1. Interim maintenance – Respondent/ husband admitted his monthly income to be Rs.3,72,543 and claims his monthly expenses to be Rs.3,32,900/- -- Respondent has also placed on record income tax return of complainant/ wife for the year 2021-22 as per which her income is shown to be Rs.17.16 lakhs -- Keeping in view the fact that both the parties are sharing the household and the respondent claims his own monthly expenses to be Rs.3,32,900/-, applying the principle that the wife is entitled to enjoy the status as is being enjoyed by husband, interim maintenance modified to Rs.75,000/- to be paid by respondent No.1-husband. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 30.09.2025 Decided on: 22.12.2025

2. Personal diary of wife – Privileged communications during marriage – Trial Court allowed personal diary to be tendered in evidence – Held, personal diary of the complainant/ wife does not fall within the ambit of Section 122 of the Evidence Act/ Section 128 of BSA Act, 2023 – Revision petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 30.09.2025 Decided on: 22.12.2025

3. Will – Deposition on leading question in cross-examination – Evidential value -- Presence of the testator and the attesting witnesses and the signatures affixed on the will by each of them have been stated by DW-2 in his deposition – Attestation by other witness was not deposed to -- High Court found that though in the examination-in chief, the witness did not depose on the attestation by the other witness, in cross-examination to a leading question he answered that all persons signed on the will on the date when the witness signed the same – High court held that that by the leading question, the answer was put in the mouth of the witness and hence, it lacks probative value and fell short of the mandate u/s 63(c) of the ISA, 1925 read with Section 68 of the IEA, 1872 – Held, what was lacking in the examination-in-chief was brought out in the cross examination by way of a positive suggestion -- Leading questions are permitted in cross-examinations and the response elicited cannot be said to have lesser probative value -- Testator was also established to be of sound and disposing mind at the time of execution of the will -- There can be no interference to the Will which stands proved unequivocally. (SC) Decided on: 17.12.2025

4. Appointment of Arbitrator -- Party's capacity to invoke Arbitration and maintainability issues fall within Arbitration tribunal's domain -- Once the High Court was satisfied that an arbitration agreement prima facie existed, an aspect neither seriously disputed nor refutable at this stage, its decision to constitute the AT cannot be faulted -- A detailed scrutiny on the basis of evidence must be left to AT -- Whether first respondent has validly invoked arbitration individually, whether the Consortium continues to exist, whether consent of other Consortium partners was necessary, and whether claims are maintainable after commencement of liquidation, are all matters which may legitimately be raised, contested and determined before the AT under Section 16 -- Entertaining these questions here would amount to conducting a mini trial at the Section 11 stage, contrary to the settled principles of minimal judicial intervention. (SC) Decided on: 17.12.2025

5. Rape – Murder – SC/ST Act -- Circumstantial evidence -- Medical evidence regarding the homicidal death and the rape committed on the victim, the time of death as stated in the postmortem report, the accused having been found in the same vicinity as the victim and the failure of the accused to establish the alibi as spoken of u/s 313 questioning, would provide a complete chain of circumstances to convict the accused under Sections 302 & 376D read with Section 34 of the IPC -- Though the prosecution has proved the caste of the victim/deceased, there is nothing to indicate that the accused knew the caste of the victim or even that they were in any manner acquainted with the victim, to be aware of her caste status -- No offence under the provisions of the SC/ST Act – Sentenced to 25 years without remission. (SC) Decided on: 17.12.2025

6. Concurrent running of sentence – Presumption of – Suspension of sentence -- When the trial Court does not mention that the sentence would run concurrently or consecutively, the primafacie benefit should be given to the accused, and it should be primafacie presumed that the sentence shall run concurrently, not consecutively -- If the applicant files an application for suspension of sentence, the same shall be decided by primafacie presuming that the sentence is concurrent and not consecutive. (P&H HC) Decided on: 17.12.2025

7. Appeal against acquittal – Scope of – Session court’s conviction order set aside by High Court, acquitting the accused -- Guilt of the accused and the commission of the offence by the accused have to be established beyond reasonable doubt -- Circumstances should suggest “must or should” and not “may be” -- It is a well-settled principle that there must exist “substantial and compelling reasons” to upset the acquittal -- Once the court acquits the accused, the presumption of innocence is reinforced -- Thereafter, the interference by the appellate court would be minimal and has to be guided by strong and cogent reasons -- Reversal of acquittal should not be a matter of course just because the other view is considered to be possible by the appellate court -- Even when the appellate court re-appreciates the evidence while dealing with the judgment and order of acquittal, the innocence attributed to the accused acquitted from the charges of offences would be a weighty rebuttable factor -- Plausible conclusion by High Court, acquitting accused – Appeal dismissed. (SC) Decided on: 16.12.2025

8. SARFAESI proceedings – Security interest -- Mortgage of property – Requirement of – Guarantee deed -- For Invocation of SARFAESI Act presupposes the existence of a validly created security interest in favour of the lender, mortgage is a must – Guarantee deed lacked the authority to invoke the SARFAESI Act against the Company – SARFAESI proceedings quashed. (SC) Decided on: 16.12.2025

9. Pay scale parity -- Delay and laches -- Matters involving pay scale parity based on removal of anomalies, the cause of action continues from month to month as long as the anomaly persists -- Every month when the employee receives lesser pay than his similarly situated counterparts constitutes a fresh cause of action. (SC) Decided on: 16.12.2025

10. Insurance law -- Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy – Cause of fire – Ground of -- Once it is not disputed that the loss is caused by fire, then the cause igniting the fire becomes immaterial -- Insurer cannot refuse to indemnify the damage caused by fire, which is a specified peril, on the ground that the proximate cause of fire was burglary/ theft (which is excluded under the RSMD clause), particularly when no such exclusion is provided in the specified peril “Fire”. (SC) Decided on: 16.12.2025

11. Rape – Hostile witness – Acquittal -- When the main witness of the prosecution, i.e. the victim herself, has not supported the case of the prosecution, it is not open for the Court to presume that she did not support the case of the prosecution because the appellant-accused has won over the said witness -- Moreso, PW-2, i.e., the husband of the victim, also did not support the case of the prosecution -- Further, medical evidence also does not support the case of the prosecution -- Furthermore, three independent witnesses, though cited as prosecution witnesses in the chargesheet, were not examined by the prosecution – Held, Trial Court as well as the High Court committed an error by recording the order of conviction of the appellant-accused and therefore, the said orders are required to be quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted. (SC) Decided on: 16.12.2025

12. Supply of power/ electricity -- Annual fixed charges -- Mandate under Section 61(d) of the 2003 Act, is that in the determination of tariff recovery of the cost of electricity in a reasonable manner is to be ensured -- Respondent, having supplied continuous power, cannot be denied the annual fixed charges for the relevant period, and if it were done so, they will permanently lose that amount, which will be unjust and contrary to law. (SC) Decided on: 16.12.2025

13. Ex-parte judgment/ decree – Setting aside of -- Record clearly establishes that the judgment and decree had been produced and relied upon in legal proceedings on 16.04.2018, which was more than fourteen months prior to the filing of the application seeking setting aside of the ex parte judgment and decree -- Plea taken by the petitioner that he had acquired knowledge of the judgment and decree only a few days prior to filing the application, allegedly through a bank official, has rightly been disbelieved and rejected -- Application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is thus demonstrably based upon falsehood, concealment of material facts, and suppression of the true date of knowledge – No interference in revision. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 08.12.2025 Decided on: 16.12.2025

14. Rejection of plaint – Suit for permanent injunction -- Maintainability of suit -- At the preliminary stage of the proceedings, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for the Court to determine whether specific performance is the sole available remedy, or whether the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable, based solely on the averments contained in the plaint -- The issues raised pertain to questions of fact and law which require trial and cannot be resolved by a summary adjudication at the outset. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 09.12.2025 Decided on: 16.12.2025

15. Doctrine of lis pendens – Separate suit – Maintainability of – Third party rights – Adjudication of -- Doctrine of lis pendens along with Rules 58, 89 to 92, 99 to 104 of Order XXI CPC respectively and Section 47 CPC is as follows: (i) Section 52 of the 1882 Act embodying the doctrine of lis pendens would apply to suits where any right to the property in question is directly and specifically in issue. Whether any right in the property was directly and specifically in question in the suit would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The doctrine cannot blindly be made inapplicable to suits in which the plaint contains a specific averment that the mortgaged property be attached and sold in lieu of the decree or a charge be created on the property. If interpreted so, any judgment-debtor can render the decree incapable of execution by transferring his interest in the property during the pendency of such a suit. (ii) Rule 89 of Order XXI CPC provides an opportunity to any person claiming an interest in the property sold or a person acting for or on behalf of the persons having such interest, another opportunity to save the property from the clutches of the sale. A sine qua non for setting aside the sale under this rule would be the payment of the deposit as prescribed therein within a period of sixty days from the date of the sale. For the purposes of this rule, a pendente lite transferee of the judgment-debtor would also fall under the ambit of the phrase “person claiming an interest in the property sold”. (iii) Rule 90 of Order XXI CPC provides that the sale shall be set-aside if there exists any material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. Furthermore, such material irregularity or fraud must cause a substantial injury to the applicant under Rule 90. In other words, there must be a direct nexus between the material irregularity or fraud and the substantial injury caused to the applicant. (iv) The words “material irregularity in publishing or conducting it” in Rule 90 would include any material irregularity or fraud occurring at a stage prior to the proclamation of sale as well, provided that the applicant did not have an opportunity to raise or could not have raised such a grievance at the appropriate time. Furthermore, the mere absence of or any defect in the attachment, by itself, cannot be a ground for setting aside the sale under Rule 90, unless substantial injury is proved. The applicant must make specific averments as regards the alleged irregularities or fraud, and convince the executing court that a substantial injury has been caused to him as a consequence. (v) The absence of a saleable interest on the part of the judgment-debtor to the suit property cannot be brought in as a ground under Rule 90 of Order XXI CPC. Such a ground would squarely fall within the ambit of Rule 58 of Order XXI CPC, if the sale is yet to be confirmed. (vi) Rule 92(3) of Order XXI CPC states that no person against whom an order under Rule 92 is made (either confirming the sale under Rule 92(1) or setting it aside under Rule 92(2) can institute a separate suit in that regard. However, there is a very narrow scope for a person to file a separate suit despite the bar under Rule 92(3). The reason for such a separate suit must be that the execution proceedings and the sale was without jurisdiction and therefore, a nullity and not binding on the plaintiff who has instituted a separate suit. (vii) Having said so, before holding such a separate suit instituted by a plaintiff alleging that the entire execution proceedings was without jurisdiction and therefore, the sale was a nullity, maintainable, courts must be vigilant in ensuring that the plaintiff was not a party to the original decree or a representative of a party to the original decree, as stated in Section 47 CPC. If so, instead of filing a separate suit, such persons must prefer an application under Section 47 CPC. Upon any failure to do so, their separate suit would be hit by the bar contained in Section 47 CPC which specifically uses the words “and not by a separate suit”. (viii) The term “third party” under Rule 92(4) would mean a party other than the judgment-debtor, decree-holder or the auction-purchaser and would refer to a party who has not had his right, title or interest vis-à-vis the property in question adjudicated under Rule 58, Rule 97 or Rule 99 of Order XXI CPC respectively. To put it very simply, the term “third party” under Rule 92(4) would refer to a party who is extraneous to the original suit proceedings and the proceedings under Order XXI CPC, and who either has not had his right, title or interest adjudicated or having the opportunity to have his right, title or interest adjudicated, has not availed such a remedy within the required time. Such a “third party” would also be someone who falls outside the scope of Section 47 CPC. (ix) Rule 92(4) is not a provision which confers any right to the third party to institute a suit for challenging the title of the judgment-debtor to the property which is subject to the execution proceedings. It is merely a procedural provision which states that such a suit must be instituted against the auction-purchaser, where the decree-holder and judgment-debtor would be necessary parties. (x) When a party other than the judgment-debtor, including a third party, is dispossessed during the course of execution of a decree, the only remedy for such a dispossessed party would lie in filing an application under Rule 99 complaining of its dispossession. In such an application, all questions including that of the right, title and interest of the parties in the proceeding, to the property, would be examined by the executing court. (xi) The words “may” used in Rule 99 along with the words “and not by a separate suit” used in Rule 101, must not be read to mean that a party who has been dispossessed has two options i.e., to either prefer an application under Rule 99 or to file a separate suit, the moment they are dispossessed. This would defeat the underlying object of the amendment made to the scheme of Rules 99 to 104 respectively wherein the executing court has been specifically empowered to look into the questions relating to the right, title and interest of the parties, quite akin to that which would have been done by way of a separate suit. Once the period of limitation for preferring an application under Rule 99 lapses, the person who has been dispossessed in the course of the execution of the decree, including a third party, cannot file a separate suit to circumvent or by-pass the said prescribed period of limitation. (xii) Rule 102 prevents the executing court from passing any order under Rule 100 if it is found that the applicant under Rule 99 is a transferee pendente lite of the judgment-debtor. This again, cannot be construed as giving leeway to such a person to institute a separate suit. Court say so for the simple reason that, even in the separate suit, the law would not look favorably upon a pendente lite transferee, and no relief of declaration of title and/or possession would be granted to him. His fate would be the same as under an application under Rule 99. (xiii) Therefore, - First, the separate suit instituted by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively would be non-maintainable because they are representatives of the judgment-debtor and the bar envisaged under Section 47 CPC would squarely apply to their case. Secondly, having not availed the remedy under Rule 99 of Order XXI CPC within time, the separate suit instituted for the same relief(s) would be barred. Thirdly, even if the aforesaid two reasons assigned could be said to not affect the suit instituted by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 respectively, they would still not be entitled to the reliefs claimed owing to them being pendente lite transferees of the judgment-debtor whose transaction would be hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. (SC) Decided on: 15.12.2025

16. Suit for refund of earnest money -- Agreement to sell -- Concealment of mortgage – Legal notice for refund – Effect of – Conduct of Parties – Adverse Inference from Silence -- Appellant issued a legal notice alleging concealment of the mortgage and seeking a refund -- Respondent’s failure to reply to this notice, combined with his subsequent agreement to reduce the sale price by Rs.35,00,000/- after the mortgage was discovered, was viewed as evidence of "culpable intent" and "deceit" -- Appellant held entitled to realize Rs.65,43,750/- with interest at 13% per annum from the respondent and his assets. (SC) Decided on: 15.12.2025

17. Acquittal -- Rape of four-year old girl – Circumstantial evidence -- Omission in FIR – Investigation lapses -- First Information Report, despite the informant’s professed complete knowledge of the incident, is bereft of even the most rudimentary details, neither the name of the accused person (appellant herein) nor those of the purported witnesses of the last seen together circumstance find mention -- Investigation hopelessly botched and a trial conducted with a pedantic rigidity that obscured, rather than unveiled, the truth -- Highly unnatural conduct of the witnesses, marked by gross insensitivity/ rank apathy, contradictions and apparent concoctions raises serious doubts about the reliability of the prosecution’s case -- Yet, in face of this disturbing matrix, the accused-appellant stands convicted and has remained behind bars for nearly thirteen long years – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside -- Appellant acquitted. (SC) Decided on: 15.12.2025

18. Hindu Law -- Divorce -- Cruelty -- Spouses have strongly held views with regard to the approach towards matrimonial life and they have refused to accommodate each other for a long period of time -- Consequently, their conduct amounts to cruelty to each other – Held, in matrimonial matters involving two individuals, it is not for the society or for the Court to sit in judgment over which spouses’ approach is correct or not -- It is their strongly held views and their refusal to accommodate each other that amounts to cruelty to one another. (SC) Decided on: 15.12.2025

19. Suit for permanent injunction -- During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff transferred his interest in the suit property to his sons -- Transferees, though not necessary parties, would constitute proper parties, as the adjudication in the suit would be binding upon them in view of the principles of lis pendens – Ld. trial court, exercising the discretion vested in it, permitted the impleadment of the plaintiff’s sons as co-plaintiffs -- Such exercise of discretion cannot be characterized as arbitrary, illegal, or perverse, and therefore does not warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction – Revision petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 09.12.2025

20. Cheque bounce complaint -- Cash transaction above Rs.20, 000/- -- Effect of -- High Court acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the petitioner having extended financial assistance to the tune of Rs. 9,00,000/- by way of cash transaction in violation of provisions of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 -- Judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in P.C. Hari Vs. Shine Varghese & Anr.: 2025 SCC Online Ker 5535, came up for consideration before Supreme Court, particularly, on the issue as to whether the cash transaction more than Rs 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) is in violation of Section 269SS would render the transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of NI Act – It was held that any violation of Section 269SS would not render the transaction unenforceable under Section 138 of the NI Act or rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act -- Accordingly, the conclusion of law in P.C. Hari’s case set aside – Held, very foundation of the impugned judgment does not survive as the legal proposition on which the impugned judgment has been rendered, has been set aside -- Matter remitted back to the High Court for consideration afresh on merits as permissible under the revisional jurisdiction. (SC) Decided on: 08.12.2025

21. Death/ Injury by electrocution – Public Utility service – Jurisdiction of Permanent Lok Adalat – PLA does not possess the jurisdiction to determine compensation on account of death or bodily injury caused by electrocution. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 10.09.2025 Decided on: 08.12.2025

22. Execution within 2 years -- Notice to Judgement debtor – Later dispense with the service – Legality of -- In terms of the proviso to Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 22 of Order XXI CPC, the Executing Court was fully competent to dispense with the service of notice upon the Judgment-Debtor when the execution petition was filed within the prescribed period -- Execution petition falls within the ambit of the proviso to Sub-Rule 1, Sub-Rule 2 does not apply -- Court’s exercise of such discretion does not warrant interference under the revisional jurisdiction of High Court. (P&H HC) Decided on: 08.12.2025

23. NDPS – Regular bail – Petitioner nominated as an accused only on the confession of the co-accused to the effect that he had purchased the contraband from the petitioner, which, such confession is not corroborated by any recovery from the petitioner -- Investigation in the case is complete -- Other case registered against the petitioner pertained to intermediate quantity of contraband and are not in relation to any commercial quantity – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2025

24. NDPS -- Commercial quantity – Delay in trial – Regular bail -- Petitioner was found in possession of 610 capsules of Tramadol Hydrochloride of heroin which falls within commercial quantity -- Custody since 22.06.2024 -- Challan presented but the trial has not been concluded till date and there is also no likelihood of the same being concluded soon -- As such, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created u/s 37 of the NDPS Act – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2025

25. NDPS -- Commercial quantity – Petitioner arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of coaccused -- No recovery effected from the petitioner, however the recovery of 200 Kgs of Doda Post effected from co-accused -- Co-accused are on bail and the case of the petitioner is stated to be at par with them -- Custody certificate produced would show that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 08 months & 06 days as on 04.12.2025 -- Petitioner is involved in 02 more cases, however in 01 case, he has been acquitted – Petitioner is covered by the ratio of law in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain’s case, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 260 – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2025

26. Regular bail -- Cheque bounce complaint -- Jump of bail – Proclaimed person -- Petitioner already remained in custody for a period of about 26 days after surrendering before the Court -- Keeping in view the bailable nature of the offence u/s 138 of the NI Act, Court deemed appropriate to grant him the concession of bail subject to the Rs.10,000/- as costs – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.12.2025

27. GPF Funds – Nominee in favour of mother – Subsequent marriage – Effect of -- Nomination in favour of the mother/ respondent no.1 would become invalid upon him acquiring a family (marriage or otherwise), as such, by function thereof, it became invalid in 2003 -- He did not alter the nomination to comply therewith – Held, where a subscriber neglects to or fails to make such changes, that Rules have been prescribed, laying down how the money is to be distributed amongst survivors. (SC) Decided on: 05.12.2025

28. Expedite disposal of civil suit -- Revision petition seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) to decide Civil Suit within a time-bound manner -- Revision petition disposed of, with a direction to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) to decide the Civil Suit as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2025

29. Adjournment request in civil suit -- Adverse remarks against advocate – Legality of -- Serious personal findings recorded against the counsel, attributing to her conduct which the order-sheet itself does not substantiate -- Remarks were not essential for adjudicating the request for adjournment and were made without affording any opportunity to the counsel to clarify the circumstances -- Adverse remarks affecting the professional standing of an advocate must be avoided unless absolutely necessary for the decision of the case and only after due notice and opportunity -- Nevertheless, the language employed in the impugned order was avoidable -- A more measured and temperate approach would have sufficed, particularly when the record itself reflected the earlier presence and bona fide conduct of counsel -- Civil revision allowed, adverse and stigmatic remarks recorded against the counsel, as well as the direction imposing costs of ?30,000 on the judgment-debtor for the alleged conduct of counsel, ordered to be expunged. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2025

30. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – License to drive transport vehicle -- Accident by Tanker – Recovery rights -- Once there is an endorsement on the licence to include T.V. (Transport Vehicle), it clearly proves that the appellant no.2/ driver was entitled to drive transport vehicles, which included a tanker – Recovery rights given by the Tribunal to the insurance company from the appellants set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2025

31. Offending vehicle – Burdon of proof -- Preponderance of probabilities -- Deceased was pillion rider – Driver tendered his affidavit Ex.PW2/A wherein he has deposed that on date of accident, his motorcycle was hit from behind by offending vehicle -- In said accident, he also received injuries and was admitted in the Hospital -- In the meantime, FIR was registered in death case by his brother against unknown vehicle -- During investigation of the case, statement of injured/ PW2 was recorded wherein he has specifically mentioned the registration number of subject vehicle -- Burden of proof, in claim petitions under Motor Vehicles Act, need not be beyond reasonable doubt as the claimants have to prove their case on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities -- Keeping in view the well-reasoned and detailed findings recorded by the Tribunal after relying upon FIR (Ex.PA), copy of challan (Ex.PC) and Postmortem Report of deceased (Ex.PB) as well as observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mangla Ram’s case 2018 AIR (SC)1900 and Kuncham Lavanya’s case 2025(2) RCR (Civil) 420 – No merit in the appeal -- Dismissed in limine. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2025

32. Murder – Circumstantial evidence -- Regular bail -- Prima facie, the case is of circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct eye witness -- Further, whether dead body recovered from drain is of the same person for whom missing FIR was registered or not is yet to be established by the prosecution, during the course of trial -- Whether, mere suspicion of the petitioner, based solely on a disclosure statement, is sufficient for conviction, remains a significant legal question for the prosecution itself to resolve -- Petitioner is already in jail for the last more than two years and only 04 prosecution witnesses out of 26 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date -- Petition allowed, petitioner ordered to be released on bail. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2025

33. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement – Legality of -- Disciplinary proceedings cannot be initiated or continued against retired employees holding non-pensionable posts -- Foundational charge against the petitioner, relating to moisture gain, is unrelated to his duties as a Security Guard and has no statutory or rule-based foundation -- Impugned charge-sheets and subsequent proceedings deserve to be set-aside -- Withholding of the petitioner’s retiral dues are without any legal or statutory basis -- Charge-sheets set-aside and the impugned order withholding the retiral dues of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.9,03,598/- set-aside -- Respondents directed to release the retiral dues of the petitioner amounting to Rs.9,03,598/- along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum, to be calculated from the date of retirement till its realization. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2025

34. Summoning of additional accused – Nature -- Power conferred under this Section is extraordinary and discretionary in nature, intended to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection -- While invoking it, the Court must be satisfied that the evidence appearing against the person sought to be summoned is such that it prima facie necessitates bringing such person to face trial -- Degree of satisfaction required is higher than that warranted at the stage of framing of charge, yet short of the satisfaction necessary to record a conviction -- Such satisfaction must rest on cogent and credible material brought on record during the trial, and not based on conjectures or speculations. (SC) Decided on: 04.12.2025

35. Appointment to Lambardar – Appellate Authority -- Power of -- Once, the Collector had appointed respondent No.1 as Lambardar, the Commissioner should not have appointed the appellant after setting aside the respondent’s appointment in appeal, rather, he should have directed the filling up of the vacancy in the manner required by law. (P&H HC) Decided on: 04.12.2025

36. Acquittal in NDPS Case –Departmental punishment – Sustainability of -- Acquittal by trial Court is not absolute bar and Authorities are duty bound to examine whether case of delinquent falls within exceptions carved out in aforesaid Rule or not – There is no finding that Opium was planted by Investigating Officer of Deputy Superintendent of Police -- There is no finding that there was no recovery of 1 Kg Opium -- Findings recorded by trial Court disclose that petitioner was acquitted by trial Court on the ground of benefit of doubt -- It was a case of non-compliance of mandate of Section 50 of NDPS Act as well as discrepancies in the statements -- It cannot be concluded that case of petitioner does not fall within the exceptions carved out under Rule 16.3 of PPR -- He was liable to be punished -- Punishment of forfeiture of 05 years regular service for increments, upheld. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.12.2025

37. Appointment of lambardar -- Theft of the electricity – Financial Commissioner found that allegations of theft of the electricity not proved as he had no concern with the said premises and the electricity meter was in the name of father of respondent No.4 and even the Electricity Department has already exonerated the respondent No.4 of any misdoing as the house in question was being used by his brother -- Learned Single Judge, upheld the said order – Orders have not been proved to be perverse -- No ineligibility attached to respondent No.4 has been brought to the notice -- Respondent No.4 is working as Lambardar for the last so many years -- No ground made out for any interference – LPA dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.12.2025

38. Cheque bounce complaint – Appeal against conviction -- Suspension of sentence – Condition to deposit of 20% of compensation – Exception to – Ld. Appellate Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the exception or not, which was not considered -- Matter remanded back, Ld. lower Appellate Court to re-examine the case after granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18509 = 2024(2) L.A.R. 323. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.12.2025

39. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Injury case -- No permanent disability suffered by the appellant however suffered a head injury as a result of which he initially remained admitted in hospital from 10.09.2013 to 29.09.2013 and then from 15.10.2013 to 30.10.2013 and again from 02.07.2014 to 06.07.2014 -- For about one year, the appellant was having problems -- Must not have been able to work properly for at least for six months for that Rs.48,000/- (Rs.8000/- x 6) -- Medical expenses, for, the bills produced Rs.1,95,863/- -- Attendant charges Rs.8,000/- per month i.e. Rs.48,000/- (Rs.8000/- X 6) -- Pain and suffering Rs.2 lakhs -- Special diet Rs.25,000/- -- Transportation charges Rs.20,000/- – Total compensation comes to Rs.5,16,863/- -- After deducting a sum of Rs.2,54,863/- as assessed by the MACT, the balance compensation comes to Rs.2,62,000/- -- This amount would be payable along with interest @ 7.5% per cent annually. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.12.2025

40. Notification dated 25th August, 1993 -- Office Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 issued by Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India – Criminal case pending – Issuance of Passport – Right to go abroad -- High Court can, during the pendency of Criminal Proceedings grant the necessary clearance to the applicant enabling him to apply for a passport – Petitioner granted permission to apply for the issuance of a passport before the passport authority and the said authority without raising objecting relating to pendency of criminal cases against the present petitioner but subject to other conditions being fulfilled considering the case of petitioner for the issuance of passport in accordance with law -- However, petitioner shall have to seek permission from the Trial Court before going abroad and grant of permission to apply for a passport shall not be construed as implied permission to go abroad. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.12.2025

41. Appointment of Lambardar -- Theft of electricity -- Allegations of theft of the electricity is not proved against the respondent No.4/ appointed candidate as he had no concern with the said premises and the electricity meter was in the name of father of respondent No.4 -- Even the Electricity Department has already exonerated the respondent No.4 – Further no ineligibility attached to respondent No.4 has been brought to the notice -- Respondent No.4 is working as Lambardar for the last so many years -- In the absence of any perversity pointed out to the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, which order has already been upheld by the learned Single Judge, no ground is made out for any interference – LPA dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 03.12.2025

42. Discharge of accused -- Allegation by complainant that by clicking her photographs without her consent accused intruded her privacy and obstructed her entry into premises -- FIR and charge sheet silent about the manner in which complainant was threatened or was watched or captured by the accused while she was engaging in a 'private act' to attract Section 354C -- Except for the bald allegation that the Appellant-accused intimidated the complainant by clicking her photographs, the FIR and charge-sheet are completely silent about the manner in which the complainant was threatened with any injury to her person or her property -- The words, if any, uttered by the complainant are not mentioned in the FIR -- Complainant or her associates never made a statement to substantiate her allegations -- Ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation are not attracted -- Ingredients of wrongful restraint u/s 341 not made out, in absence of material on record to show that complainant was a tenant in the property at any point of time -- On the date of the alleged offence, complainant had no right to enter the property - Accused enforce bonafidely thought was his lawful right over property in terms of injunction order -- Accused discharged. (SC) Decided on: 02.12.2025

43. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased aged 28 years -- Monthly income of the deceased was assessed as Rs.22,763/- per month -- Future prospects @ 50% added -- Further, a sum of Rs.48,400/- to each of the claimants required to be awarded on account of filial consortium – Deceased is bachelor, deduction of 1/2 of the assessed income would have to be made on account of personal expenses instead of 1/3rd as assessed by the MACT – Multiplier of 17 applied -- Total compensation assessed at Rs.36,15,839/- -- Rounded off to Rs.4,50,100/- payable -- This amount would be payable in addition to the amount assessed by the learned MACT along with interest @ 7.5% annually. (P&H HC) Decided on: 02.12.2025

44. Criminal justice system – Curtailment of liberty -- Criminal justice system, though permitting curtailment of personal liberty, mandates that such deprivation must strictly conform to the procedure established by law -- The said procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (P&H HC) Decided on: 02.12.2025

45. India’s international obligations under the UNCRPD, Article 31 -- Tamil Nadu Prison Rules, 1983, Rules 196, 197, 198(iii) – Right of person with disabilities in prison – In addition to the salutary directions set out in L. Muruganantham, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1444 = (2025) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 20637 = 2025 INSC 844, following directions shall also be read in conjunction with the mandate of the said judgment: - A. The directions issued by this Court in L. Muruganantham (supra) shall be extended to all the States and the Union Territories, to ensure that the principles are adopted mutatis mutandis within their prison systems as well. B. Every State and Union Territories shall establish a robust, independent and accessible grievance redressal mechanism specifically designed for prisoners with disabilities. The said mechanism shall ensure prompt registration, effective monitoring and timely resolution of complaints, so as to safeguard inmates from systemic neglect, abuse and discriminatory practices. C. Appropriate facilities shall be created to ensure that prisoners with disabilities have meaningful access to inclusive education within the prison system. No inmate shall be deprived of the opportunity to pursue educational programmes solely on account of disability, and suitable adjustments shall be made to facilitate their effective participation. D. Section 89 of the RPwd Act shall mutatis mutandis be made applicable to prison establishments across the country. All prison authorities shall take adequate steps to disseminate awareness of the obligations flowing from the said provision to all officers, staff, legal-aid personnel, and other stakeholders. E. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has sought directions for the provision of appropriate assistive devices, mobility aids, and other support equipment to prisoners with disabilities. However, considering the crucial issue relating to prison security and the practical modalities of implementation, we, for the present, deem it appropriate to call upon all States and Union Territories to indicate in its compliance report the structured institutional mechanism proposed to ensure the regular availability, maintenance, and secure provision of assistive devices, mobility aids, and other disability-support equipment for prisoners with disabilities. The affidavit shall clearly outline the procedures, infrastructure, procurement systems, supervision protocols, and security measures by which such assistive aids will be made accessible to inmates, enabling them to carry out their daily activities with dignity without compromising institutional safety. F. Prisoners with benchmark disabilities shall be entitled to enhanced visitation provisions, in order to ensure sustained family support, emotional well-being, and continuous monitoring of their special needs. The specific modalities for such visitation shall be framed by the concerned departmental head of each State and Union Territory so as to balance security considerations with the imperative of accessibility and humane treatment. All States and Union Territories directed to place on record a comprehensive compliance report before this Court within four months, indicating the measures undertaken for effectuating the directions issued in L. Muruganantham (supra) as well as those mandated herein -- The report shall clearly set out the steps adopted, the progress achieved, and the modalities evolved for ensuring faithful implementation of the aforesaid directions in the prisons located within their jurisdictions. (SC) Decided on: 02.12.2025

46. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Eye witness to the accident – Requirement of -- FIR u/s 279 and 304-A of the IPC was also registered on the same day against the driver of the offending vehicle, who also faced trial before the Illaqa Magistrate -- It is not necessary that there would be an eyewitness in such type of motor vehicle accident cases and merely due to non-examination of an eyewitness the impugned award passed by the Tribunal can be faulted. (P&H HC) Decided on: 02.12.2025

47. Mutation on the basis of Will – Non-challenge to Will – Effect of -- Will by the father of the parties litigating -- Submission of the appellants is that the Will should be proved first before getting the mutation entered -- After the year 2009, no effort has been made by the appellants to challenge the said Will despite knowledge -- Rather, the effort is that the other side should prove the Will before getting the mutation entered -- Once despite knowledge, the Will has not been challenged, the mutation entry have rightly not been interferred. (P&H HC) Decided on: 02.12.2025

48. Statement u/s 313 of Cr.P.c. – Mandate of -- Statements given by all three persons are carbon copies of each other -- How such statements can pass muster at the hands of the learned Trial Judge is understandable -- Out of the four questions asked, directly related to the sequence of events, were only two -- The second question was as general as can be, with reference to only the bare allegations, to which an omnibus denial was issued -- The third was also of similar nature, saying that it has been alleged and evidenced, and nothing further -- This cannot be said to be the putting of every material circumstance -- Desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this section fall by the wayside -- Prosecutor is an officer of the Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice -- Appeals allowed and the matter sent back to the concerned Trial Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements. (SC) Decided on: 01.12.2025

49. Recovery of weapons – Acquittal in revision -- Grounds : i) that the weapon of offence was never test fired. Thus, the report of Arms Act Expert (PW-5) could not have been believed with regard to the fact that the weapon was in working condition; ii) that the sanction order was defective as the weapon was never produced before the sanctioning authority; iii) that the link evidence was missing as the storekeeper in whose custody the weapon was kept had not been examined; iv) that the weapon was not produced in sealed condition before the arms expert, which shows that it was not sealed on the spot. Thus, the tampering of case property in this case cannot be ruled out; v) that despite the fact that recovery had taken place at a crowded place, any independent witness has not been joined; vi) that the testimony of witnesses of recovery i.e. PW-2 and PW-4 were contrary with regard to material witnesses; If the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors is taken into consideration, it leads to a conclusion that the story set-out by the prosecution, with regard to recovery of country-made pistol from the possession of petitioner, fails to inspire confidence – Held, there is sufficient scope for indulgence and interference in the findings returned by the learned trial Court -- Charge for the commission of offence punishable u/s 25 of Arms Act was not proved against the petitioner – Petitioner acquitted. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 14.11.2025 Decided on: 01.12.2025

50. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case -- Deceased was minor/ 16 years of age – Multiplier – Future prospects -- Claimants are deceased’s parents – Income assessed as per the minimum wage for a skilled worker @ Rs. 10,382/- per month and a multiplier of ‘18’ would be applicable -- Future prospects added at 40% -- Keeping in view the age of the child, 50% deduction would also be applicable – Loss of estate Rs.18,000/-, Funeral expenses Rs.18,000/-, Loss of consortium Filial [Rs.48,000/- x 2] = Rs.96,000/- -- Total compensation comes to Rs.17,01,762/- -- Will attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount. (P&H HC) Decided on: 01.12.2025