses [Paras 11].

Revised Compensation Calculated – Total revised compensation calculated at Rs.19,22,208 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing claim till realization, including enhanced awards for future prospects, loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium [Para 12].

Background and Pleadings – Appellants (State representatives) appeal against the decision favoring the respondent regarding unpaid irrigation dues from land revenue collections dating back to 1975 – Respondent had been appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar and was responsible for depositing collected dues, disputed by the appellants who alleged a deficiency in deposits – Trial Court dismissed initial suits but was overturned by First Appellate Court granting relief to the respondent. [Paras 1-3]

Issues Framed – Key legal issues include entitlement to relief, maintainability of the suit, locus standi, jurisdiction, effect of no Section 80 CPC notice, and valuation for court fees and jurisdiction. [Para 3]

Evidence and Analysis – First Appellate Court finds no evidence supporting appellants’ claim of non-deposit of due amounts by respondent – Respondent substantiated regular deposits through evidence (Ex.P1 to Ex.P64, Dakhla Forms) – Trial Court's reliance solely on Khatauni Mal as evidence of dues questioned, found insufficient for establishing non-deposit of collected dues by the respondent. [Paras 6-9]

Decision – Appeals dismissed as devoid of merit, based on a lack of substantial evidence to prove appellants' claims against the respondent – First Appellate Court's judgment upheld, confirming respondent's compliance with deposit obligations. [Para 10]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the marketing company and its Regional Manager, challenging the legality of the criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings concerning the sale of allegedly substandard fertilizer - The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that no prima facie case against the marketing company and its Regional Manager was made out, as the fertilizer bags were sealed and there was no evidence of tampering or improper storage, placing the liability solely on the manufacturer - Held, quashing the criminal complaint and all consequential proceedings against the petitioners - The judgment relied on precedents emphasizing the non-liability of dealers and marketers for the contents of sealed, unadulterated products - Complaint and summoning order quashed due to absence of any manipulative action by the petitioners that could have contributed to the alleged substandard quality of the product [Paras 1-10]

Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale – First Appeal No: 3790/2003 – Decision against High Court of Andhra Pradesh – Plaintiffs sought specific performance of agreement of sale for land containing mango, casuarina, blackberry, and palmyrah trees, executed on 24-10-1990, involving defendants as joint family members with one acting as family manager. High Court held that the agreement was not enforceable against defendants who did not sign or were minors at the time of agreement, thus unable to confer rights for specific performance to plaintiffs. Directed refund of advance amount with interest. [Paras 1-36]

Role of Defendants in Sale Agreement – Analysis of Defendants’ Role and Validity of Agreement – Defendants 1 and 3, with limited authority and no absolute rights, improperly entered agreement, impacting the enforceability of the agreement against non-signatory co-owners. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to fulfill their obligations under the terms of the agreement by the stipulated time. [Paras 14, 34]

Judicial Determination on Specific Performance – Held – High Court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to specific performance due to the defective nature of the agreement of sale, lack of consent from all co-owners, and plaintiffs' failure in procedural compliance. However, plaintiffs entitled to a refund of the advance payment with interest due to partial performance acknowledged by defendants 1 and 3. [Paras 33-36]

Decision – Partial Allowance of Appeal – High Court modifies trial court’s decision by denying specific performance but granting plaintiffs alternative relief of refund of advance payments with interest. Each party to bear their own costs. [Para 36]

Promissory Note Validation and Dispute – Plaintiff claimed that the defendant borrowed Rs.13,00,000 for business purposes, repaying only Rs.25,000 - Defendant argued the amount was for a joint real estate venture, claiming fraud by the plaintiff - Trial court sided with plaintiff, leading to this appeal. [Paras 3-5, 7, 9, 11]

Trial Court Findings Affirmed – High Court agreed with trial court's decision, noting the consistent evidence from plaintiff's witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) and the acknowledged execution of the promissory note by defendant - Discrepancies and improbabilities in defendant's narrative undermined his defence. [Paras 11-15]

Repayment Terms – On appeal, High Court dismissed the appeal but permitted the defendant to repay the remaining amount in three installments by 31.07.2024, considering prior partial payments acknowledged by the court. [Paras 16-18]

Decision: The appeal is dismissed with costs - Defendant is allowed to clear the remaining decreetal amount in three installments by 31.07.2024. Failure to comply will allow the plaintiff to execute the decree for the remaining amount. [Para 19]

Dismissal for Want of Prosecution – Challenge against Special Metropolitan Magistrate's order dismissing complaint for non-appearance of complainant under Section 256 Cr.P.C. - Acquittal of accused for charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to complainant's absence on several court dates, despite history of presence and legal representation [Para 1-6].

Judicial Review of Magistrate's Decision – High Court examines whether Magistrate acted justifiably in dismissing complaint without complainant's presence despite ongoing efforts since 2013 to prosecute, including issuance of arrest warrants against absent accused [Paras 5, 12-14].

Legal Implications of Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Discussed necessity of judicial discretion in dismissing cases under Section 256 Cr.P.C., emphasizing protection against dilatory tactics by complainants and potential misuse leading to undue harassment of accused [Paras 10-11].

Restoration of Complaint – High Court finds dismissal and acquittal by Magistrate hasty and lacking in judicial prudence – Orders restoration of complaint to original status and continuation of proceedings from last effective stage – Critiques lack of opportunity given to complainant to rectify non-appearance [Paras 18-20].

Directive for Further Proceedings – Trial court instructed to proceed lawfully with complaint, ensuring both parties are given fair opportunity to present their cases [Para 20].

Procedural Background & Facts – Multiple writ petitions filed by State Bank of India challenging the refusal of the District Magistrate, Ludhiana to assist in taking possession of secured assets under SARFAESI Act due to alleged procedural non-compliance by the Bank [Paras 1-17, 18-30].

Key Legal Issue – Whether the requirement to communicate the rejection of objections by the borrower under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act within fifteen days is mandatory or directory [Para 41].

Court’s Analysis – Held that the provisions of Section 13(3A) are directory and not mandatory. Delay in responding beyond the 15-day period does not invalidate the actions taken under Section 13(4) unless it results in prejudice to the borrower. Emphasis on expeditious processing under SARFAESI to prevent undue delay in debt recovery [Paras 33-54].

Rulings on District Magistrate’s Role – Section 14 is an executory provision; the District Magistrate does not have adjudicatory powers regarding the merits of the bank’s application under SARFAESI. His role is limited to providing assistance in taking possession of secured assets [Paras 35, 50-60].

Final Decision – Writ petitions allowed. Impugned orders quashed. District Magistrate directed to assist the petitioner-Bank in taking possession of the secured assets [Paras 59-61].

Compensation – Railway Accident – The appellants, dependents of N. Jahankir, who died in a railway accident, sought to set aside the dismissal of their claim for compensation by the Railway Claims Tribunal – The deceased, holding a valid ticket, was hit by a train while on the platform, leading to his death – The Tribunal dismissed the claim, attributing the accident to the deceased's negligence [Paras 1-4].

Untoward Incident – Burden of Proof – The court emphasized that the deceased's act of being on the platform did not constitute self-inflicted injury under Section 124-A of the Railways Act – The burden of proof to show negligence was on the Railways, which failed to substantiate its claims – Referred to Union of India v. Rina Devi, holding that unintentional acts leading to death do not negate the right to compensation [Paras 10-14].

Judicial Interpretation – Negligence and Self-Inflicted Injury – Cited various precedents, including Rajalakshmi v. Union of India, to highlight the distinction between trespassing with intent and accidental occurrences – Held that even if trespassing occurred, it must be proven to be intentional to deny compensation under Section 124-A [Paras 14-17].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The respondent was directed to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- as compensation with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till payment – Allocated the compensation among the dependents, ensuring minors' shares are deposited in a Nationalised Bank till they attain majority [Paras 19-20].

Petition under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. by Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited against the acquittal of the respondent in case involving alleged electricity theft under Sections 135, 138, and 150 of the Electricity Act – High Court upholds acquittal, finding that the trial court correctly identified flaws in the forensic report and expert testimony – High Court concludes that petitioner failed to establish dishonest intent required under the Electricity Act beyond a reasonable doubt. [Paras 1, 12, 40-41]

Electricity Theft Allegations – Analysis of the trial court's evaluation of expert forensic testimony regarding a burnt electric meter – High Court agrees with trial court's judgment that expert testimony was unreliable and lacked scientific basis, thus failing to prove that the respondent dishonestly caused the meter to burn – Emphasis on burden of proof resting on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not met. [Paras 12, 27-33]

Burden of Proof and Expert Testimony – Discussion on the application of Sections 105 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act – High Court finds that the prosecution did not adequately prove respondent's dishonest action, and expert witness was not competent in electrical engineering, undermining the prosecution's case – High Court rules that unreliable and unscientific expert testimony cannot solely determine the outcome of a theft allegation. [Paras 15-17, 27-28, 37-38]

Decision – Upholding of Trial Court’s Acquittal – High Court finds no perversity in trial court's judgment and concludes that the factual findings of the trial court were neither improbable nor implausible – Leave to appeal against acquittal dismissed, confirming the trial court’s decision in favor of the respondent. [Paras 39-41]