Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Bail / Section 164(5)—Victim’s Statement / Conditions A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)—Section 164(5)—Statement of Victim—Victim stated she voluntarily accompanied the appellant due to mutual attraction and the innocence of both parties; this fact considered by the Court in assessing the bail application. (Para 7) B. Bail—Appeal Against Dismissal—Appellant arrested for offences under the BNS, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, and SC/ST Act; the nature of the occurrence and victim’s statement inclined the Court to grant bail, observing absence of force or coercion. (Para 7) C. Bail Conditions—Stringent conditions imposed while granting bail: execution of personal bond and sureti...

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Cheque Dishonour—Rebuttal of Presumption—Legally Enforceable Debt—Complaint based on dishonour of cheque for Rs.5 Crores—Respondent’s versions regarding nature of liability inconsistent in complaint, statutory notice and written submissions—No clear pleading or proof as to quantum of commission allegedly due—Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) did not contain stipulation regarding 20% commission as claimed—Evidence showed loan of Rs.10 Crores and admitted repayment of Rs.8.74 Crores—Presumption under Section 139 NI Act held rebutted to extent that cheque amount did not represent subsisting legally enforceable debt of Rs.5 Crores on date of presentation—Conviction sustained in peculiar facts but findings of Courts below on ...

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Acquittal—Suppression of material facts—Security cheque—Held, where complainant suppressed material facts regarding prior sale agreement and civil dispute and failed to disclose that cheque was issued as security in connection with earlier transaction, he cannot claim benefit of statutory presumptions—Accused successfully probablised defence through documentary evidence—Acquittal justified. [Paras 9 to 11] B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 & 139—Presumption—Rebuttal—Scope of appellate interference against acquittal—Held, though statutory presumption arises upon issuance of cheque, accused can rebut the same by probable defence—Where defence supported by registered documents and civil proc...

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 20 & 118(a)—Suit for recovery based on cheque—Presumption of consideration—Execution of inchoate instrument—Defendant admitted signature and delivery of signed blank cheque—Once voluntary delivery of signed but incomplete instrument is admitted, Section 20 NI Act attracts implied authority to complete the cheque—Statutory presumption under Section 118(a) that instrument was made for consideration arises—Mere plea of misuse or absence of consideration insufficient to rebut presumption—Failure to adduce cogent evidence to rebut presumption—Cheque held supported by legally enforceable debt—Decree for recovery upheld. [Paras 10, 11] B. Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order XXX Rule 10—Maintainability of suit agains...

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Section 173—Motor Accident Claims—Negligence, Compensation, and Functional Disability—In a rear-end collision, the Tribunal rightly held Respondent 1 (rider of offending motorcycle) 100% negligent, rejecting contributory negligence claims by the petitioners (father and son) based on minor inconsistencies in the FIR, helmet non-compliance, or abrupt turn allegations—The claimant, a TNSTC driver, suffered severe head injuries causing permanent disability, cognitive impairment, and total loss of earning capacity; 30% permanent disability was treated as 100% functional disability—Loss of future income was calculated using multiplier method with addition for future prospects, yielding Rs. 60,27,921/-, with no deduction for pension or terminal benefits—Loss of amenities was not ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Execution Proceedings—Order XXI Rules 97 & 99—Obstruction to Execution—A person against whom an application under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC for removal of obstruction has been adjudicated and lost cannot subsequently file a fresh application under Rule 99 CPC after dispossession to re-agitate the same issues—Rule 97 deals with resistance to possession prior to execution, while Rule 99 applies only to persons who were not afforded an opportunity to obstruct delivery and are “other than the judgment debtor.” An obstructor against whom an Order XXI Rule 97 application succeeds becomes a “judgment debtor” under Section 2(10) CPC; consequently, Rule 99 cannot be invoked—Allowing a second application under Rule 99 on identical grounds would constitute an impe...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 47—Execution of Decree—Order XX Rule 4(2)—Procedural Irregularity vs. Nullity—A judgment-debtor cannot challenge the executability of a decree under Section 47 CPC solely because it does not conform to Order XX Rule 4(2) requirements (concise statement, points for determination, decisions, and reasons)—Non-compliance with these procedural formalities renders the decree irregular but not void, provided the court had inherent jurisdiction—The executing court cannot re-examine or sit in appeal over the decree, and issues of procedural irregularity or improper exercise of jurisdiction must be raised through appeal or review—The 'inversion test' confirms that Supreme Court rulings on Order XX Rule 4(2) non-conformity do not convert such decrees into null...

Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970—Section 3(4)(b)—Eviction of Tenant—Arrears of Rent—Revenue Court’s Discretion—Under Section 3(4)(b), a Revenue Court must provide a cultivating tenant a reasonable opportunity to deposit arrears, including costs, before passing an eviction order—Failure to do so, particularly where the tenant has shown bona fide intent by filing petitions for permission to deposit, constitutes error—The Revenue Court lacks jurisdiction to determine or fix fair rent or arrears outside the statutory procedures of the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Payment of Fair Rent Act, 1970; orders purporting to do so are null and void—Eviction cannot be ordered on unpleaded grounds, such as abandonment of cultivation—Counsel cannot make concessions surrenderi...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 21 Rules 105 & 106—Limitation Act, 1963—Section 5—Execution Proceedings—Restoration of Execution Petition—Section 5 of the Limitation Act is inapplicable to an application filed under Order 21 Rule 106(3) CPC seeking restoration of an application dismissed for default under Order 21 Rule 105(2)—However, dismissal of an Execution Petition which was repeatedly adjourned only to ascertain the status of a stay granted by a superior court, and not posted for hearing, does not amount to dismissal for non-appearance within the meaning of Rule 105(2)—In such circumstances, the Executing Court is empowered to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC to restore the Execution Petition, and the limitation for such restoration is governed by Article 137 ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Section 114—Order 47 Rule 1—Review Jurisdiction—Scope and Limits—The power of review is a limited and exceptional jurisdiction and cannot be exercised as an appeal in disguise—Unless expressly conferred by statute, the power cannot be assumed—Review lies only to correct a grave and palpable error or to prevent miscarriage of justice and not to substitute one view for another or permit rehearing on merits—An “error apparent on the face of the record” must be self-evident and patent, not one requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning or where two views are possible—Discovery of new and important matter is permissible only if, despite due diligence, it could not be produced earlier, and “any other sufficient reason” must be analogous to ...