Motor Accident Claim – Minor Claimant – Contributory Negligence – Driving Without Licence – Tribunal reduced compensation from ₹30,000 to ₹12,000 on ground that appellant (aged 17½ years) was not holding a driving licence and thus guilty of contributory negligence – High Court upheld the decision – Held: Mere absence of licence does not automatically establish contributory negligence unless rash or negligent driving by claimant is proved – No finding that appellant drove negligently – Tribunal and High Court erred in conflating absence of licence with contributory negligence [Paras 3, 8, 9]

Contributory Negligence – Applicability to Minors – Doctrine not applied with same force to minors as to adults – Whether a child is guilty of contributory negligence is a question of fact – In this case, no evidence that appellant contributed to the accident – Therefore, contributory negligence not established [Paras 4–5]

Composite Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence – Tribunal failed to distinguish between the two – Concept of composite negligence involves multiple negligent parties – In this case, entire liability lay with the mini-truck driver – Appellant’s role did not meet threshold of contributory negligence – Automatic 50:50 apportionment of blame unsustainable [Paras 6–7]

Driving Without Licence – Legal Consequence – Driving without licence is an offence but not equivalent to negligence unless shown to have contributed to the accident – Absence of licence cannot, by itself, reduce compensation – Clear judicial error in equating unlawful act with negligent conduct [Para 8]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Finding of contributory negligence set aside – Appellant entitled to full compensation of ₹30,000 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of award until payment – No costs [Para 10]

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Marriage solemnized in 1974, wife allegedly insisted husband live separately from parents, frequently quarrelled, and ultimately deserted matrimonial home in 1984 leaving minor daughter – Husband filed divorce petition in 1992 – Family Court, after detailed evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, granted decree of divorce on both grounds – High Court reversed decree holding allegations vague and unsupported – Supreme Court held: High Court failed to consider detailed reasons of Family Court, relied on speculation and defence evidence without analysis – Order set aside [Paras 3-16, 21-24, 34-36].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reappreciation of Evidence – Principles – Appellate court has power to reconsider facts and law but must exercise caution when reversing trial court’s findings based on oral evidence – Trial court’s advantage of observing witness demeanour must be respected – Interference permissible only when findings are perverse, against law, or unsupported by probabilities – High Court erred in upsetting Family Court’s findings without cogent reasoning [Paras 25-33].

Family Court – Findings on Cruelty – Wife’s persistent misbehaviour, false allegations of second marriage, abandonment of minor daughter, refusal to attend daughter’s wedding, and continuous hostility towards husband and family established cruelty – Family Court rightly disbelieved wife’s testimony and accepted husband’s evidence – Such findings could not be lightly overturned by High Court [Paras 14-16].

Remand – Supreme Court declined to decide on merits, holding that High Court, as first appellate court, must exercise its statutory power of reappreciation – Matter remanded for fresh disposal, High Court directed to decide expeditiously, given parties’ separation of over two decades [Paras 37-39].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of Allahabad High Court set aside – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Paras 38-40].

Customs – Duty Drawback – DEPB Scheme – Re-export of Defective Goods – Refund Mechanism – Appellant imported watch parts, paid duty via DEPB debit – Upon finding parts defective, re-exported the same and claimed duty drawback under Section 74 – Department rejected claim on ground that duty was not paid in cash – Held: Once goods are re-exported, assessee is entitled to refund or re-credit of duty irrespective of mode of payment – Denial of both refund and DEPB adjustment amounts to unjust enrichment by Revenue – Public Notice dated 30.06.2000, though issued after re-export, was procedural and applicable retrospectively [Paras 5, 10]

Procedural Law – Retrospectivity – Interpretation – Public Notice inserting Para 7.50A in Handbook permitting DEPB re-credit on re-export – Held: Being procedural in nature, the provision applies retrospectively and cannot be used to deny relief for transactions occurring before issuance – Revenue's stand untenable as it seeks dual benefit contrary to principle against unjust enrichment [Paras 10]

Administrative Law – Judicial Review – Arbitrary Denial of Certificate – Assessee’s request for issuance of DEPB re-credit certificate wrongly declined solely due to date of public notice – Held: Once goods were re-exported and claim not pressed, rejection of certificate was arbitrary – Authorities directed to issue certificate to enable assessee to approach DGFT [Paras 6, 11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Revenue directed to issue certificate for re-credit in DEPB book or for issuance of fresh DEPB – Relief to be granted notwithstanding date of public notice – No costs [Para 11]

Criminal Law – Public Servant – Sanction for Prosecution – Appellant, a government officer, took action against a medical shop under Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Complaint later filed against him by shop owner alleging forgery and corruption – Held: Actions taken were in discharge of official duties – No cognizance could have been taken without prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC – District Magistrate had no authority to grant sanction under Section 196 CrPC – Proceedings vitiated for want of valid sanction [Paras 3, 10–14]

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Complaint found to be a retaliatory measure (counterblast) against appellant’s official acts – Delay in filing complaint and absence of initial allegations of bribery or forgery noted – Continuance of proceedings amounts to abuse of court’s process – Fit case for interference under inherent jurisdiction [Paras 6, 9, 20]

Official Duty – Scope of Protection under Section 197 CrPC – Protection not limited to acts strictly within duty but extends to acts reasonably connected with official duty – Public servants cannot be prosecuted for such acts without sanction – Liberal and purposive interpretation of Section 197 affirmed – Trial barred where acts relate to discharge or purported discharge of official functions [Paras 10–18]

Mala Fide Prosecution – Complaint lodged months after official action and after conviction of complainant in related case – No allegations of bribery in earlier applications – Held: Complaint actuated by malice – Proceedings unsustainable [Paras 6, 9, 20]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Abuse of Process – Case falls within Category (7) of Bhajan Lal guidelines – Frivolous and vexatious prosecution intended to harass a public servant – Quashing justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Criminal proceedings in Begusarai P.S. Case No. 63/1993 quashed – Held: Prosecution without valid sanction and initiated with mala fide intent amounts to abuse of process of law [Para 20]

Delhi Rent Control – Constitutionality of Section 14(1)(e) – Article 14 – Discrimination between Residential and Non-Residential Premises – Partly Struck Down – Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which confined landlord’s right of eviction on bona fide requirement to residential premises, held unconstitutional under Article 14 – Classification held arbitrary in present circumstances – Discriminatory words severed – Landlords can now seek eviction from both residential and non-residential premises on bona fide requirement [Paras 15, 29-32, 41-44].

Reasonable Classification – Passage of Time Rendering Classification Arbitrary – A legislative classification valid at inception may become unconstitutional with change in social/economic conditions – Refugee influx of 1947 justified distinction initially – But after 50 years, with growth in commercial property, justification lost – Doctrine from Bhopal Sugar Industries and Motor General Traders applied [Paras 31-36].

Doctrine of Equality – Article 14 – Reasonable Classification – Classification must have intelligible differentia with rational nexus to object – Courts caution against overreliance on classification – Law should treat similarly situated alike – Outdated distinctions cannot survive constitutional scrutiny [Paras 16-19].

Severability – Only Discriminatory Portion Struck Down – Section 14(1)(e) not struck down in entirety – Only limitation to residential premises removed – Remaining part survives – Explanation below Section 14(1)(e) declared redundant – Severability principle applied [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court set aside – Section 14(1)(e) partly struck down – Provision now applies to both residential and non-residential premises for bona fide requirement – Writ petitions allowed, impugned orders quashed – No costs [Para 44].

Delhi Rent Control Act – Constitutionality of Section 14(1)(e) – Bona fide requirement – Discrimination between residential and non-residential premises – Section 14(1)(e) held partly unconstitutional – The classification restricting landlord’s right of eviction to residential premises only held violative of Article 14 – Provision read down to apply uniformly to all premises, residential or non-residential – Explanation to Section 14(1)(e) treated as redundant – Appeals allowed [Paras 13-15, 27-29, 38-41].

Reasonable Classification – Passage of Time – Doctrine of equality – A legislative classification valid at the time of enactment may become arbitrary and unconstitutional with lapse of time and change of circumstances – Differential treatment to non-residential tenants introduced in 1947 continued without rational basis in 2008 – Held: justification no longer survives, classification struck down [Paras 28-30, 32-34].

Judicial Review – Scope – Courts can strike down discriminatory legislative provisions – Rule of severability applied – Where the unconstitutional part of a statute can be severed, courts may strike only that part while saving the rest – Section 14(1)(e) modified accordingly [Paras 39-40].

Rent Control Jurisprudence – Shift in judicial approach – Earlier judgments tilted in favour of tenants – Later rulings emphasise balancing rights of landlords and tenants – Courts should not perpetuate undue hardship to landlords under the guise of tenant protection [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 declared discriminatory and partly struck down – Provision now enables eviction of tenants from both residential and non-residential premises on ground of landlord’s bona fide requirement – Appeals allowed, impugned Delhi High Court judgment set aside [Paras 38-41].

Probate Proceedings – Caveatable Interest – Scope and Meaning – Court clarified that caveatable interest must be a real, direct, and existing interest in the estate of the testator – Mere speculative claims, contingent succession, remote relationship, spiritual obligations, or apprehension of mismanagement by existing heirs do not create caveatable interest – Busy bodies, interlopers, tenants, transferees pendente lite, or remote agnates have no locus – Only heirs, legal representatives, executors or legatees named in a genuine will can maintain a caveat – Probate cannot be opposed by questioning the testator’s title or power of disposition as probate jurisdiction is limited [Paras 76-99, 100-111, 133-140].

Succession Law – Reversioners, Agnates and Remote Relatives – Earlier Calcutta and Madras High Court decisions granting caveatable rights to Hindu reversioners and agnates under pre-1956 law held no longer applicable after enactment of Hindu Succession Act – Class II heirs of M.P. Birla (sisters) were alive and impleaded; thus, Birla appellants as agnates/reversioners had no caveatable interest – Succession cannot remain in abeyance, and heirs of deceased heirs inherit in their own right – Doctrine of “spes successionis” rejected [Paras 79-83, 92-96, 133-138].

Probate Law – Mutual Wills – Nature and Effect – Mutual wills executed in 1982 by M.P. Birla and P.D. Birla did not create irrevocable rights – A will remains revocable till the testator’s death – Last will must be probated irrespective of mutual arrangements – Even if mutual wills constitute an agreement, enforcement lies in equity through a separate civil suit for specific performance and not in probate – Filing of suit under Section 92 CPC does not create caveatable interest – Probate court only examines validity of the last testament and not contractual enforcement [Paras 116-132, 173, 182-183].

Executors – Right to Lodge Caveat – Only executors named by testator in a valid will have locus – Appointment of B.K. Birla and Yashovardhan Birla as executors by deed in 2004 held invalid since M.P. Birla never assumed office and hence no vacancy arose – Such appointment does not confer caveatable interest – G.P. Birla, being named executor in 1982 will, held to have caveatable interest – Rajendra S. Lodha also held to have caveatable interest as beneficiary under 1999 will – Appointment of Yashovardhan Birla as executor in place of P.D. Birla under M.P. Birla’s will not sustainable [Paras 146-170, 164-167, 180-181].

Probate Proceedings – Judgment in Rem – Probate judgment binds all parties but does not adjudicate title to property – Title disputes, questions of trust, or mutual will enforcement cannot be decided in probate – Revocation of probate permissible under Section 263 of 1925 Act in cases of fraud, suppression or lack of citation – Probate court cannot be converted into a title court [Paras 102-103, 111, 173].

Procedure – High Court Rules – Calcutta High Court rules providing for preliminary determination of caveatable interest upheld – Such rules validly framed under CPC Section 122 and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 – Court has inherent power to frame preliminary issues to prevent wasteful litigation by parties with no locus [Para 115].

Interpretation of Statute – Purposive Construction – Succession laws to be interpreted in line with changed social and legal context – Pre-Hindu Succession Act precedents allowing reversioners or distant relatives to enter caveats not relevant post-1956 – Probate law cannot be extended to protect spiritual well-being or family prestige [Paras 104-106, 139-140].

Pre-emption and Co-ownership – Right of pre-emption or co-ownership interest in orchards claimed by appellants does not constitute caveatable interest – Testamentary disposition does not defeat rights of co-sharers – Such rights run with land and remain enforceable against heirs/executors but do not justify lodging caveat [Paras 142-145].

Trusts – Section 73 of Indian Trusts Act – Executors do not automatically become trustees until administration of estate is complete – Appointment of trustees under trust law cannot be equated with executors under wills – Section 73 has no application in the facts [Paras 174-175].

Decision: Appeal of Lodha allowed – Appointment of Yashovardhan Birla as executor set aside – All other appeals dismissed – Probate of P.D. Birla’s 1999 will to be taken up first, followed by M.P. Birla’s 1982 will – Civil suit on mutual wills to be heard only after probate proceedings – Costs of Rs. 2,50,000 imposed on Birla appellants payable to West Bengal Legal Services Authority [Paras 185-189].

Criminal Law – Dacoity with Murder – Minimum Number of Participants – Conviction Under Section 396 IPC – Illegal When Fewer Than Five Accused Found Guilty Without Finding of Others’ Participation – Conviction Set Aside – Trial court convicted four out of six accused under Section 396 IPC while acquitting two others without recording any finding that five or more persons conjointly committed the offence – Held: In absence of such finding or established participation of unidentified accused, conviction under Section 396 IPC is not sustainable – Conviction liable to be set aside [Paras 13–19, 34].

Criminal Law – Common Object – Section 149 IPC – Applicability Limited When Assembly of Five or More Not Established – Precedents Discussed – Reiterated that liability under Section 149 IPC arises only when five or more persons are proved to be part of an unlawful assembly – Court must record a clear finding that such number existed – Conviction of fewer than five not permissible under Section 396 IPC unless Court finds that additional unidentified accused were present and participated – Trial court and High Court failed to do so [Paras 20–25].

Criminal Law – Alternative Charge of Murder – Absence of Charge Under Section 302 IPC – Conviction Cannot Be Converted to Murder – Alternative Charges Not Framed – Appellant Cannot Be Convicted of Murder in Isolation – Unlike cases where alternative charge under Section 302 IPC was framed and proved, here appellant was not charged under Section 302 IPC at all – Hence, State’s argument that appellant could be convicted for murder under Section 302 simpliciter rejected [Paras 31–33].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – No Finding of Acquittal Due to Identification Doubt – Participation of Less Than Five Accused Established – Conviction Under Section 396 IPC Cannot Be Upheld – Trial court did not hold that two acquitted accused participated but were not identified – Instead, it gave them benefit of doubt regarding participation itself – Hence, number of accused fell below five, making Section 396 inapplicable [Paras 16–19, 34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction of appellant under Section 396 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 35–36].

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction – Death Penalty – Appellant had resided with victims' family for four years and brutally murdered three children aged 8, 15 and 16 during the night using a sharp-edged weapon – Also inflicted grievous injuries on three adult family members – Motive was related to unpaid dues and perceived insult – Held: Eyewitness testimonies of injured victims corroborated by medical evidence – Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC upheld [Paras 2–14]

Criminal Sentencing – Death Penalty – Rarest of Rare Case – Murder of innocent and defenceless children by a person who lived as a trusted member of their household – Attack was brutal, unprovoked, and diabolic in nature – Appellant did not spare even his benefactors and their children – Held: Crime shocks the collective conscience – Death sentence justified as life imprisonment would be wholly inadequate [Paras 15–21]

Criminal Law – Eyewitness Testimony – Injured Witnesses – Credibility – PW-1 (son), PW-2 (mother), and PW-3 (father/informant) were all injured in the incident and consistently identified the appellant as the sole assailant – Their presence at the scene was natural and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence – Held: Testimonies are credible and unimpeached in cross-examination [Paras 5–14]

Criminal Law – Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Post-mortem reports revealed extensive incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapon – Injuries on deceased and injured witnesses consistent with eyewitness accounts – Held: Medical evidence strongly corroborates prosecution’s version of events [Paras 9–12]

Sentencing – Guidelines – Bachan Singh and Machhi Singh Principles – Life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty the exception – Applied tests: gravity of offence, manner of commission, helplessness of victims, betrayal of trust, and brutality – Held: Appellant’s conduct met all criteria for capital punishment [Paras 17–20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and death sentence under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Sessions Court and High Court findings affirmed.