Archana K.R., a candidate from the Scheduled Caste, challenged the Kerala High Court’s Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 recruitment lists for direct appointment to the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service as District & Sessions Judge. The core dispute centered on tie-breaking when two candidates secured identical aggregate marks (written plus viva voce). Ext.P12 clause 10 provides that, in such a tie, the elder in age shall be preferred. Archana asserted this rule to be irrational and contrary to merit, urging that viva voce marks and other factors (such as date of enrollment or feeder cadre seniority) should determine inter-se merit, relying on Ext.P11 (UPSC FAQ) which indicates that date of birth is not the sole tie-breaker and that interviews can influence merit. The 3rd respondent was ranked above Archana despite identical totals (121.5 marks) because she was older, per Ext.P12. The petition argued that viva voce weight should predominate and that feeder cadre seniority or length of practice should govern tie-breaks. The respondents defended Clause 10 as a rational, time-tested tie-break mechanism consistent with KS & SSR 1958, Rule 27(a) and 27(e), and the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service Rules 1961 as amended, supported by Full Court precedent (Ext.P12) and PSC practice. The High Court ultimately held Clause 10 sustainable, upheld Exts.P7 and P8, and dismissed the writ petition, stating viva voce cannot override a fixed tie-break framework.
CRL.M.C. Nos.1538 & 9174/22 These two criminal miscellaneous petitions challenge magistrate orders releasing motor vehicles involved in road accidents where no third-party insurance policy was in force at the time of the incident. Rule 391A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 bars release of such vehicles unless the owner provides 'sufficient security' to satisfy potential compensation claims and directs sale of the vehicle if security fails. Rule 391A was adopted in 2018 following directions in Usha Devi v. Pawan Kumar and Ors., and discussed in Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. The Kerala High Court, while considering the two petitions, held that 'sufficient security' must be readily realizable, so that compensation can be paid to victims without protracted litigation. A bond alone is not enough; preferred forms include cash deposits, bank guarantees, fixed deposits or similar devices. The court observed that releasing vehicles on bonds could frustrate victims' rights and undermine the objective of Rule 391A. In the two cases, the vehicles were released on bonds of Rs. 3,80,000 and Rs. 19,80,000, despite lack of insurance. The court set aside those orders and directed the magistrates to pass fresh orders, ensuring release only if security is capable of immediate execution, and emphasizing the need for production of a fresh valid insurance policy before release. The aim is to secure prompt relief for victims.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award of compensation by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV) No.125 of 2009 following injuries to the petitioner, Ahanas, on 08.09.2007 when a private KSRTC bus collided with a KSRTC bus near Kunnamangalam while transporting him from Mananthavady to Kozhikode. The Tribunal held the private bus driver negligent and awarded Rs.67,400 with 7.5% interest and costs. The petitioner challenged the quantum, contending that his income and losses were inadequately assessed. He claimed a monthly income of Rs.5,000, while the Tribunal had fixed Rs.3,000 as notional income. Relying on the Supreme Court’s Ramachandrappa decision (2011) 13 SCC 236, the High Court re-fixed the notional monthly income at Rs.6,000. It recalculated loss of earnings for a 3-month incapacity, pain and suffering, and disability, and made adjustments: increased loss of earnings by Rs.9,000; raised pain and suffering to Rs.20,000; reworked disability at 5% with a 17-multiplier resulting in Rs.61,200 and an additional Rs.30,600 as enhanced disability compensation; augmented loss of amenities to Rs.15,000; deducted Rs.2,000 from loss of earning power. The court finally determined enhanced compensation at Rs.60,600, with 7.5% interest from the petition date and costs, directing the insurer to deposit within two months, while excluding 134 days’ interest per a prior order; the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
MACA 184/2020 & CO 35/2023 This Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA 184/2020) and Cross Objection (CO 35/2023) arise from an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, in OP(MV) No.172/2017. The claimants, as respondents, sought enhanced compensation for a 2016 accident in which Amal, a student, died while riding as a pillion; the Tribunal awarded Rs. 20,81,000, which the Insurance Company (applicant) contends is excessive. The Insurance Company argues the notional income adopted by the Tribunal is too low, that 40% future prospects should be added, and that 50% of income should be deducted for personal expenses since the deceased was a bachelor; it also disputes Rs. 1,50,000 granted under the head ‘Loss of Love and Affection’ in light of Satwinder Kaur. The cross objectors contend the award undervalues the claim and should be enhanced, citing Ramachandrappa, Minu Rout and Pranay Sethi to advocate higher, pragmatic compensation. The Court reexamines the evidence and adopts a pragmatic approach, applying Ramachandrappa and Minu Rout, resulting in a notional income of Rs.10,500 per month, with 40% future prospects and 50% deduction for personal expenses. It deletes the Love and Affection head per Satwinder Kaur, and modifies the Loss of Dependency to Rs.15,87,600. Other heads remain untouched. Interest at 7% per annum from the claim date, with deposit within two months, is ordered.
The Kerala High Court, in CRL.MC No. 7143 of 2018, considers Faisal Salim's challenge to the final report in Crime No. 2214/2015 of Varkala Police Station and the consequent proceedings in CC 487/2016. The petitioner, the second accused, along with his father, was charged with offences under IPC Sections 294(b) (obscene words in public place), 506(i) (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011. The de facto complainant alleges that on 19.09.2015 the petitioner threatened her by telephone in a matrimonial dispute involving the petitioner’s sister and her husband. The court assesses whether the final report discloses the essential elements of the offences. It notes that for 294(b) the obscene words must be uttered in or near a public place; here the abusive words were spoken over a telephone, which is not a public place, and the de facto complainant’s account does not specify the exact words, making the offence not made out. Regarding 506(i), the threat was allegedly by the 1st accused (the petitioner’s father), who is deceased; thus the charge cannot lie against the petitioner. The court also finds no basis for applying Section 120(o) since there is no material indicating a nuisance through communications. Consequently, none of the offences are made out, and the proceedings are an abuse of process of law; Annexure A1 and all further proceedings are quashed. The petition is allowed.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These are a batch of writ petitions filed by managers of Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools challenging Government Order GO(MS) No.121/2022 dated 7 July 2022 and related prospectus provisions for Plus One admissions for 2022-23. The petitions contend that the Government’s policy to cap management quota at 20% in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools, and the accompanying 10% community quota (reserved for the community to which the management belongs) are unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. The Court traces the historical evolution of quota regimes since 1991 and notes prior judicial pronouncements that reserved quotas for management and community were subject to scrutiny. It holds that while governmental policy decisions are within the executive’s domain and not routinely reviewable, the specific provision requiring managements to declare their community and reserve 10% seats for that community is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The 10% community seats are to be treated as open merit seats and filled strictly through the centralized admission process (CAP) on merit. The judgment upholds a 20% management quota, rejects the 10% community quota, and disposes of the petitions, leaving admissions to be conducted via CAP in merit.”
This writ petition, WP(C) No.12810 of 2018, filed before the Kerala High Court, challenges the Government Order (Ext.P2) dated 16 July 2014, which granted an option for fixation of pay for the 1997, 2004 and 2009 pay revisions and permitted a notional selection grade fixation. The petitioner, a retired headmistress who left service in 2005, contends she was unaware of Ext.P2 during the relevant period due to illness (May–December 2014) and, upon learning of it, submitted Ext.P3 on 10 March 2016 seeking permission to re-option for notional selection grade by extending Ext.P2’s benefit. She further argues lack of proper publication and dissemination of Ext.P2 and reliance on directions from the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The respondents counter that Ext.P2 provided only a three-month time window for submitting a fresh option and expressly barred extensions; being a general order, it applied to all similarly situated teachers, and allowing one extension would create anomalous treatment. The court, after considering the materials, held that Ext.P2 is a general order with a strict time limit, and since the petitioner did not submit any option within that period, she cannot be granted a belated extension. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed, with no re-option or pay fixation beyond the prescribed time.
RFA (INDIGENT) NO. 303 OF 2022 This Regular First Appeal arising from a suit concerning the proving of a will under Indian Succession Act centers on the interaction between Section 68 and Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act. The testator, who had executed a will shortly before his death, allegedly committed suicide within hours of execution. The attesting witnesses (PW3 and PW4) appeared as hostile to the attestation and execution, signifying their status as introducing witnesses rather than proper attesting witnesses. They had acted under the instruction of PW7, the scribe, and were not able to corroborate animus attestandi or the due execution. The propounder of the will argued that, given the hostility of attesting witnesses, Section 71 should enable proof by “other evidence” in lieu of the normal requirement under Section 68. The court clarifies that Section 71 is not an independent exception to Section 68; it applies only when all alive and capable attesting witnesses are summoned and have either denied or failed to recollect execution, and only then may other evidence be admissible. The judgment cites Janki Narayan to underscore that Section 71 is a safeguard to Section 68 and not a blanket substitute; it also cites Bom and KLT authority regarding best evidence and the need for animus attestandi. Ultimately, the court finds no satisfactory proof of due execution or animus attestandi, assesses mental state considerations, and dismisses the suit, allowing the appeal and setting aside the trial court’s decree.
K. Vitala Shetty, a hereditary trustee seeking to protect traditional festival practices at Sree Durga Parameshwari Temple in Manjeswar, Kasaragod, petitions for mandamus under Article 226 to compel the Malabar Devaswom Board’s Area Committee to act on Ext.P3 and to restrain the temple’s Managing Trustee (4th respondent) from circulating a festival invitation pending that decision. The temple’s Annual Festival, vital to community bonding between Kudal and Badoor, features a historic procession with the Bhandara Guttu. Ext.P1, dated 12.02.2023, requests inclusion of Bhandara Guttu in the invitation; Ext.P2, the invitation, omits it; Ext.P3, dated 15.02.2023, seeks action by the Area Committee to direct the 4th respondent to print a revised invitation mentioning the Bhandara Guttu. The petitioner relies on Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, including clause (e) on custom or established usage, and Article 226 of the Constitution. The court, however, concludes that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes and that mandamus cannot be issued against the 4th respondent for disputed questions of fact. It dismisses the petition on maintainability grounds, while noting the petitioner may pursue redress through the appropriate statutory forums, without prejudice to any rights. The decision emphasizes limits on writ jurisdiction over internal temple disputes and the role of statutory remedies.
Sabarinath M.S., the sole accused in FIR No. 93/2023 of the Kuthiathode Police Station, moves a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR and all proceedings. The FIR, registered for offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 354 IPC, arises from a relationship between the petitioner and Respondent No.3 that began as a friendship and progressed to sexual contact. Respondent No.3 filed a First Information Statement alleging sexual assault on two occasions in 2022–2023; the investigation led to the filing of the FIR. The petitioner contends that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled and that Respondent No.3 has sworn in an affidavit stating she has no grievances. The Public Prosecutor, on instructions, confirms that the dispute has been settled following an inquiry by the investigating officer. Relying on Supreme Court decisions such as Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the court considers the scope of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings where the offences are not compoundable and where a private/commercial/civil-like dispute has been resolved. The judgment also canvasses consent-related principles from Deelip Sing, Anurag Soni, Mango Ram, Deepak Gulati and Kaini Rajan and discusses the distinction between rape and consensual sex under Sections 375 and 90 IPC. The court notes that the case, at the FIR stage, involves essentially private matters, where continuing proceedings would cause oppression despite settlement. Applying the cited doctrine, the court holds the case to have a private flavour and exercises its power to prevent abuse of process, resulting in quashing of the criminal proceedings. The Criminal M.C. is allowed, and all further proceedings in Crime No. 93/2023 stand quashed.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 5057 of 2022) before the Kerala High Court concerns quashing of proceedings in SC No. 821/2015, arising from Thrikkunnappuzha Police Station Crime No. 395/2015. The petitioners, Babu and Riju, were charged under sections 341, 324, 308, 326 r/w 34 IPC. They contend that the parties have settled the dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, supported by an affidavit from the victim. The respondent State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, initially expressed reservations about quashing simply on settlement, but conceded that the matter is settled. The victim likewise states no objection. The High Court weighs the jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in cases of private disputes where there is complete settlement, drawing on Supreme Court jurisprudence from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, and the line of authority in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, among others. The court extracts the guiding principles: quashing may be possible for private, non‑serious offences if the settlement is genuine and the dispute private; not for heinous crimes or offences under special statutes. Applying these principles to the facts, the court finds the dispute private, accepts the settlement, and allows the petition, quashing all further proceedings in SC 821/2015. The order records the court’s reasoning and closes the matter.
The petitioner, Asha T. Varkey, is a Section Officer who joined the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (APJ AKTU) in 2017 under Section 7(5) of the APJ AKTU Act, 2015 (Act 17 of 2015). Her grievance is that, despite more than five years in APJ AKTU, she remains at the level of Section Officer while juniors who stayed at Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU) or were promoted in the parent university have risen to higher posts. The delay in notifying the Statute (5.8.2020) and in framing Ordinances and norms relating to appointment, eligibility, and promotion has caused serious prejudice, as fresh options under the Statute could relegate her seniority by placing juniors above her. She sought to declare the Statute ultra vires Act 17 of 2015 and to secure incidental reliefs, including seniority reckoning and promotion to higher posts based on her prior seniority in the MGU. The respondents asserted that the Statutes and Ordinances would govern the University Service and that Section 7(5) was intended to transfer pre-statute appointees with norms to be fixed by the Government. The court ultimately held that pre-statute Section 7(5) appointees form a separate class for seniority, that the Government must determine norms, and that the petitioner is entitled to promotion based on seniority with no prejudice to the pre-statute class. The judgment remits recasting seniority and directing promotion of the petitioner with final seniority lists to be prepared within two months.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal by Ravi (Appellant/Accused No.1) challenging the Additional Court of Sessions-III, Thalassery’s judgment in SC No.230 of 2014, dated 20 June 2019. The trial court convicted the appellant under sections 457 (house breaking at night to commit theft) and 380 (theft), while acquitting him of sections 395 (dacoity) and 413 (habitual dealing in stolen property). The prosecution’s case was that on 04.07.2012 at 4:00 a.m. the accused participated with others in a night-time house burglary, snatching a gold chain from PW1, and that the stolen property was later recovered from a third party following the accused’s disclosure under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. PW1 identified the accused; however, there were critical evidentiary gaps: no test identification parade was conducted; PW1 described no distinctive features beyond a lean body and black complexion, with uncertain lighting; the chain’s recovery reached court only on 21.10.2013, despite seizure on 30.08.2013, without cogent explanation for the delay. The High Court, relying on Mohd. Abdul Hafeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh, held that identification after a substantial delay without a TIP casts reasonable doubt on guilt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment set aside, and Ravi acquitted and ordered to be released if not required elsewhere.
This is a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. by the first accused, Rathishkumar, challenging a conviction for an offence under Section 308 IPC in SC No.45/2007 on the file of the Court of Session, Kottayam. The trial court acquitted A2–A4 but convicted A1 for stabbing PW1 with a knife on 15/08/2005 during a money-demand dispute, sentencing four years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹5,000, and a default term. The prosecution relied on Ext.P1 FIS by PW1, the FIR Ext.P5, and MO1 as the weapon, with PW8–PW9 conducting investigations and PW4 detailing the injuries. The appellate court scrutinized the consistency of PW1’s in-court testimony with Ext.P1, the absence of independent CW2 witnesses, the conduct of attestor PW5, and the reliability of MO1’s recovery (PW6 turning hostile). It highlighted inconsistencies between PW1 and PW2, and pointed out the lack of corroboration for the role of A2–A4, as well as the medical testimony not definitively connecting MO1 to the injury. The High Court concluded that the ocular evidence, medical evidence, and recovery of MO1 do not establish beyond reasonable doubt that A1 intended to cause death nor that the component of Section 34 IPC was proved. The appeal was allowed, resulting in acquittal of A1 and setting aside the trial court’s conviction. The bail bond was cancelled and release ordered, if not required elsewhere.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 1744 of 2020) is a Kerala High Court petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by four accused—Vishnu B, Abhijith K.A., Anoop Rajendran, and Abhinj—seeking quashing of proceedings in CC 742/2014 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thiruvananthapuram. The underlying offences in the CC are sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, and 427 IPC, allegedly committed on 11.06.2013 when the petitioners allegedly restrained and assaulted the de facto complainant. The petition contends that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and wish to move forward, with an affidavit from the party respondent supporting withdrawal of prosecution. The Public Prosecutor, while noting the absence of other serious crimes against the petitioners, reserved judgment, expressing concerns about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but acknowledged the respondent’s lack of lasting grievances. The High Court relies on State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and the line of decisions including Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to articulate that Section 482 can quash non-compoundable, private offences where settlement exists, depending on gravity of offence, injuries, and conduct of the accused. Ultimately, the Court holds that quashing is justified, recording that it would serve ends of justice and peace, and quashes the final report and proceedings in CC 742/2014.
The petitioners, devotees of Venganoor Bhagavathinada Devi Temple, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to compel the Deputy Commissioner to complete the process for electing a new Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) for the temple. The term of the TAC expired in October 2021, and extensions were granted by Ext.P1 (13.10.2021) and Ext.P2 (07.10.2022) by the 3rd respondent and 1st respondent respectively, apparently to facilitate ongoing construction (Chuttambalam) and Thrikkarthika Maholsavam. By Ext.P5 (02.02.2023) the 1st respondent Board directed steps to constitute a new TAC. The devotees submitted Ext.P6 (10.02.2023). The grievance is inaction by the Board and its officials in timely elections. The court analyzes Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and the accompanying Rules, including Clauses (2), (3), (5), (11), (12), and (18), clarifying membership, term, and the power to extend. It cites Santharam Roy T.S., Chandu K., and Sunil Kumar C. to illustrate interpretation of eligibility, statutory timing, and extension limits. While extensions are permissible under certain circumstances, they cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The petition is disposed of by directing the Additional 5th Respondent to initiate election proceedings within one week and to complete them within two months, strictly following the Rules.
Petitioners, five senior employees of Thrissur Co-Operative Spinning Mills Ltd., approached the Kerala High Court under Article 226 challenging non-payment of gratuity awarded by the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Under Section 7(4), the petitioners had sought disbursement of gratuity for the eligible years after long service. The Controlling Authority had, after hearing both sides, issued Exts. P2 to P5 orders granting the gratuity amounts with interest at 10%. The 1st Respondent argued financial distress and ongoing losses, contending that gratuity payments would jeopardize the mill’s revival and that elevated statutory dues (over Rs. 41 crores) create an insurmountable hurdle. The petitioners argued gratuity is a statutory and social-security right, not discretionary charity; withholding it cannot be justified by monetary constraints. The High Court recognized gratuity as a social-security measure akin to pension and provident fund and reiterated that financial strain cannot override a statutory entitlement. The Court observed that Section 7(3-A) fixes a 10% interest in delayed payment, and while Viswanathan v. TFC Ltd. cautions that 10% is a ceiling, it does not require reduction here. Relying on a prior W.P. (C) 8901/2019, the Court directed that the gratuity amounts be disbursed expeditiously, within six months, thereby balancing employee rights with the employer’s revival needs.
CON.CASE(C) NO.501 OF 2020 Cont.Case (C) No.501 of 2020 is a contempt petition filed by five petitioners challenging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1 judgment dated 25.02.2019 in W.P.(C) No.5001 of 2017 and connected matters, following Annexure A2 judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2015. The Supreme Court’s subsequent orders on SLP against the 2018 judgment were dismissed, recalled, and culminated in a detailed judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeals Nos. 8143-8144 of 2022 (Sunil Kumar B.), holding the notification G.S.R. 609(E) of 2014 to be legal and valid and reading down certain provisions of the provident fund pension scheme. The 2022 decision directed amendments and extensions to options under paragraphs 11(3) and 11(4), clarified retirement entitlements, and temporarily suspended a contested additional contribution, while allowing adjustments. The High Court, noting the 2022 Apex Court ruling, held that the petitioners’ claim for higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO in light of the judgment, and closed the contempt case, reserving EPFO’s right to revisit entitlement under the 2022 decision. Annexures A1–A3 constitute the procedural history.
W. P. (C) No. 24510 of 2016 This writ petition (W.P. (C)) was filed by Meera R. Bhat, a resident within Manjeswaram Grama Panchayat, challenging two Grama Panchayat resolutions (Exts. P1 and P2) and the contemplated assignment of two 0.06-acre parcels of public land (RS No. 61/2 and RS No. 61/3 in Hosabettu Village) to respondents 4 and 5, namely Sadguru Sree Nithyananda Seva Samithi and Sadanand Malli. The petitioner contends the land is public poramboke vested in the Panchayat and cannot be transferred to others; encroachments and unauthorised constructions exist on the land adjoining her property, and the Panchayat has a duty to recover possession and demolish such structures under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the 1996 Rules. Respondents 4 and 5 claim possession for decades, alleging that the Panchayat’s resolutions were intended to devest and enable assignment to them, citing provisions of the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 and the 1964 Rules, and amendments under the Kerala Decentralization of Power Act, 2000. The Court held that the Panchayat did not devest or assign the property via Exts. P1 and P2, and that Government assignment requires compliance with statutory prerequisites. While the petition is disposed, the Court permits the Panchayat to proceed against encroachers and allows respondents to apply for Government assignment; if no orders are obtained in a reasonable time, the Panchayat may recover the property in accordance with law.
The Kerala High Court, in MACA No. 385 of 2013 arising from O.P.(M.V) No. 241/2002 before the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, considered the death of Praveen Rana in a road accident on 26.10.2001. The appellants—Prerna Rana and her minor daughter Priyanka Rana—claimed enhanced compensation, challenging an award directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.21,10,008 with 7.5% interest and distributing it 50:45:5 among the heirs. The insurer contested the quantum, while admitting policy coverage. The appellants argued that the computation of loss of dependency was too low and that future prospects should be increased beyond 50% (even up to 100%), citing Exts. A6 and A8 and evidence of 3% annual increments, as well as Supreme Court authorities (Sureshchandra Bagmal Doshi; Sarla Verma; Pranay Sethi) and a Karnataka/Tribunal precedent (Simi, W/o. Biju P. Varghese). Respondents urged adherence to the 50% standard fixed by Pranay Sethi, stressing that the standard parameters reduce arbitrariness and citing per incuriam concerns. The High Court ultimately held that higher future prospects may be adopted where credible evidence demonstrates higher actual prospects; it allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal’s award, and remanded the matter for fresh determinations on enhancement, with directions to the parties to adduce further evidence. The court ordered appearance on 11.12.2023 and envisaged a speedy disposal within six months, given the 2002 filing.
