Order under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC – Suit for declaration of sale deeds as illegal – Appellant’s prayer in plaint challenged – Trial Court dismissed the respondents’ application under Order VII Rule 11 – High Court allowed the revision petition, rejected the plaint, and set aside the Trial Court’s order – Supreme Court held that the adequacy of prayer to declare sale deeds as illegal is a matter to be decided in the suit and not in the Order VII Rule 11 application – High Court’s decision not justified – Order of the High Court set aside – Civil Suit restored to the file of the Trial Court – Contentions to be raised in the written statement – Appeal disposed of. (Para 3-8)

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 308 of IPC – Whether conviction sustainable – Appellant, conductor of a stage carriage bus, convicted for ringing the bell and causing the bus to start, resulting in a passenger falling and sustaining injuries – Accused No. 3 acquitted – Appellant’s contention that offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide not made out – Whether appellant’s act demonstrated intention or knowledge likely to cause death – Held, offence of attempt to commit culpable homicide not established – Conviction under Section 308 of IPC cannot be sustained. [Para 5-6]

Negligence – Duty of conductor – Duty to ensure passenger safety – Appellant, as conductor, obligated to verify passengers’ boarding before signaling bus driver to start – Failure to perform duty amounted to negligence – Appellant guilty of negligence under Section 338 of IPC – Offence of causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others established. [Para 14]

Sentence – Period of incarceration – Incident occurred in 2005 – Appellant already undergone 36 days of imprisonment – Sentence of six months of simple imprisonment imposed – Set-off for period already undergone granted. [Para 15]

Compensation – Serious injuries to victim – Victim entitled to adequate compensation – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation – Rs. 50,000/- already deposited – Additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- to be deposited within two months – Failure to pay additional amount to result in one month of simple imprisonment – Rs. 45,000/- to be paid to victim as compensation – Remaining amount to go to the State Government. [Para 15-16]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Scope of review - Error apparent on the face of the record - Power of review can only be exercised based on a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record - It cannot be used as an appellate power - Review jurisdiction is limited and confined to the grounds mentioned in the provision - An error that requires a long-drawn process of reasoning or a re-argument of the points cannot be considered an error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 9, 10, 15)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 44 - Foreign award - Ingredients of a foreign award under Section 44 - The award must be on differences arising out of legal relationships, which may be in contract or outside of contract, and considered commercial under Indian law - It must be made on or after October 11, 1960, and must be a New York Convention award - It must be made in a territory declared by the Central Government as a territory to which the New York Convention applies. (Para 19)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 35 and Section 46 - Scope and application of Section 35 and Section 46 - Section 35 makes an arbitral award final and binding on the parties and persons claiming under them, while Section 46 treats a foreign award as binding only on the persons as between whom it was made and not on persons claiming under the parties - Distinction between the binding effect of an award under these sections. (Para 23)

Tortious disputes in arbitration - Arbitration agreement and tortious disputes - Arbitration agreement can include tortious disputes if they are connected with the agreement - The fact that a dispute arises in tort does not necessarily exclude it from being referred to arbitration. (Para 26)

Review jurisdiction and grounds for review - Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to re-argue or re-agitate points already addressed and decided - Grounds for review are limited to error apparent on the face of the record as per Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - Merely alleging that the view taken by the court is erroneous or seeking a different opinion on the points decided does not constitute grounds for review. (Para 26, 27)

Damages in arbitration - Calculation of damages in arbitration - Damages can be quantified based on best judgment assessment, even if not supported by documentary evidence - The court may justify the quantification of damages based on the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 25, 26)

Violation of public policy in arbitration - Public policy violation in arbitration - The violation of public policy must be evident and substantial to set aside an arbitral award - Mere disagreement with the award or a differing opinion on the interpretation of the law does not amount to a violation of public policy. (Para 24)

Review petition - Limited scope of review petition - Review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise - The court cannot entertain arguments that were already considered and rejected in the previous judgment - Review power is confined to the grounds mentioned in the provision and cannot be used to re-argue the case on its merits. (Para 27)

Review petition dismissed - No grounds for review established - The review petitions lack sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the judgment - Arguments presented in the review petitions do not fall within the settled contours of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC relating to error apparent on the face of record - Review petitions dismissed. (Para 27)

Consumer Protection – Motor Vehicle Defect – Amicable Settlement – Appellant, a car manufacturer, challenges the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upholding the State Commission’s decision – First respondent, a consumer, purchased a vehicle from the appellant’s authorized dealer and filed a complaint regarding various defects, including oil leakage – State Commission ordered free engine replacement and daily compensation – Appellant replaced the engine but problems persisted – Court explores possibility of settlement – Considering manufacturing defects and vehicle’s alleged unroadworthiness, Court closes the controversy – Appellant directed to pay balance amount to respondent, including insurance cost – Vehicle to be handed over to appellant – Attachment orders set aside – Appeals disposed of.

Relevant Paragraph:

“Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and it being an admitted fact that the vehicle had some manufacturing defects and despite replacement of the engine, the vehicle has been alleged to be not roadworthy, we deem it appropriate to close the controversy and dispose of this appeal with the following directions…”

I. Whether the relief granted in the Banwasi Sewa Ashram judgment is only applicable to SC/ST/other backward communities?

Para 16-24: The Banwasi Sewa Ashram judgment confers a right to be heard by a competent authority to all claimants, irrespective of their community. The right to possess the land should be enjoyed by those with a legitimate claim. Interpretation of the judgment in a narrow manner would harm other communities. The right to enjoy possession of forest land is not limited to specific communities.

II. Whether the High Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, could have re-appreciated evidence to come to its findings?

Para 25-31: The High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the original order exceeded jurisdiction or the findings were patently perverse. In this case, the concurrent findings of the lower courts were not perverse, and the High Court erred in re-appreciating the evidence.

Motor Accident Compensation - Appeal against quantum of compensation - Appellant injured claimant assails the judgment of the High Court awarding additional compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Arguments raised regarding loss of income, uncertainties of life, deduction towards personal expenses, multiplier, attendant expenses, future medical expenses, loss of marriage prospects, pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of estate, and funeral expenses. [Para 1]

Loss of Income - Disability resulting in 100% loss of income - Nature of injuries suffered by the appellant - Compression fractures of cervical vertebra, paraplegia, loss of bladder function, loss of erection, and loss of bowel control - Held that the disability suffered by the appellant results in 100% loss of income - High Court's deduction of 50% for loss of income incorrect. [Para 14]

Uncertainties of Life - Deduction for uncertainties of life - High Court's deduction of 1/3rd towards uncertainties of life disapproved - Held that no deduction should be made for uncertainties of life as it is covered while applying the multiplier. [Para 15]

Deduction towards Personal Expenses - Deduction for personal expenses - High Court's deduction of 50% towards personal expenses disapproved - Held that in a case of injury and not death, no deduction should be made for personal expenses - Judgment in Lalan D. case referred. [Para 16]

Multiplier - Application of multiplier - Appellant's age at the time of the accident - Held that multiplier of 18 should be applied for the appellant's age group - Sarla Verma and National Insurance Company Ltd. cases referred. [Para 17]

Attendant Expenses - Compensation for attendant charges - Nature of injuries suffered by the appellant - Awarded compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- towards attendant expenses. [Para 18]

Future Medical Expenses - Compensation for future medical expenses - Medical expenses to continue throughout the appellant's life - Awarded compensation of Rs.9,72,000/- towards future medical expenses. [Para 19]

Loss of Marriage Prospects - Compensation for loss of marriage prospects - Nature of injuries suffered by the appellant - Awarded fixed compensation of Rs.3 lakhs towards loss of marriage prospects. [Para 20]

Pain and Suffering - Compensation for pain and suffering - Amount awarded by the High Court considered insufficient - Awarded compensation of Rs.3 lakhs towards pain and suffering. [Para 21]

Loss of Consortium - Compensation for loss of consortium - Separate amounts to be awarded to each dependent - Awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- each to the dependents towards loss of consortium. [Para 33]

Loss of Estate and Funeral Expenses - Compensation for loss of estate and funeral expenses - High Court's consolidated amount disapproved - Awarded separate compensation of Rs.15,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. [Para 34]

Appeal allowed - Tribunal directed to recalculate the compensation amount and make the payment accordingly. [Para 35]

Labour Law - Termination of employment - Back wages - Burden of proof - Appellant, a conductor employed by respondent, was removed from service after an inquiry found him guilty of misconduct - Labour Court ordered reinstatement but denied back wages - Appellant filed writ petition seeking back wages, which was dismissed by the High Court - Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court - Burden of proof on appellant to establish unemployment after termination - Appellant made specific assertions of unemployment in statement of claim and during cross-examination before Labour Court - Appellant withdrew an earlier affidavit stating unemployment - Court held that appellant had discharged burden of proving unemployment until a certain date - Respondent failed to provide evidence to the contrary - Appellant entitled to some back wages - Court awarded appellant Rs. 3 lakhs as back wages - Respondent directed to make payment within two months, with interest at 9% per annum if payment not made within stipulated time. (Para 1-11)

Special Leave Petition (Civil) – Maintainability – Appeal against order passed in review – Whether a Special Leave Petition (Civil) can be filed against an order passed in review – Provisions of Order XLVII Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code – Bar on filing Special Leave Petition against order passed in review – Lack of specific permission to file subsequent Special Leave Petition – Interpretation of previous judgments – Conflict in case law – Need for adjudication by a larger bench. [Para 25-42]

Doctrine of merger – Dismissal of Special Leave Petition by way of a nonspeaking order – Effect on the maintainability of subsequent proceedings – Non-applicability of doctrine of merger to a dismissal without reasons – Dismissal not considered as law under Article 141 of the Constitution – Dismissal not treated as res judicata – Possibility of filing a fresh Special Leave Petition – Need for reasons in dismissal of Special Leave Petition – Floodgates of litigation. [Para 37-41]

POCSO Act – Aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Conviction and sentence – Appellant-accused was prosecuted for offences under Sections 377 and 506 of IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act – Trial Court convicted appellant for all three offences and sentenced him accordingly – High Court modified conviction to penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and reduced sentence – Appeal by State against High Court’s decision. (Para 1)

POCSO Act – Definition of ‘penetrative sexual assault’ – Section 3(a) – Definition of ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ – Section 5(m) – Court referred to definitions of ‘penetrative sexual assault’ and ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’ under POCSO Act – Found that appellant had committed an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child below twelve years. (Para 9)

POCSO Act – Minimum sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Section 6 – Court held that Section 6 of POCSO Act mandates a minimum sentence for aggravated penetrative sexual assault – No provision enabling Court to impose a lesser sentence unless provided by law – Emphasized gravity of the crime and its impact on the child victim. (Para 12)

POCSO Act – Restoration of Trial Court’s judgment – Court set aside High Court’s decision and restored Trial Court’s judgment – Directed appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for offence under Section 6 of POCSO Act and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- - Directed appellant to surrender within one month, failing which non-bailable warrant would be issued – Special Court to ensure implementation of judgment. (Para 13)