***

Rebuttal Evidence – Handwriting Expert – Defendant specifically denied his signatures on the agreement to sell only during cross-examination, the plaintiffs, having reserved their right to lead rebuttal evidence, could not be denied the opportunity to examine a handwriting expert in rebuttal.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151, Order 18 Rule 3 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10 – Specific Performance – Rebuttal Evidence – Handwriting Expert – Although the defendant had pleaded in the written statement that the agreement to sell was false and forged, he specifically denied his signatures on the agreement during cross-examination -- Plaintiffs, having reserved their right to lead rebuttal evidence while closing their affirmative evidence, could not be denied the opportunity to examine a handwriting expert on the ground of delay, and the Trial Court’s order rejecting their application was set aside.

(Paras 14-18)

***

Temporary Injunction – Restoration of Electricity Supply – Possession protected by an order of temporary injunction -- Electricity, being a basic necessity for dignified living, restored to ensure effective enjoyment of possession despite electricity department is not party.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 151, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 – Temporary Injunction – Basic Amenities – Inherent Powers – Restoration of Electricity Supply – Once possession of a party is protected by an order of the Court, such possession must be meaningful and capable of effective enjoyment; electricity is a basic necessity of human life and an essential service required for dignified living, and deprivation thereof would render the protection of possession illusory and defeat the very purpose of the interim order passed by the trial Court; the contention that the Electricity Department is not a party to the suit is devoid of substance; restoration of electricity supply upheld.

(Paras 5-6)

***

Stay of Execution – Warrant of possession -- First Appellate Court ought to have stayed execution during pendency of the appeal to prevent it from becoming infructuous.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 41 Rule 5, Section 96 -- Constitution of India, Article 227 -- Stay of Execution – Specific Performance – First Appeal Pending – Execution of a decree for specific performance has progressed to execution of the sale deed and issuance of a warrant of possession -- First Appellate Court ought to have stayed execution during pendency of the appeal to prevent it from becoming infructuous before the rights of the parties are finally crystallised -- High Court stayed execution of the judgment and decree during pendency of the appeal.

(Paras 5–6)

***

Review – It cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise or invoked for re-agitating issues or seeking a rehearing on merits.

***

Review – Withdrawal of Petition – Once the petitioner has consciously opted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, she cannot seek review of the order passed at her own instance.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 – Review – It is a settled proposition of law that the power of review is extremely limited in scope and can be exercised only in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto --  A review proceeding cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, nor can it be invoked for re-agitating issues or seeking a rehearing on merits.

(Para 5)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 – Review – Withdrawal of Petition – Once the petitioner has consciously opted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh, she cannot be permitted to turn around and seek review of the very order which was passed at her own instance -- No ground has been made out to show that there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the order -- There is neither any patent illegality nor any jurisdictional error warranting interference in exercise of review jurisdiction -- Application, in effect, seeks to recall or undo a voluntary act of withdrawal, which is impermissible in law – Review application dismissed.

(Para 6-8)

***

Review – Power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 – Review – Scope of Review Jurisdiction – Power of review cannot be exercised as an appeal in disguise and does not permit rehearing or re-argument of matters already decided; an error apparent on the face of the record must be established -- Power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.

(Paras 5-7)

***

IBC – Withdrawal of Approved Resolution Plan – Once the CoC approves a Resolution Plan and submits it to the Adjudicating Authority for approval, neither the CoC nor the Successful Resolution Applicant can withdraw or modify it, as its binding effect arises under the IBC framework.

***

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Sections 12A, 30(2), 30(4) and 31(1) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016,  Regulation 30A – Withdrawal of Approved Resolution Plan – Once the Committee of Creditors (CoC) approves a Resolution Plan and places it before the Adjudicating Authority for approval, neither the CoC nor the Successful Resolution Applicant can withdraw from or modify the approved plan, as the binding effect of the plan arises under the IBC framework – Withdrawal under Section 12A is permissible only until approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC – Improvement in the financial position or profitability of the Corporate Debtor, by itself, cannot justify refusal of approval if the plan satisfies Section 30(2). Ebix Singapore (P) Ltd.’s case (2022) 2 SCC 401, followed.

(Paras 13-25)

***

Permanent Injunction – Plaintiff claiming only a half share in the property cannot assert exclusive possession to seek permanent injunction; the appropriate remedy is to seek partition

***

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) – Section 38 – Permanent Injunction – Co-ownership – Exclusive Possession – Partition – Plaintiff, having purchased and claimed possession of only a half share in the property, could not assert exclusive possession thereof, particularly when part of the property had been acquired and apportionment proceedings were pending; the appropriate remedy was to seek partition.

(Para 8)

***

Service of Summons – Ex Parte Proceedings – Affixation of summons at the defendant’s house in his absence, without specific directions from the Court, proper efforts at personal service or service through registered post, or attestation of the affixation report by a respectable person of the village, rendered the service defective.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908),  Order V Rule 17 and Order IX Rule 7 – Service of Summons – Ex Parte Proceedings – The Process Server affixed summons at the defendant’s house despite his absence, without specific directions from the Court; proper efforts to effect personal service or service through registered post were not made, and the affixation report was not attested by any respectable person of the village, including the Chowkidar – Service was defective, and the defendant, having not been duly served, was entitled to rejoin the proceedings and file a written statement.

(Para 8-10)

***

Rejection of Plaint – Validity and legal effect of a subsequent family transfer deed concerning a specific portion of joint property involve disputed questions regarding the transferor’s rights under an earlier sale deed -- Plaint cannot be rejected.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Challenge is directed against a subsequent family transfer deed purporting to transfer a specific portion of joint property, despite the transferor having acquired only an undivided share under an earlier sale deed -- Disputed questions concerning the nature and extent of rights and the legal effect of the transfer require adjudication on pleadings, documents and evidence and cannot be decided through a mini-trial at the threshold; plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

(Para 7-11)

***

Temporary Injunction – Plaintiff’s reliance on jamabandi entries to claim possession as a village proprietor, while denying his recorded status as a chakotedar and failing to establish payment of recorded rent, rendered his claim prima facie doubtful and justified dismissal of the application for temporary injunction.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 – Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Possession – Revenue Records – Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Gram Panchayat from interfering with his alleged possession over the suit land, claiming possession as a village proprietor on the basis of ancestral possession and revenue entries – Jamabandi for 1986–87 recorded annual chakota of Rs.5,600, but the plaintiff failed to establish payment of rent or substantiate his claim of possession as a proprietor rather than a chakotedar coupled with doubtful revenue entries – Dismissal of the application for temporary injunction by the Courts below was justified; no interference warranted.

(Para 5-8)

***

Theft of electricity – Civil liability – Assessment under Section 126 is subject to appeal under Section 127; where criminal prosecution is initiated, the Special Court independently determines civil liability under Section 154(5), and any excess amount deposited is refundable under Section 154(6).

Theft of electricity – Restoration of supply – Restoration on deposit of at least 50% of the provisionally assessed amount permissible in appropriate cases where the assessment appears prima facie arbitrary.

***

Electricity Act, 2003 (36 of 2003), Sections 126, 127, 135(1A) and 154(5), (6) – Theft of electricity – Assessment of charges – Restoration of supply – Where the applicable Supply Code does not prescribe a specific procedure for determining the amount payable for restoration of supply disconnected on account of electricity theft, the assessment is to be made by following the procedure under Section 126 read with the applicable Supply Code – Consumer entitled to file objections to the provisional assessment and avail the appellate remedy under Section 127 – Appellate determination governs restoration of supply but, where criminal prosecution is initiated, does not bind the Special Court’s determination of civil liability under Section 154(5) – Any amount deposited in excess of the civil liability determined by the Special Court is refundable under Section 154(6) – High Court may, in an appropriate case and for recorded reasons, direct restoration of supply upon deposit of at least 50% of the provisionally assessed amount where the assessment appears prima facie arbitrary – Such relief is discretionary and must be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(Paras 30-41)

***

SARFAESI -- Assignment of debt for Rs.250 crore -- Full and final settlement – Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay an additional Rs.125 crore within 12 weeks towards full and final settlement of the assigned debt, with consequential release of securities and guarantees and disposal of pending NCLT and DRT.

***

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002), Section 5 – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 7 – Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) – Assignment of debt – Full and final settlement – Assignment of debt for Rs.250 crores on 24.03.2023 – Considering the highest rate of return of 15% per annum referred to in the report of the former Supreme Court Judge appointed to examine the liability, the passage of time and the costs and expenses incurred by the assignee, the Supreme Court directed the appellant to pay an additional Rs.125 crore as full and final settlement of all claims arising from the assigned debt -- Upon receipt, the respondents were directed to return the title deeds and release the securities and guarantees, and the proceedings before the NCLT and DRT would stand disposed of. The amount was to be paid within 12 weeks, failing which the respondents could revive the proceedings and the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of the judgment.

(Paras 40-45)

***

Textile Cess – Manufacture – Bleaching, dyeing and processing of handloom and powerloom fabrics by job workers do not amount to manufacture attracting textile cess under Section 5A of the Textiles Committee Act, 1963.

***

Textiles Committee Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), Section 5A – Textile cess – Handloom and powerloom fabrics – Job work – Bleaching, dyeing and processing of fabrics – Meaning of manufacture – Importing definition from another statute – Held, a job worker engaged by handloom and powerloom manufacturers to undertake bleaching, dyeing and other processing of fabrics does not thereby become a manufacturer liable to pay textile cess under Section 5A of the Act -- Such processing merely refines the existing textile and constitutes an extension of the manufacturing activity of the handloom or powerloom industry, whose products are expressly exempted from cess under the proviso to Section 5A -- Definition of ‘manufacture’ contained in another statute, including the Central Excise Act, cannot be imported into the Textiles Committee Act in the absence of a specific legislative reference or incorporation -- Processing of fabric does not constitute manufacture of textile merely because it undergoes bleaching, dyeing or similar operations -- Respondent-company was, therefore, not liable to pay textile cess on such processing activities.

(Paras 5.5, 6.1–6.7)

***

Communication of grounds of arrest – Where communication of the grounds of arrest is disputed, the police must establish compliance, ordinarily through contemporaneous records; a bare assertion or vague diary entry is insufficient.

***

Criminal investigation – Transfer to CBI – Transfer of investigation to the CBI or another independent agency is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in rare and exceptional cases on a substantiated basis.

***

Criminal investigation – Electronic evidence – Preservation – Where a DVR seized by the police may contain material relevant both to the criminal investigation and to allegations of police misconduct, its preservation and examination, together with related CCTV footage and electronic records, must be ensured.

***

Constitution of India, Articles 21, 22(1), 226 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023), Sections 109, 308(4), 351(3) and 61(2) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 193 -- Criminal investigation – Fair and impartial investigation – Transfer to CBI or constitution of SIT – Allegations of illegal detention and police misconduct – Preservation of electronic evidence – Held, transfer of investigation to the CBI or constitution of an independent SIT is an extraordinary measure to be ordered sparingly, cautiously and in rare and exceptional cases where the material justifies such intervention – Allegations against certain police officials, though requiring consideration, did not at that stage establish that the State police as a whole or its senior hierarchy was incapable of conducting a fair investigation – However, where the versions regarding the circumstances of arrest differed and the DVR was admittedly in police custody, relevant objective records and electronic evidence required preservation and examination – Where communication of grounds of arrest is disputed, the police must establish compliance with Article 22(1), ordinarily through contemporaneous records; a bare assertion or vague diary entry is insufficient – CBI transfer and separate SIT declined at that stage – Investigation in the three FIRs directed to be supervised by a senior IPS officer not below the rank of DIG, unconnected with the investigation, with directions to ensure fair investigation and preservation and examination of the DVR, FSL report, CCTV footage and other relevant electronic evidence – Petition disposed of.

(Paras 11-17)

***

MACT – Contributory negligence – Burden of proving contributory negligence lies upon the party alleging it.

***

MACT – Contributory negligence – Mere head-on collision or post-accident position of vehicles, without cogent evidence establishing the point of impact or the lane in which the vehicles were travelling at the time of collision, cannot by itself establish contributory negligence.

***

MACT – Negligence – Effect of criminal acquittal – Acquittal of the offending vehicle's driver on benefit of doubt in criminal proceedings does not determine the issue of negligence in motor accident compensation proceedings.

***

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 – Motor accident – Contributory negligence – Burden of proof – Deceased died in a head-on collision between a passenger car and a Canter – Tribunal attributed 75% contributory negligence to the deceased, primarily on the basis of the post-accident position of the vehicles – Held, proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Burden of proving contributory negligence rests upon the party alleging it – Mere head-on collision or post-accident position of vehicles, without cogent evidence establishing the point of impact or the lane in which the vehicles were travelling at the time of collision, cannot by itself establish contributory negligence – Acquittal of the offending vehicle's driver on benefit of doubt in criminal proceedings does not determine negligence in motor accident compensation proceedings – No contributory negligence established on the part of the deceased; finding attributing 75% negligence to him set aside – Compensation enhanced from Rs.27,93,936 to Rs.1,14,01,744, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition, subject to further directions regarding delayed payment – Appeal allowed.

(Paras 9-12, 14)

***

Multiple Life Sentences – Remission -- Commutation -- Imposed for different offences in a single trial cannot run consecutively -- Remission or commutation of one sentence does not ipso facto result in remission or commutation of the other.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 376 and 342 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 31 – Multiple Sentences of Imprisonment for Life – Consecutive or concurrent Sentences – Multiple sentences of imprisonment for life imposed for different offences in a single trial cannot be directed to run consecutively and must be superimposed over each other; remission or commutation granted in respect of one life sentence does not ipso facto result in remission or commutation of the other sentence – Constitution Bench decision in Muthuramalingam and Others’s followed.

(Paras 14-19)

***

Disallowance of expenditure – Disallowing an amount not treated as an allowance by the assessee is impermissible under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

***

Assessment of taxable income – The Assessing Officer must state reasons with reference to the accounts and return filed by the assessee, showing how the disputed entry is factored in and how the net taxable income is affected.

***

Income Tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), Sections 43B and 145A – Disallowance of unpaid excise duty – Valuation of closing stock – Expenditure not claimed as deduction – Assessing Officer disallowing Rs.69,91,983 under Section 43B and adding the amount to the value of closing stock and the assessee’s taxable income, although the assessee had not routed the disputed entry through the Profit and Loss Account – High Court proceeding on the premise that the goods were removed, contrary to the record showing that the stock remained in the assessee’s bonded warehouse – Held, disallowing an amount not treated as an allowance by the assessee is impermissible – The Revenue, having failed to show where and how the assessee claimed the allowance in the books of account, ought not to disallow such amount – Assessing Officer’s order illegal and rightly interfered with by the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal – High Court’s order set aside and appeal allowed.

(Paras 14-16)

***

IBC – Corporate guarantee – Prior invocation of a corporate guarantee is not a prerequisite for the underlying claim to qualify as financial debt.

***

IBC – Related party – Participation in policy-making – Participation in the corporate debtor’s policy-making process under Section 5(24)(m)(i) does not require the degree of positive control contemplated under Section 29A(c) and (g); contractual rights conferring substantial influence over management and business policies may establish related-party status.

***

IBC, Sections 21(2) and 21(6A)(a) – Debenture holder and debenture trustee – Exclusion from CoC – Where a debenture holder is found to be a related party and is consequently barred from participating in the CoC, the debenture trustee seeking to protect that holder’s interests is likewise excluded.

***

IBC, Section 21(2) – Assignment of debt – Related-party exclusion – An assignment made in bad faith after commencement of CIRP to circumvent the statutory bar on a related party’s participation in the CoC does not enable the assignee to participate as a financial creditor.

***

A. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Sections 5(7), 5(8) and 7 – Financial debt – Corporate guarantee – Invocation before commencement of CIRP – Whether a corporate guarantee must be invoked before commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) for the claim to qualify as financial debt -- Held, liability under a corporate guarantee may constitute financial debt under Section 5(8) -- Neither prior invocation of the guarantee nor the occurrence of default is necessary to establish the character of the debt or the claimant’s status as a financial creditor -- Default becomes material when a financial creditor seeks commencement of CIRP under Section 7.

(Paras 8–10)

B. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Sections 5(24)(m)(i) and 21(2) – Related party – Participation in policy-making – Contractual rights – Exclusion from Committee of Creditors (CoC) – Whether the contractual rights held by a debenture holder and lender were sufficient to render it a related party of the corporate debtor -- Held, the test under Section 5(24)(m)(i) does not require the degree of positive control applicable to disqualification under Section 29A(c) and (g) -- The contractual arrangements in the present case gave the debenture holder substantial influence over the corporate debtor’s management and business policies, including project budgets, sales and revenue -- These rights established the requisite association with the corporate debtor, disqualifying the debenture holder from participating in the CoC under the first proviso to Section 21(2).

(Paras 17, 19–24)

C. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Sections 5(24)(m)(i), 21(2) and 21(6A)(a) – Debenture holder and debenture trustee – Related-party disqualification – The entire debenture holding was with ECL Finance Ltd., while IDBI Trusteeship Services Ltd. acted as trustee to protect the debenture holder’s interests -- Held, given the debenture holder’s related-party status and the contractual arrangements in question, it could not participate in the CoC either as debenture holder or as lender -- Debenture trustee, acting to protect the interests of that holder, was likewise ineligible for inclusion in or participation in the CoC.

(Paras 23–24)

D. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (31 of 2016), Section 21(2), first proviso – Assignment of debt – Related-party financial creditor – Bona fide assignment – Circumvention of statutory disqualification – ECL Finance Ltd. assigned its rights under the Facility Agreement after commencement of CIRP -- Held, a legitimate assignment may permit an assignee to avoid exclusion where the debt has genuinely been transferred or the assignor ceased to be a related party long ago -- However, an assignment made in bad faith or with fraudulent intent to circumvent the related-party bar may attract the same disqualification -- In the present case, the assignment was recent and was found not to be bona fide; the assignee was therefore also disentitled from participating in the CoC.

(Paras 25–26)

***

RTI Act, Section 2(f): “Information” includes material relating to a private body that a public authority can access under another law -- Physical custody by the public authority is not essential. Pasted markdown

***

Registrar’s statutory access -- Registrar may access a co-operative society’s records under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969; prior satisfaction to initiate an inquiry is not a prerequisite to accessing the records needed to determine whether an inquiry is warranted.

***

RTI exemptions -- Construction agreement and General Body Meeting minutes sought by a member not exempt on the grounds raised under Section 8(1)(d) and (j) -- Registrar directed to obtain the two documents and supply them to the respondent.

***

A. Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), Section 2(f), 8(1)(d) and (j) – Co-operative society – Construction agreement and General Body Meeting minutes – Exemptions from disclosure – A member of a co-operative bank sought a copy of the construction agreement entered into by the bank and the minutes of its last General Body Meeting -- Bank resisted disclosure on grounds of commercial confidence, trade secrets, intellectual property and personal information -- Held, the construction agreement, the bidding process having concluded, did not attract the claimed protection for commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property affecting competitive position -- Documents could not be withheld on the grounds advanced under the exemptions relating to personal information or absence of a connection with public activity or interest.

(Paras 7–9)

B. Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), Section 2(f) – Information relating to a private body – Statutory right of access – A co-operative bank contended that it was not a public authority under the RTI Act and that its records could be accessed by the Registrar only after satisfaction to initiate an inquiry had been recorded -- Held, the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) includes information relating to a private body that a public authority can access under any other law for the time being in force -- Physical custody of the information by the public authority is not necessary where the law confers statutory access to it.

(Paras 11–12)

C. Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), Section 2(f) – Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (21 of 1969), Sections 65 and 66 – Registrar of Co-operative Societies – Access to records – Prior satisfaction to initiate inquiry – Whether the Registrar could access the records of a co-operative society before recording satisfaction to initiate an inquiry under Section 65 -- Held, prior satisfaction to initiate an inquiry is not a prerequisite for accessing the society’s records -- Access to the relevant books, accounts and documents is necessary to determine whether an inquiry is warranted -- Section 65(2) permits access to the society’s books, accounts and documents, while Section 66 confers supervisory and inspection powers upon the Registrar -- The Registrar directed to obtain the documents sought and provide them to the member.

(Paras 13–16)

***

Execution proceedings – Third-party claim – An application under Order XXI, Rules 97 to 101 CPC is on par with a regular suit, and the questions arising therein must be adjudicated by the Executing Court.

***

Separate suit – Order XXI, Rule 101 CPC – The provision explicitly bars a separate suit for adjudication of questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising in execution proceedings.

***

Title to immovable property – Tax receipts – Tax payments may support an inference regarding possession but cannot, by themselves, establish title.

***

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21, Rules 97 to 101 – Execution proceedings – Obstruction by third party claiming independent title and possession – Adjudication of rights by Executing Court – Bar on separate suit – Application filed by a third party claiming ownership and possession of the suit property and challenging the decree as fraudulent and collusive – Executing Court and High Court rejecting the claim and holding that the applicant ought to have instituted a separate civil suit – Held, an application under Order XXI, Rules 97 to 101 CPC is on par with a regular suit, and an order passed thereon is appealable as a regular first appeal – Order XXI, Rule 101 explicitly bars a separate suit for adjudication of questions relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to such proceedings.

(Para 12)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 21, Rules 97 to 101 – Execution proceedings – Third-party objection – Proof of title – Evidentiary value of title documents and tax receipts – Original Hakkupatra produced by the Third party/ applicant’s legal representatives, whereas the decree holder had relied only upon a photocopy of his alleged title document – Decree holder’s admissions regarding construction of a permanent house and shops by the applicant further undermining his claim – Held, tax payments could, at best, lead to an inference regarding possession but not title – Applicant’s claim to title and ownership stood established by the original Hakkupatra – Legal representatives of the applicant declared lawful owners and possessors of the suit property.

(Paras 13-16, 18)

***

Divorce by Mutual Consent – High Court converted a contested divorce petition into one under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and dissolved the marriage by mutual consent.

***

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13, 13-B – Divorce by mutual consent – Settlement during pendency of appeal – Conversion of contested divorce petition into petition for divorce by mutual consent – Permanent alimony and transfer of property – Held, during the pendency of the husband’s appeal against dismissal of his divorce petition, the parties amicably settled their matrimonial dispute and agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. Pursuant to the compromise, the husband paid Rs.20,00,000 to the wife as permanent alimony and transferred land in her favour by way of a gift deed, with the mutation duly attested -- Upon recording the parties’ statements affirming the compromise and being satisfied that its terms had been complied with, the High Court treated the original divorce petition as one under Section 13-B of the Act and dissolved the marriage by mutual consent with immediate effect.

(Paras 2-9)

***

Amendment – Application to amend the wife’s address in her maintenance application and assets affidavit, filed after the husband initiated criminal proceedings over alleged false declarations, was held to be an afterthought that could affect the objection to territorial jurisdiction – Amendment rightly rejected.

***

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 6 Rule 17 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 24 – Amendment of address in maintenance application and assets and liabilities affidavit – Territorial jurisdiction – The wife sought amendment of her address after the husband had initiated proceedings seeking criminal action against her for allegedly making false declarations regarding her residence -- Since the husband was also disputing the territorial jurisdiction of the Family Court where the divorce petition was instituted, the proposed amendment could affect the merits of the matrimonial proceedings, including the objection to territorial jurisdiction -- Held, the amendment application was an afterthought intended to wriggle out of the criminal proceedings initiated by the husband; the Court declined to permit the amendment.

(Paras 10-13)

***

Divorce petition – Closure of wife’s evidence – One last opportunity granted to conclude evidence in divorce proceedings, subject to payment of Rs.10,000 costs, despite upholding the Family Court’s order closing her evidence due to repeated defaults.

***

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Section 13 – Divorce petition – Closure of wife’s evidence – Last and final opportunity – Held, the Family Court had rightly closed the petitioner-wife’s evidence in view of her repeated failure to take steps to produce evidence despite several opportunities -- However, considering the submission that the petitioner could not record her statement on the scheduled date on account of her father’s sudden illness in the Court premises, the High Court, in the interest of justice and fair play, granted her one last and final opportunity to lead and conclude her evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000 to the respondent-husband.

(Para 10, 11)

***

Bail -- Suppression of material facts and pursuing parallel bail remedies without adequate disclosure constitute abuse of process – Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Grant of bail – Suppression of material facts – Parallel proceedings – Held, pursuing parallel remedies before different judicial fora for bail or release from custody, without disclosing the pendency and outcome of such proceedings, amounts to abuse of the process of law – Obtaining urgent listing of a bail petition during the High Court’s winter vacation, without adequate notice to the opposing party and without disclosing the refusal of interim relief in a pending writ petition, was deprecated as an attempt to mislead the Court and steal a march over the opposing party – Matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

(Paras 17-30, 33-35)

***

Locus standi to appeal – Persons affected by a High Court order directing registration of FIRs and investigation, though not parties to the writ proceedings, held entitled to appeal as the findings could prejudice their rights in subsequent proceedings.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 175(4) – Constitution of India, Article 226 – Registration of FIR and investigation pursuant to judicial directions – Appeal against order – Locus standi – Section 175(4) incorporates safeguards requiring a report from the superior officer and consideration of the public servant’s assertions before ordering investigation in a complaint arising from discharge of official duties – Appellants, though not parties to the original writ proceedings, held entitled to appeal against the Single Judge’s order directing registration of FIRs and investigation, as the findings therein could prejudice their rights in independent proceedings challenging the FIRs – Refusal of leave to appeal set aside; appeals restored before the Division Bench.

(Paras 9-10, 12, 15-16)

***

Anticipatory and Regular Bail – Murder – Orders granting bails set aside for failure to consider video footage and witness statements and remitted the matters to the High Court for fresh consideration, allowing the accused to remain on interim bail.

***

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 438, 439 -- Anticipatory bail – Regular bail -- Non-consideration of material evidence – Failure to record reasons – Held, the High Court, while granting anticipatory bail and regular bail to the accused in a murder case, failed to consider the video footage of the incident and the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC identifying the accused upon being shown the footage – Held, recording reasons is an essential requirement of judicial decision-making and that merely reproducing submissions without independent assessment is not a proper approach while deciding bail applications -- Orders granting bail set aside and the matters remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration -- Accused were directed to continue on interim bail on the existing terms and conditions until final disposal of their respective applications.

(Paras 7-12)

***

Security cheque – Cheque issued as security is not exempt from Section 138 where the underlying liability remains unpaid and the cheque becomes due for presentation.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 118, 138 and 139 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 438 – Security cheque in loan transaction – Legally enforceable debt – Accused convicted and sentenced to six months’ simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,00,000 – Held, a cheque issued as security is not exempt from Section 138 where the underlying liability remains unpaid and the cheque becomes due for presentation – Upon proof of execution, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the holder and may be rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities – Accused failed to raise a probable defence or rebut the statutory presumptions – No illegality or material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction – Conviction and sentence upheld; criminal revision dismissed.

(Paras 6–17)

***

Premature complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Fresh complaint filed within one month from the date of the decision in the criminal case entitled to deemed condonation of delay.

***

Premature complaint – Fresh complaint u/s 138 NI Act -- Objection regarding requirement of a fresh statutory notice held misconceived.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138 and 142 – Dishonour of cheque – Premature complaint – Filing of fresh complaint – A complaint under Section 138 filed before expiry of 15 days from the date of service of the statutory demand notice is not maintainable, as no cause of action accrues before expiry of the prescribed period – Held, the complainant’s remedy is to file a fresh complaint within one month from the date of the decision in the criminal case, with the benefit of deemed condonation of delay – Objection that a fresh statutory notice was required held misconceived in the facts of the case – Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey, AIR 2015 SC 157, 2014 AIR SCW 5751, relied upon.

(Para 13-17)

***

Habeas corpus – Custody of minor child – Petition for restoration of custody to biological parents held maintainable despite pendency of a civil suit concerning custody.

***

Adoption – Alleged oral adoption by paternal aunt and uncle – Temporary caregiving arrangement due to family and medical circumstances held insufficient to constitute valid adoption in the absence of compliance with statutory requirements.

***

Habeas corpus – Custody of minor child – Welfare principle – Biological parents settled in Canada with valid work visas and travel documents for the child, who had a younger biological sibling residing with them – Custody restored to natural parents.

***

A. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Habeas corpus – Custody of minor child – Maintainability – Biological parents sought restoration of custody of their minor daughter from her paternal aunt and uncle, who had been entrusted with temporary care due to family circumstances – Objection that habeas corpus was not maintainable because a civil suit concerning custody was pending – Held, a habeas corpus petition for restoration of custody of a minor child to natural parents is maintainable – Pendency of a civil suit did not render the writ petition non-maintainable in the facts of the case.

(Para 6)

B. Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), Sections 6 and 11 – Adoption – Alleged oral adoption by paternal aunt and uncle – Temporary caregiving arrangement made due to family and medical circumstances –  Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, requires a strict compliance of the statutory provisions including a registered adoption deed or proof of ceremonies of “giving and taking” -- Held, a temporary arrangement for care of a minor child could not be treated as a legally valid adoption to divest natural parents of custody – Statutory requirements governing adoption must be complied with – Appeal dismissed.

(Para 7)

C. Constitution of India, Article 226 – Habeas corpus – Custody of minor child – Welfare principle – Biological parents had settled in Canada, possessed valid work visas and had obtained travel documents for the child, who also had a younger biological sibling living with them – Restricting the child from growing up with her natural parents and sibling would deprive her of emotional security and a normal childhood – Welfare of the child favoured restoration of custody to natural parents.

(Para 8)

***

SC/ST Act -- Criminal prosecution of bank officials – Alleged caste-based discrimination and non-compliance with RBI guidelines, without specific allegations of caste-based denigration, held insufficient to justify criminal prosecution – Proceedings quashed.

***

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (33 of 1989), Section 3(1)(q) – Criminal prosecution of bank officials – Caste-based discrimination – Borrower-company’s loan accounts declared as NPAs, followed by allegations that bank officials failed to extend rehabilitation benefits under RBI guidelines and subjected the company’s promoters belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to discrimination – No specific allegation that any bank official had denigrated the directors on the basis of caste – Non-compliance with RBI guidelines could not, by itself, justify criminal prosecution merely because the directors belonged to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Paras 4-10)

***

Misuse of cheque -- Interim compensation under Section 143-A NI Act is discretionary, and the alleged misuse of cheques does not, by itself, preclude its grant; order directing payment of 20% of the cheque amount upheld.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143-A – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Interim compensation – Discretionary power – Defence of cheque misuse – Held, the power to award interim compensation under Section 143-A is discretionary and not mandatory; the Court must undertake a prima facie assessment of the complainant’s case and the defence raised by the accused and record brief reasons demonstrating consideration of relevant factors – A direction for interim compensation may be issued where a prima facie case is made out, while a plausible defence, financial distress of the accused, nature of the transaction and paying capacity may be relevant considerations – Defence alleging misuse of cheques raises a matter for trial and does not, by itself, preclude the grant of interim compensation – Order directing payment of 20% of the cheque amount, i.e., Rs. 2,00,000, upheld.

(Paras 7-15)

***

Cognizance – Police closure report – Magistrate may accept the closure report, take cognizance on the basis of the material available, or direct further investigation, as the Magistrate is not bound by the police conclusion that no offence is made out.

***

Cognizance – Police closure report – Murder – Death by drowning – Post-mortem indicating death by drowning does not, by itself, rule out foul play – Deceased being last seen with the accused and witnesses allegedly seeing the accused flee the scene, warranted a trial.

***

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 190(1)(b) – Cognizance – Police closure report – Magistrate’s powers – Where the police file a closure report, the Magistrate may accept the report and close the proceedings, take cognizance on the basis of the material available in the report, or direct further investigation – Court is not bound by the police conclusion that no offence is made out.

(Para 8)

B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 190(1)(b), 397 and 401 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 201 – Murder – Death by drowning – Quashing of cognizance – Post-mortem indicating death by drowning does not, by itself, rule out foul play – Deceased was allegedly taken from his house by the accused and was subsequently found drowning; witnesses also stated that they had seen the accused fleeing the scene – Surrounding circumstances warranted a trial to unravel the circumstances surrounding the death – Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order quashing cognizance -- Remanded the matter to the Magistrate for expeditious trial.

(Para 9-13)

***

Quashing -- Cheating – Forgery – Incorrect date of death in application for death certificate – Mere furnishing of an incorrect date, subsequently corrected, without any allegation of using the certificate to obtain a benefit, did not justify continuation of criminal proceedings – Proceedings quashed.

***

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Sections 420 and 465 – Cheating – Forgery – Incorrect date of death stated in application for death certificate – Appellant stated 21.11.2019 as her mother’s date of death, whereas the actual date was 20.11.2019 – Certificate issued by the competent authority of the Panchayati Raj Department – Held, furnishing an incorrect date, in the circumstances of the case, did not justify allegations of cheating or forgery, particularly when the date was subsequently corrected and there was no allegation that the appellant had used the certificate to obtain any benefit – No useful purpose would be served by continuing the prosecution – Criminal proceedings quashed.

(Para 5, 6)

***

Service Law – Pay fixation – Pay anomaly – Feeder post and promotional post placed in identical pay scales – Reconsideration of pay structure directed.

***

Punjab Civil Services Rules, Rule 4.4(c)(i) – Punjab Roadways (Workshop) Group ‘C’ Service Rules, 2009 -- Pay anomaly – Feeder post and promotional post – Technician Grade-I is the feeder post for promotion to SSI -- Two posts historically carried different pay scales, with SSI carrying the higher scale -- Their subsequent placement in the same pay band and Grade Pay of Rs.3,200 created a grievance warranting reconsideration – Held, there is no absolute rule that every promotion must invariably carry a different pay scale; however, the State must address the anomaly arising from the equalisation of historically distinct feeder and promotional posts -- Subsequent promotion of the petitioners to the post of Works Manager did not render the writ petition infructuous -- Authority directed to reconsider the SSI pay structure and pass a speaking order within two months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

(Paras 2-3, 15-22)

***

MACT -- Rash and negligent driving – Composite negligence – Joint tortfeasors – Claimants entitled to recover the entire compensation from either tortfeasor – Apportionment of 50% liability each operates only between the tortfeasors for inter se contribution.

***

A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166, 173 -- Rash and negligent driving – Composite negligence – Appreciation of evidence – A scooter rider died after a tractor-trolley struck his scooter, causing him to fall on the road, and a truck subsequently ran over him -- Tribunal held the drivers of both vehicles negligent and apportioned liability at 50% each -- Relying on the eyewitness’s testimony, its material consistency with the claim petition and the promptly lodged FIR, and the lack of convincing defence evidence, finding upheld -- Witness’s admission of weak long-distance eyesight did not, by itself, render his testimony unreliable, particularly as he was wearing corrective glasses at the time of the accident -- Appeal dismissed.

(Paras 11-15)

B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166 -- Composite negligence – Joint tortfeasors – Recovery of compensation – Where an accident results from the composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles, the claimants are entitled to recover the entire compensation from either of the joint tortfeasors -- Tribunal’s apportionment of liability at 50% each operates only between the two vehicles for determining their inter se liability and contribution -- Claimants’ right to recover the entire compensation from either tortfeasor remains unaffected by that apportionment.

(Para 16)

***

Service law – Promotion – Unreserved vacancy – Senior-most Senior Assistant overlooked in favour of a much junior reserved-category employee despite availability of an unreserved vacancy – Held, petitioner entitled to promotion against the General Category vacancy.

***

Service law – Reservation – Adequate representation -- Administrative efficiency – Classification cannot be extended to defeat the fundamental right to equality, and adequate representation must be balanced with the maintenance of administrative efficiency.

***

Service law – Wrongful denial of promotion – Retirement – Subsequent retirement does not defeat an employee’s claim for relief against wrongful denial of promotion during service – Notional promotion directed from the date of superannuation, with consequential pensionary and retirement benefits and interest at 6% per annum.

***

A. Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Service law – Promotion – Seniority – Unreserved vacancy – Denial of promotion to senior eligible employee – Petitioner, the senior-most employee in the cadre of Senior Assistants, was overlooked for promotion to Superintendent Grade-II despite the availability of an unreserved vacancy, while a much junior employee belonging to the reserved category was promoted – State action in matters of promotion must conform to constitutional requirements of equality and non-arbitrariness – Held, the petitioner was entitled to promotion to Superintendent Grade-II against the General Category vacancy.

(Paras 10-16)

B. Constitution of India, Articles 16(4), 16(4A) and 335 – Reservation – Adequate representation – Efficiency in administration – Balance between affirmative action and equality – Reservation and measures for adequate representation must operate within constitutional limits and should not undermine the fundamental right to equality – Classification cannot be extended to such an extreme as to defeat equality – The constitutional mandate of adequate representation must be balanced with the requirement of maintaining administrative efficiency – Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway)’s case (1981) 1 SCC 246 relied.

(Paras 12-14)

C. Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 16 – Service law – Wrongful denial of promotion – Retirement during pendency of claim – Notional promotion – Consequential pensionary benefits – Subsequent retirement does not, by itself, defeat an employee’s claim for relief where promotion was illegally and arbitrarily denied during service – Since actual promotion after retirement was not practicable, the Court directed grant of notional promotion to Superintendent Grade-II from the date of superannuation, with consequential refixation and release of pensionary and other retirement benefits, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of accrual until actual realisation.

(Paras 17-20)

***

Private complaint by voter – False affidavit by election candidate – No statutory prohibition against a private person filing a complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging an offence under Section 125-A ROP Act.

***

A. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 125-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 195(1) and 200 – Maintainability of private complaint – Section 125-A penalises a candidate who knowingly furnishes false information, conceals information, or fails to furnish prescribed information in the nomination paper or accompanying affidavit – Section 195(1)(a) CrPC restricts cognizance of specified offences under Sections 172 to 188 IPC unless a written complaint is made by the concerned public servant or an administratively superior public servant – Section 125-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is not included among the offences specified under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC – The statutory bar cannot be extended to an offence under Section 125-A by judicial interpretation – A private person may, therefore, file a complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging an offence under Section 125-A.

(Paras 10-13)

B. Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), Section 125-A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 195(1) – Complaint by a public servant – Requirement of -- Interpretation of statutes – Legislative omission – Section 125-A was inserted into the Representation of the People Act in 2002, whereas Section 195 CrPC was subsequently amended in 2006 without including Section 125-A among the offences subject to the statutory restriction – The omission was treated as deliberate – In the absence of an express statutory provision requiring a complaint by a public servant, such a restriction cannot be read into Section 195(1) CrPC.

(Para 11)

***

Discharge application – Maintainability -- Complaint u/s 138 NI Act --  Accused not entitled to seek discharge in a summons case, except where the Magistrate converts the summons case into a warrant case -- Discharge application dismissed.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Act 26 of 1881), Section 138 – Discharge application – Summons case – Petitioner sought discharge on the ground that the company had not been impleaded as a party to the complaint -- Trial court dismissed the discharge application, and the revisional court upheld the order – Held, accused cannot file a discharge application in a summons case, except where the Magistrate exercises discretion to convert the summons case into a warrant case.

(Para 2-6)

***

Closure of complainant’s evidence – Complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Material witnesses not examined – Complainant permitted to examine the Bank Manager and Postman.

***

Closure of complainant’s evidence – Complaint u/s 138 NI Act – Age of the proceedings, by itself, cannot be decisive when examination of material witnesses is necessary for the ends of justice.

***

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138 and 145(2) – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 348,  528 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 311, 482 – Closure of complainant’s evidence – Complainant challenged the closure of his evidence and dismissal of his application seeking recall of the closure order in a cheque-dishonour complaint – Held, Trial Magistrate ought to have issued a binding direction requiring production of the remaining evidence, with a warning that the evidence could be closed in case of non-compliance -- Since the Bank Manager and Postman were material witnesses whose examination could facilitate a fair and just decision, the impugned orders were set aside and the complainant was permitted to examine them.

(Paras 1–2, 4, 6, 10–13)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 348 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311 – Summoning and examination of witnesses – Section 311 CrPC, corresponding to Section 348 BNSS, empowers a criminal court, at any stage of an inquiry, trial or other proceeding, to summon a person as a witness, examine a person in attendance, or recall and re-examine a witness where the evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case -- Held that the power could be exercised in the proceedings arising from a complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act to secure the examination of material witnesses.

(Paras 11–12)

C. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 403 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 362 – Criminal proceedings – Recall of order closing complainant’s evidence – Magistrate’s jurisdiction – Held, the view that a criminal court has no power to recall its own order was not justified; recall was permissible on justifiable grounds, as the order merely closed the complainant’s evidence and did not finally dispose of the case.

(Para 11)

***

Cancellation of bail – Threats to complainant and family members after grant of bail – Threatening messages through social media and in person – Misuse of liberty – Violation of bail conditions – Risk to fair trial – Bail cancelled.

***

A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), Section 483(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), Sections 302, 323, 341 and 427 – Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Act 33 of 1989), Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) – Arms Act, 1959 (Act 54 of 1959), Section 27 – Cancellation of bail – After being released on regular bail in a murder case, respondent No. 2 allegedly threatened the complainant and his family members through Instagram and Facebook messages and in person -- A subsequent complaint led to registration of another FIR under Sections 127(2), 230(1), 351(2), 75(2) and 78 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in which respondent No. 2 was arrested – Held, the post-release threats amounted to a violation of an essential bail condition and created a risk of an untoward incident -- Bail granted to respondent No. 2 cancelled.

(Paras 1, 5-7, 14-17, 19-21)

B. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), Section 483(2) – Cancellation of bail – Principles governing exercise of power – Cancellation of bail is a drastic measure that interferes with personal liberty and should not be resorted to lightly. However, bail may be cancelled where the accused misuses liberty, threatens or attempts to influence witnesses, tampers with evidence, interferes with the investigation, or engages in conduct prejudicial to a fair trial -- Circumstances warranting cancellation are illustrative and not exhaustive -- Court must consider whether supervening circumstances or the accused’s post-release conduct render the continuation of bail unconducive to a fair trial.

(Paras 14-16)

***

Bail – Corruption case – Alleged irregularities in tenders under Jal Jeevan Mission – Investigation completed and chargesheets filed – Evidence predominantly documentary and electronic – Trial likely to take considerable time – Bail granted subject to conditions.

***

Bail – Gravity of allegations – Seriousness of allegations of large-scale financial impropriety and institutional collusion, by itself, cannot eclipse other considerations governing the grant of bail or justify indefinite pre-trial detention.

***

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), Section 483 – Constitution of India, Article 21 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988), Sections 7(c), 9, 10, 12 and 13(1)(a) read with Section 13(2) – Bail – Custody of 5/8 months -- Alleged corruption and tender irregularities under the Jal Jeevan Mission – Prosecution alleged that forged work completion certificates and letters of acceptance were used to secure tenders worth approximately Rs. 979.45 crore -- Investigation qua both appellants was complete, chargesheets had been filed, the evidence was predominantly documentary and electronic, and no further custodial interrogation or recovery was required -- Having regard to the periods of custody undergone by the appellants, the voluminous evidence, the number of accused and prosecution witnesses, and the likelihood of a prolonged trial, held that further pre-trial incarceration was neither warranted nor necessary -- Prolonged detention cannot be permitted to become punishment without trial, in derogation of the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution -- Gravity of the allegations, by itself, could not justify indefinite pre-trial detention -- Bail granted subject to conditions.

(Paras 8-13)

***

Lambardar – Appointment – Principle of natural justice – Candidate denied opportunity of hearing before the Collector – Remand for fresh consideration justified.

***

Lambardar – Appointment – Criminal antecedents – Mere involvement in criminal cases does not, by itself, disqualify a candidate from consideration for appointment as Lambardar.

***

A. Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 13, Proviso (iii) – Appointment of Lambardar – Remand by Appellate Authority – The petitioner challenged the remand order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, contending that remand was impermissible in the absence of a finding that a necessary party had not been duly served -- Held, denial of an opportunity of hearing to the respondent candidate violated the principles of natural justice and was akin to the situation contemplated under the proviso -- In any event, remand was justified to ensure a fair hearing and fresh consideration of the candidates’ suitability – Remand order upheld.

(Paras 10-10.4)

B. Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15, 16 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Criminal antecedents – Mere involvement in a criminal case does not, by itself, constitute a bar to consideration for appointment as Lambardar -- Candidates’ respective merits and demerits are to be assessed by the competent authority while reconsidering the appointment.

(Paras 9–9.1)

***

Occupancy tenancy – Claim for ownership – Long possession as gair maurusi tenant does not confer occupancy rights without proof of statutory conditions under Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

***

Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), Sections 5 and 8 – Occupancy rights – Occupancy rights can be acquired only upon strict fulfilment of the statutory conditions -- Mere long possession or revenue entries describing a person as a gair maurusi tenant do not confer occupancy rights -- Plaintiff failed to establish when and by whom the tenancy was created, its terms, or the identity of the person who inducted him as a tenant -- No revenue entries described him as an occupancy tenant or maurusi tenant -- Plaintiff failed to produce rent receipts or other documentary evidence establishing actual payment of rent at the alleged -- Also no evidence that the rent did not exceed land revenue, rates and cesses or that the rent remained constant from the inception of the tenancy -- Accordingly, the statutory presumption under Section 5(2) could not be invoked -- As the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite occupancy rights, the claim for ownership was not sustainable.

(Para 5-11)

***

Lambardar – Second proclamation (mustri munadi) – Fresh proclamation without prior permission of the District Collector – Subordinate revenue officers lack jurisdiction to order another proclamation once selection proceedings have commenced – Appointment based on an unauthorised second proclamation invalid.

***

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (XVII of 1887), Section 16, 20 -- Appointment of Lambardar – Validity of second proclamation – Petitioner was appointed Lambardar after a second proclamation (mustri munadi) was conducted in the village without prior permission of the District Collector -- Financial Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the appointment and remanded the matter for fresh consideration of the candidates’ merits -- Held that once a proclamation has been made and selection proceedings have commenced, an Assistant Collector or any lower revenue officer has no jurisdiction to conduct another proclamation unless the District Collector orders a fresh proclamation for a justified reason -- Finding no illegality or perversity in the Financial Commissioner’s order, the writ petition dismissed.

(Paras 5-9)

***

Maintenance – Provident Fund contributions and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) – Such contributions are benefits accruing to the husband and cannot be treated in the same manner as compulsory tax deductions while assessing income for maintenance.

***

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Sections 24 and 26 – Interim maintenance – Assessment of income and deductions – Provident Fund contributions and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs) are benefits that accrue to the husband and may be withdrawn in the future, unlike mandatory deductions such as income tax and professional tax – Such contributions cannot be treated in the same manner as compulsory tax deductions while assessing the husband’s income for maintenance – Considering the wife’s aggressive breast cancer and the medical expenses incurred by her while looking after both children residing with her, the Court enhanced her monthly maintenance from Rs. 20,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- – Maintenance for both children enhanced from Rs. 1,25,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month (Rs. 75,000/- per child), with effect from 1 January 2025.

(Paras 20-25)

***

Transfer of matrimonial proceedings – Transfer sought by wife – Distance between Dehradun, Uttarakhand, and Malerkotla, Punjab, making it inconvenient for the wife to attend proceedings – Petition transferred to Malerkotla.

***

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955), Sections 10 and 26 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 25 – Judicial separation – Transfer of matrimonial proceedings – Wife sought transfer of husband’s suit from Family Court, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, to the competent court at Malerkotla, Punjab – Inconvenience caused by distance considered – Suit transferred to the competent court at Malerkotla – Husband’s virtual appearance left to the discretion of the transferee Court, unless personal presence is necessary – Transfer petition allowed.

(Paras 1-7)

***

Interim compensation – Dishonour of cheque – Magistrate directed payment of 10% of cheque amount without recording reasons or evaluating the complainant’s case and the accused’s defence – Exercise of discretion under Section 143-A must be supported by reasons and consideration of relevant factors – Impugned order quashed and matter remitted for fresh decision.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143-A – Interim compensation – Discretionary power – Court must prima facie evaluate the merits of the complainant’s case and the accused’s defence, consider relevant factors and record brief reasons before directing payment of interim compensation – Mechanical exercise of discretion impermissible – Order directing payment of 10% of cheque amount without reasons justifying the grant or quantum of compensation quashed – Magistrate directed to pass a fresh order after considering relevant factors and recording reasons.

(Paras 16-29)

***

Compounding of offence – Accused paid Rs.80,000 towards full and final settlement of the claim – Offence u/s 138 NI Act compounded u/s 147 – Conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Sections 138 and 147 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 438, 442 -- Dishonour of cheque – Compounding of offence – Parties settled the dispute and the complainant received Rs.80,000 towards full and final settlement of the claim – Offence under Section 138 can be compounded even at the revisional stage – Conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted.

(Paras 3-10)

***

Expeditious disposal of complaint – Complaint u/s 138 NI Act pending since 2024 – Magistrate directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the case without granting unnecessary adjournments.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023), Section 528 – Expeditious disposal of cheque dishonour complaint – Complaint pending since 2024 – In view of the Supreme Court’s directions in Indian Bank Association v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 590, Magistrate directed to expedite proceedings and conclude the case as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments – Application disposed of.

(Paras 3-4)

***

Interim compensation – Dishonour of cheque – Section 143-A NI Act applies prospectively to complaints filed on or after 01.09.2018 even where the cheque was issued prior to its insertion.

***

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 143-A – Interim compensation – Prospective applicability – Section 143-A, inserted w.e.f. 01.09.2018, applies to complaints filed on or after the date of its insertion – Complaint filed on 02.01.2019 attracts the provision even though the cheque was issued prior to 01.09.2018.

(Paras 8, 9)