A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138 & 141—Dishonour of cheque; vicarious liability of directors—Acquittal upheld—Complainant loaned Rs.45,00,000 to company; cheque for Rs.45,00,000 dated 31.03.2015 was dishonoured (account closed)—Trial court convicted the signatory director but acquitted other directors; appeal (CRA(SB)144/2022) challenged those acquittals on basis of Section 141 vicarious liability—Held: prosecution’s sole witness (PW1) lacked personal knowledge of the transaction and failed to legally ratify the complaint; affidavits filed by accused without affirmation cannot substitute for oral evidence; trial court’s appreciation that directors (other than the signatory) were not shown to have been in charge of day-to-day affairs at the relevant time was a plausible vi...

Criminal Liability of Corporate Employees under Sections 138 & 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act)—The liability of an employee or director under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for dishonour of cheque can be fastened only if such person was in charge of and responsible for the company’s operations at the material time—Mere past association or resignation prior to the alleged offence negates vicarious liability under Section 141—The complainant must establish specific knowledge and authority of the accused at the relevant time—Evidence without personal knowledge or proper authorization fails to sustain the complaint—In appeals against acquittals, the High Court’s power to reappreciate evidence is qualified; acquittals should not be reversed without demonstrating illegality or perversi...

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 127—Enhancement of Maintenance—Maintainability of Application under Section 127 CrPC after Grant of Permanent Alimony under Hindu Marriage Act—Delay in Disposal—Retrospective Effect—There is no bar to maintain an application for enhancement of maintenance under Section 127 CrPC even after a decree for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provided a change in circumstances is established—Proceedings under both statutes operate in distinct legal spheres and serve the overarching object of ensuring sustenance and social justice for the claimant spouse—In the present case, while the maintenance enhancement application was filed in 2012, the Ld—Magistrate disposed of it only in 2024, granting enhanced maintenance of ₹...

Tenancy Law—Lease Renewal and Rent Enhancement; Public Premises Act—Eviction Proceedings—The lease renewal clause stipulating a 25% rental enhancement, coupled with the lessor’s discretion to grant a fresh lease, distinguishes this case from precedents mandating unconditional renewal—The landlord’s discretion in fixing renewal terms is upheld, particularly where the lessor is a public authority with public purpose objectives. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16) The Estate Officer’s duty under the Public Premises Act requires recording reasons for eviction orders—Show cause notices communicating preliminary views on unauthorized occupation, rent arrears, and damages comply with statutory mandates. (Para 14) Allegations of unauthorized alterations to the lease deed are rejected due to absence o...

Will Execution and Attestation; Indian Evidence Act—Proof of Will—Under Sections 63 and 71 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, execution of a Will by a literate testator with a Left Thumb Impression (LTI) is valid if there are no suspicious circumstances—The explanation that the LTI was due to trembling hands was accepted, and there is no legal requirement to read over or explain the Will to a literate testator. (Para A) Regarding attestation under Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, all essential ingredients are satisfied if witnesses sign in the presence of the testator—This presence can be inferred from the evidence's totality and cross-examination, even if not explicitly stated in every testimony. (Para B) Proof of due execution of a Will does not require ma...

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41 Rule 11—Admission of Appeals—The hearing under Rule 11 is procedural and mandatory, aimed at determining whether the appeal can be dismissed without requiring the respondent’s presence—It is not a stage for admitting or rejecting the appeal outright—Appeals against orders not exempt under Appellate Side Rules must mandatorily be listed for hearing under this provision. (Paras 31–33) B. Commercial Courts Act, 2015—Sections 5, 18—Commercial Appeals—The designated Commercial Appellate Division applies the Appellate Side Rules mutatis mutandis, and Practice Directions take precedence in case of conflict—This specialized bench holds jurisdiction to hear appeals under Order 41 Rule 11, ensuring a streamlined process for commercial dispute...

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 405, 120B—Cheating, Criminal Breach of Trust, and Conspiracy—Quashing of Criminal Case—Where allegations stem from a commercial dispute involving unpaid dues, and the accused directors or chairman of a company are not parties to the original transaction nor shown to have acted with fraudulent or dishonest intent, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to misuse of criminal law—Petitioners were not directly involved in the alleged business dealings between the complainant and a third-party supplier—The material on record failed to demonstrate inducement, deception, or dishonest intention at the inception of the contract—Substantial payments made under the transaction negate allegations of cheating—The complaint sought to give a criminal colour to...

A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 80—Requirement of Notice to Public Officers—The Official Liquidator qualifies as a 'public officer' under Section 2(17) CPC, making compliance with the notice requirement under Section 80 mandatory before instituting a suit—Absence of such notice, unless cured under Section 80(2), renders the suit barred—However, such procedural defect constitutes a formal irregularity, for which withdrawal with liberty to file afresh under Order 23 Rule 1 is legally permissible. (Paras 26, 28–33, 89, 91, 93–95) B. SARFAESI Act, 2002—Section 34—Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction—Civil Court’s jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the case touches upon secured assets—The bar applies only when the dispute directly concerns measures under...

A. Review of Judgment—Scope and Power under CPC The power of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is not an inherent power and cannot be used as a substitute for appellate jurisdiction—A review is permissible only to correct patent errors, mistakes apparent on the face of the record, or the discovery of new and important matters—An error that requires a detailed analysis is not considered apparent on the face of the record—A review cannot be sought merely to reargue points already decided or to correct a judgment with which a party disagrees. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23) B. Grounds for Review—Limitation of Scope The grounds for review are strictly limited to the discovery of new or important matters, an error apparent on the face of the record...

A. Bail Cancellation—Grounds for Review The cancellation of bail can be sought on two primary grounds: (i) the post-bail conduct of the accused, and (ii) the original order granting bail being flawed—The second ground is available for consideration by a superior court, as the lower court cannot review its own order. (Para 6) B. Seriousness of Charges—Transnational Cybercrime Syndicate The charges against the petitioners are of a grave and complex nature, involving the operation of a fake call center designed to defraud foreign nationals—The petitioners were allegedly involved in impersonation, coercion, and fraudulent manipulation of computer systems, targeting victims, particularly from the U.S., leading to significant financial losses. (Para 7) C. Substantial Evidence Against Petitioners The investigatio...