(1) SUPREME COURT
Show cause notice
A. Administrative Law—Show cause notice—Compliance of licence conditions—Directions—Where show cause notices issued to certain license holders for alleged non-compliance of licence conditions—Court directed competent authority/Ministry to consider replies and take appropriate decision expeditiously within stipulated time—Judicial oversight to ensure timely administrative action. [Paras 1–2] B. Civil Procedure—Deletion of parties—Necessary and proper parties—Where certain respondents had no subsisting cause of action against them and petitioner raised no objection—Applications for deletion allowed—However, where show cause notice issued against a respondent, such respondent remains necessary party—Application for deletion rightly rejected. [Paras 2–...
(2) SUPREME COURT
Bail
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Constitution of India—Article 136—Bail—Interim protection—Continuation—Where Supreme Court had earlier granted interim protection/stay of arrest till decision of regular bail application by High Court—In absence of any subsequent order vacating or modifying such protection, it continues to operate—High Court erred in directing surrender by relying on order passed in separate matter—Impugned order set aside. [Paras 3–5, 7] B. Constitution of India—Article 136—Binding nature of Supreme Court orders—Misapplication by High Court—Orders passed by Supreme Court are binding and cannot be diluted or misconstrued by High Court—Reliance on order passed in unrelated proceedings to deny benefit of earlier protection is...
(3) SUPREME COURT
Claim juvenility
A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015—Section 9—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 482—Penal Code, 1860—Section 201—Claim of juvenility—Stage—Claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after disposal of appeal or Special Leave Petition—Where Juvenile Justice Board, upon inquiry, records finding that accused was juvenile on date of offence, such claim cannot be rejected on technical ground of finality of earlier proceedings—High Court erred in declining to consider claim on ground of dismissal of SLP—Matter requires reconsideration. [Paras 2–3] B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 482—Inherent powers—Reopening of proceedings—Bail—In exercise of inherent powers, Court can entertain pl...
(4) SUPREME COURT
voluntary retirement
A. UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995—Regulation 29(1), (2)—Voluntary retirement—Deemed acceptance—Where employee gives notice of voluntary retirement with requisite notice period—If appointing authority does not refuse permission within notice period, retirement becomes effective automatically by operation of proviso to Regulation 29(2)—No requirement of express acceptance—Subsequent communication refusing retirement after expiry of notice period is ineffective. [Paras 17, 26, 30, 43] B. UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979—Regulation 20(3)(i), (ii)—Disciplinary proceedings—Pendency—Effect on retirement—Mere issuance of show-cause notice does not amount to institution of disciplinary proceedings unless it clearly indicates i...
(5) SUPREME COURT
Presumption
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138, 139—Issuance of process—Scope—At stage of issuance of process under Section 138 NI Act, Court is only required to examine whether basic ingredients of offence are prima facie satisfied—i.e., issuance of cheque, its dishonour, issuance of statutory notice and failure to pay—Detailed examination of existence of legally enforceable debt not warranted at pre-trial stage—Order issuing process justified. [Paras 8, 10] B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 139—Presumption—Legally enforceable debt—Statutory presumption under Section 139 mandates that cheque is presumed to have been issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt or liability—Such presumption is a reverse onus clause and operates once execution of...
(6) SUPREME COURT
Acquittal, Circumstantial evidence
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Conviction—Circumstantial evidence—Sustainability—Where prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be fully established—In absence of complete and consistent chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused, conviction cannot be sustained—Suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of proof—Accused entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal. [Paras 14, 31–32] B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 25, 27—Confession and recovery—Admissibility and evidentiary value—Confession made to police inadmissible under Section 25—Recovery under Section 27 must be proved through reliable and corroborated evidence—Where seizure witnesses turn hostile and recovery no...
(7) SUPREME COURT
A. Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972—Rules 69(1)(c), 9(1)—Gratuity—Withholding—Pending proceedings—Rule 69(1)(c) operates as a statutory embargo on payment of gratuity where either departmental or judicial proceedings are pending—Expression “or” to be given its ordinary disjunctive meaning—Gratuity cannot be released until conclusion of both proceedings and final orders—Rule is protective in nature safeguarding State interest. [Paras 11–13] B. Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972—Rule 69(1)(c)—Interpretation—Scope of “departmental or judicial proceedings”—Expression “departmental or judicial proceedings” does not mean that conclusion of one proceeding entitles release of gratuity—Pendenc y of even o...
(8) SUPREME COURT
Quashing of proceeding
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 482—Penal Code, 1860—Sections 363, 368, 376(2)(d)—Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012—Sections 5, 6—Quashing of proceedings—Where FIR alleged kidnapping and aggravated sexual offences, but parties subsequently married of their own free will and are living peacefully as husband and wife—Victim in her statement supported accused and expressed desire to continue matrimonial life—Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law—Proceedings liable to be quashed. [Paras 5–6, 9] B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 164, Section 482—Statement of victim—Evidentiary value at quashing stage—Statement of victim under Section 164 CrPC indicating consensual rel...
(9) SUPREME COURT
A. Banking Regulation Act, 1949—Sections 35A, 21—Reserve Bank of India (Fraud Risk Management) Directions, 2024—Reserve Bank of India (Frauds Classification) Directions, 2016—Fraud classification—Principles of natural justice—Personal hearing—Principles of natural justice in classification of borrower’s account as “fraud” do not mandatorily require grant of personal/oral hearing—Compliance with audi alteram partem satisfied by issuance of show cause notice, consideration of written reply, and passing of reasoned order—Judgment in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal clarified—No absolute right to personal hearing exists. [Paras 69–70, 74–75] B. Banking Regulation Act, 1949—Section 35A—Reserve Bank of India Directions—Forens...
(10) SUPREME COURT
Maintainability
A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138, 141—Offence by company—Director’s liability—Mere designation as Director or signing of Board Resolution does not establish that person was in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company—Specific averment regarding role and day-to-day involvement is sine qua non for prosecution under Section 141—In absence of such averment or material, summoning of Director unsustainable—Proceedings liable to be quashed. [Paras 6–8] B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 482—Quashing—Scope in NI Act cases—High Court may quash proceedings even where basic averment exists, if unimpeachable material shows accused not concerned with conduct of business—Power under Section 482 to be exercised to prev...
(1) TRIPURA
Bail, NDPS
A. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 483—Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Sections 21(c), 25, 29, 37, 50—Bail—Commercial quantity—Rigours of Section 37—Where contraband of commercial quantity is involved, rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act apply and bail cannot be granted unless twin conditions are satisfied—Mere procedural objections or arguments on merits are insufficient to dilute statutory embargo—Bail rejected. [Paras 24, 25] B. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985—Section 50—Compliance—Stage of consideration—Question whether mandatory safeguards under Section 50 have been complied with or not is a matter to be examined during trial and not at the stage of bail—Court should refrain from undertakin...
(2) ALLAHABAD
Maintainability
A. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Sections 32, 34, 35—Constitution of India—Articles 226 & 227—Maintainability—Orders passed by Rent Tribunal under Section 35, presided over by District Judge/ADJ, are judicial orders of a Civil Court—Such orders are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226—Remedy lies under supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.[Paras 30, 31, 46, 54] B. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Sections 32, 34, 35—Rent Tribunal—Nature—Persona designata vs Civil Court—Rent Tribunal is presided by District Judge/ADJ as a pre-existing judicial authority, not as persona designata—Exercises powers of Civil Court, renders binding adjudications, and forms part of judicial hierarchy...
(3) PATNA
Investigation
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302 read with Section 34—Arms Act, 1959—Section 27—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 313—Appreciation of evidence—Related witnesses—Conviction can be sustained on the basis of testimony of related witnesses if found reliable and trustworthy—Mere absence of independent witnesses is not fatal—Minor contradictions regarding place or manner of presence of witnesses do not affect core prosecution case—Interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely on ground of relationship. [Paras 46, 53, 65] B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Sections 174, 154, 156—Investigation—Inquest—Commencement prior to FIR—Proceedings under Section 174 CrPC (inquest) are distinct from investigation of cognizable offence&mdas...
(4) HIMACHAL PRADESH
Tenancy
A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 96—Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958—Section 50—Tenancy—Burden of proof—Burden to prove existence of landlord-tenant relationship lies on the person asserting tenancy—Mere plea of oral tenancy without documentary or reliable oral evidence is insufficient—Proceedings under rent deposit provisions do not establish tenancy—Failure to discharge burden results in treating occupant as unauthorized/trespasser. [Paras 19, 20] B. Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 5—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Section 96—Recovery of possession—Trespasser—Where plaintiff establishes ownership and defendant fails to prove lawful possession, decree for recovery of possession and injunction is justified—Unauthorized occupation am...
(5) ALLAHABAD
Eviction
A. Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021—Section 21(2)(m)—Eviction—Landlord’s requirement—Scope—Under Section 21(2)(m), landlord is only required to demonstrate that the premises are needed for his occupation—Requirement of proving “bona fide need” or comparative hardship, as existed under repealed U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, stands consciously omitted—Court cannot import such conditions—Once requirement is pleaded and remains unrebutted, eviction is justified. [Paras 12, 16, 33, 38] B. Statutory Interpretation—Casus omissus—Plain meaning rule—Where legislature has deliberately omitted expressions such as “bona fide requirement”, Court cannot reintroduce them by interpretation—Provision must be construed strict...
(7) HIMACHAL PRADESH
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 447—Criminal trespass—Acquittal upheld—Prosecution must prove intent to insult, intimidate, or annoy the person in possession of the land—Mere possession, even if illegal, is insufficient to constitute criminal trespass—Demarcation conducted in absence of the accused and without following proper procedure held inadmissible—Complaint lacking averments regarding requisite intent—Essential ingredients of Section 447 IPC not satisfied. [Paras 6, 19, 22, 24] B. Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 26, 4—Prosecution for acts in reserved forest—Acquittal upheld—No evidence produced to show notification declaring the land as reserved forest—Notification relied upon did not specify relevant Khasra numbers—Mandatory requirements of ...
(8) HIMACHAL PRADESH
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 447—Criminal trespass—Mere possession of Government land without intent to insult, intimidate, or annoy does not constitute criminal trespass—Complaint failing to specifically aver such intent—Essential ingredients of Section 447 IPC not satisfied. [Paras 6, 17, 19] B. Indian Forest Act, 1927—Sections 29, 30, 31, 33—Encroachment of Government land—Encroachment below 10 bighas—As per precedent, FIR not lodgable—Notification declaring reserved/protected forest and its publication in vernacular language mandatory to attract penal consequences under Section 33—Failure to prove such publication renders prosecution unsustainable. [Paras 15, 20, 21, 23] C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 437A—Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh...
(9) CALCUTTA
Quashing of proceeding, Criminal conspiracy
A. Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2)—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Quashing of criminal proceedings—Partnership dispute—Allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust arising out of business disagreement—Trial Court rightly directed investigation after preliminary inquiry—At the stage of quashing, Court should not appreciate evidence—Criminal proceedings may be quashed where allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence or are inherently improbable—However, where materials exist suggesting commission of a cognizable offence, quashing would lead to miscarriage of justice—Petitioner's failure to cooperate with investigation and remaining absconding weighed against grant of relief—Held, not a fit case for quashing at...
(10) ORISSA
Writ petition
A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007—Section 16—Right of Appeal—Section 16 of the Act clearly and unambiguously grants the right of appeal only to senior citizens or parents aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal, to the exclusion of any other person, including children or other relatives—Consequently, an appeal filed by a son challenging a maintenance order passed in favour of his elderly mother is not maintainable, as he is neither a senior citizen nor a parent. [Paras 10–12] B. Jurisdiction—Appeal filed without statutory right—An appeal preferred before an Appellate Tribunal without a statutory right of appeal is not entertainable and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the same—Any order passed in such an appeal is liable to be quashed. [Para 13...