Criminal Complaint – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners challenged the summoning order by the Trial Court, claiming lack of essential ingredients of the alleged offences – Cited Supreme Court precedents on the necessity of reasoned orders for summoning – Court observed complaint lacked specific allegations and appeared motivated by personal vendetta – Complaint and proceedings quashed [Paras 2-3, 11-15].

Locus Standi – Legitimacy of Complaint – Court noted respondent No.2 (mother of deceased first husband) lacked locus standi as aggrieved party – Pension disbursement department would be the appropriate complainant if any fraud was committed [Para 11].

Policy and Legal Precedents – Summoning and Quashing Guidelines – Emphasized careful scrutiny of complaints alleging vexatious and frivolous litigation – Cited Supreme Court judgments on appropriate exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Summoning order and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Complaint deemed motivated by personal revenge rather than legal merit [Para 15].

Company Law – Director’s Liability for Corporate Debt – Loan Given to Company – No Personal Guarantee – The appellant extended a loan to respondent no.1 (company) but sought recovery from its directors personally – Trial court decreed the claim only against the company and dismissed it against the directors – Held: A company is a separate legal entity, and its directors are not personally liable for corporate debts unless a personal guarantee or indemnity is given – No evidence of misrepresentation or inducement by the directors – No personal liability can be imposed on directors merely because they requested the loan [Paras 6-7].

Corporate Veil – No Grounds to Lift – No Fraud or Malfeasance Alleged – The appellant contended that the corporate veil should be lifted to hold the directors personally liable – Held: Lifting the corporate veil requires proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or misuse of corporate structure – No such allegations were made in the pleadings – Mere friendship with directors does not create personal liability – Appeal dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Doctrine of Agency – Directors Not Personally Liable – Application of Section 230 of the Contract Act – The appellant argued that since the directors controlled the company’s affairs, they should be liable – Held: Under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agent is not personally liable unless expressly agreeing to be bound – No personal guarantee or indemnity was executed – Loan was granted to the company, not the directors in their personal capacity – No case for agency liability made out [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment upheld – Directors not personally liable for repayment – No personal guarantee or misrepresentation proven – No case for lifting the corporate veil – Company alone liable for repayment of the loan [Paras 10-11].
 

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII, Rule 11, CPC – The petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, contending that the suit was barred by territorial jurisdiction as per the agreement between the parties – The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by any law – Held: The existence of a cause of action is a triable issue, and Order VII, Rule 11 cannot be invoked where controversial questions of fact are involved – No error in the trial court’s order [Paras 2.2, 5.2].

Commercial Courts Act – Maintainability of Civil Revision – Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – The respondent raised an objection regarding the maintainability of revision under Section 115, CPC, in light of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, which bars civil revision petitions against interlocutory orders – Held: Since the suit pertains to a commercial dispute, revision under Section 115, CPC is barred – The appropriate remedy lies in appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, if applicable [Paras 6, 14.1].

Jurisdiction – Effect of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – The petitioner argued that the agreement between the parties specified that disputes should be resolved in Cuttack courts, and thus, the Bhubaneswar Commercial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction – Held: The existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of other competent courts – If the plaint discloses a cause of action within Bhubaneswar, the court can proceed with the trial – Application under Order VII, Rule 11 rightly rejected [Paras 5.3, 6.1].

Effect of Commercial Courts Act on Revisionary Jurisdiction – Section 115, CPC read with Sections 8 and 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – The Commercial Courts Act overrides the general provisions of the CPC in matters of commercial disputes – Held: The bar under Section 8 is absolute, and revision petitions under Section 115, CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders of Commercial Courts – Appeal under Section 13 is the only available remedy [Paras 14, 14.6].

Interlocutory Orders – Scope of Judicial Review – The petitioner argued that the rejection of his Order VII, Rule 11 application was an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, warranting interference under Section 115, CPC – Held: The impugned order does not fall within the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC – Any challenge to such interlocutory orders can only be raised in appeal against the final decree [Paras 10.1, 14.3].

Decision – Revision Petition Not Maintainable – The High Court dismissed the revision petition as barred under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – Petitioners are not remediless but must pursue appropriate remedies under Section 13 of the Act – No costs awarded [Paras 16-17].
 

Arbitration Law - Stock Broker Liability – Prior Written Instructions – NSE Regulations – Regulatory Requirement Not Mandatory in Civil Claims – Client challenged arbitral award citing lack of prior written instructions for trades – Held: Requirement for prior authorisation is regulatory, not determinative of civil liability – 
Absence of authorisation cannot invalidate trades if client participated with full knowledge – Tribunal rightly considered emails, SMS alerts, fund flows, and securities transfers to affirm client’s conscious involvement [Paras 1, 11–21, 24, 27–30]. 
 
Arbitral Review – Limited Scope Under Section 34 – Findings Not Perverse – Petitioner argued award contradicted findings in first arbitral award – Court held that appellate tribunal’s conclusions were logical and based on evidence – No perversity or arbitrariness established – Interference under Section 34 not warranted [Paras 19–21, 31]. 
 
SEBI Circular – Evidentiary Guidelines – Not Substantive Law – Court interpreted SEBI’s 2018 Circular as procedural and directory – Emphasized that post-trade evidence like fund and securities movement can establish trade legitimacy in absence of prior written authorisation – Rigid interpretation would lead to inequitable consequences and allow clients to escape liability [Paras 25–29]. 
 
Commercial Conduct – Active Participation – Client Received Trade Alerts and Made Payments – Despite lack of explicit authorisation, evidence of continuous trading conduct, receipt of contract notes, transfer of securities, and lack of protest showed participation – Tribunal entitled to weigh such evidence in totality [Paras 14–18, 22, 26]. 
 
Trade Usages and Section 28(3) – Legal Recognition of Industry Practices – Tribunal rightly considered usage of securities market including trade confirmations, account settlements, and autonomous instructions – Judgment aligned with SC’s ruling in Chokshi where oral agreements and trade conduct were upheld in composite claims [Paras 33–38]. 
 
Decision: Petitions dismissed – Impugned award upheld – Petitioner liable to pay ~Rs.69.20 lakhs with 12% p.a. interest – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on petitioner payable to respondent within 4 weeks [Paras 41–42]. 
 

Criminal Law - Abduction for Ransom – Conspiracy and Execution – Section 364A, 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - The appellants conspired and executed the abduction of Partha Roy Burman, inflicting gunshot injuries during the kidnapping and detained him at a secluded location to demand ransom – Multiple prosecution witnesses, including PW31 and PW32 (cooks), PW33 (co-accused turned prosecution witness), and PW35-PW55 (official and medical witnesses) corroborated the pre-planning, execution, custody of the victim, and ransom transaction – Held: The prosecution successfully proved the conspiracy and abduction beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 1-10, 23-31, 35-45].

Evidence – Hostile Witnesses – Reliability of Other Evidence – Conviction Not Vitiated - Although some key witnesses, including PW26 (victim) and relatives like PW20, PW22, PW23 turned hostile, their testimonies regarding initial facts and identification of injuries, along with other documentary and corroborative evidence like seizure lists, forensic reports, voice samples, and confessional statements under Section 164 CrPC, stood consistent and reliable – Held: Conviction sustainable even when certain witnesses turned hostile [Paras 31-38, 53-55, 66-67].

Electronic and Forensic Evidence – Admissibility and Reliability – Voice Samples and Footprint Matches – Audio cassette recordings of ransom calls matched with the voices of appellants as confirmed by CFSL expert (PW67) – Footprint evidence also corroborated the presence of appellants at relevant places – Held: Properly proved and relied upon [Paras 66-69, 73-77].

Abduction for Ransom – Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 364A and 120B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Prosecution proved that appellants hatched a conspiracy to abduct Partho Roy Burman for ransom through meetings, arrangement of hideouts and vehicles, and execution of the abduction with the use of arms – Conspiracy corroborated by direct evidence of PW31, PW32, and PW33 who were privy to planning meetings, distribution of roles and captivity of the victim – Victim was injured, confined at Bhoot Bunglow, and released after ransom payment – Held: Appellants participated actively in the conspiracy and execution, warranting conviction [Paras 105-120].

Test Identification Parade – Delay – Non-fatal – Delay in conducting TIP explained due to appellants being absconders – Appellants identified both in TIP and by prosecution witnesses who had seen them repeatedly during conspiracy meetings and captivity of the victim – Held: TIP delay does not vitiate identification when corroborated by substantive evidence [Paras 99-128].

Evidence of Approvers – PW31, PW32, PW33 – Acceptable and Reliable – Appellants challenged credibility of PW31, PW32, and PW33 as approvers – Court held that they were not chance witnesses but insiders to conspiracy, who lived with the accused for substantial periods – Their depositions were consistent, corroborated by independent circumstances and other witnesses – Held: Evidence of these approvers reliable [Paras 113-120].

Electronic Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B – Voice Samples, Emails, Audio Cassettes – Prosecution relied on intercepted calls, emails, and audio tapes – Although formal certificate under Section 65B was partly absent, electronic records collected under Section 27, proved through official witnesses, and corroborated by oral evidence were held admissible – Court distinguished between primary and secondary electronic evidence and applied substantial compliance doctrine – Held: Electronic evidence validly relied upon [Paras 134-138].

Delay in Recording Statements – Defence Argument Rejected – Delay caused due to appellants absconding for long periods and bifurcation of trial – Court accepted prosecution’s explanation and held that delay did not prejudice the defence – Held: Conviction cannot be vitiated on this ground [Paras 129-133].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Complete – Defence plea of incomplete chain rejected – Court found complete chain of circumstances established through eyewitnesses, recovery of articles, forensic reports, and testimonies of key witnesses PW31, PW32, PW33 and others – Held: Conspiracy, execution, ransom demand, payment, and release of victim proved beyond doubt [Paras 120-140].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Appellant Akhtar Hossain – Acquitted – Evidence insufficient to link Akhtar Hossain to supply of arms or direct participation – No evidence of his presence at Bhoot Bunglow or conspiracy meetings – Held: Conviction not sustainable against Akhtar Hossain – He is acquitted [Paras 141-143].

Final Decision – Convictions of all other appellants confirmed – Life imprisonment and fine upheld for Noor Mohammed @ Shahbaz, Jalal Molla @ Omar, Mizanur Rahman @ Shahjahan, Mujammel Sk. @ Akram, Ishaque Ahmed @ Dilsad, Arshad Khan, Tariq Mehmood @ Nayeem – Akhtar Hossain acquitted – Connected applications dismissed [Paras 141-144].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Appeal against conviction – Appellant (A1) convicted by Trial Court under Sections 302, 201, 420, 380, and 120-B IPC for the alleged murder of the deceased, his employer and relative – Allegation of staging accident using a car to eliminate deceased due to business rivalry – High Court found major contradictions in witness testimonies, missing crucial link in chain of circumstances – Prosecution failed to establish the seizure of the alleged crime vehicle (MO.1) at the instance of A1 – Hostile and unreliable witness (PW.21) and conflicting testimonies of PW.12 and PW.25 regarding vehicle repair and seizure – Delay and gaps in investigation, non-examination of key witnesses like the real car buyer, and discrepancies regarding the vehicle number and possession – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 16 to 47].

Witness Testimony – Contradictions – PW.1 (wife of the deceased) alleged motive based on financial disputes and missing diary – PW.1's deposition found to be improved during trial compared to earlier statements to police – PW.2 and PW.4’s statements about disputes and missing diary also marked by improvements and contradictions – Evidence of PW.8 and PW.16 about alleged collection of Rs. 3 lakhs after the deceased’s death inconsistent and contradicted by their own depositions – Suspicion cannot substitute legal proof – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 48 to 54].

Circumstantial Evidence – Seizure of MO.1 Vehicle – Seizure allegedly based on A1's confession – PW.21, one of the panch witnesses, turned hostile – PW.25’s version about seizure location contradicts prosecution case – PW.9 clarified that A1 was not the owner of the shop from where the car was allegedly seized – PW.13 testified that A1 had sold the car long before the incident – Delay in vehicle inspection and unexplained circumstances surrounding its possession raised serious doubt – Evidence insufficient to prove that MO.1 was used in the crime or linked to A1 – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete [Paras 20 to 46].

Motive – Disputes regarding financial dealings, alleged recovery of Rs. 20 lakh, and alleged theft of diary – No documentary evidence submitted regarding loan to Madhusudhan Reddy or recovery from A1 – Failure to recover the diary or prove A1’s exclusive access to it – Alleged motive remained uncorroborated and speculative – Held: Absence of motive further weakens the prosecution case [Paras 48 to 54].

Principle of Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Reaffirmed that suspicion, however grave, cannot replace proof – The chain of circumstances must be complete and lead only to the hypothesis of guilt – Relying on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam – Held: Prosecution failed to establish conclusive proof [Paras 55-56].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant (A1) acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Para 58].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against conviction – Common Intention – Eyewitness Testimony – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction Converted – Appellants accused of beating deceased with belcha and kassi during worksite quarrel – Sole eyewitness PW-17 testified to quarrel and dragging of body, but did not witness actual assault – Trial court convicted both under Section 302/34 IPC – Held: Incident arose out of sudden altercation, no premeditation – In absence of direct evidence of fatal blow, case falls under Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 13, 18, 33–42]. 
 
Section 145 Evidence Act – Hostile Witness – Partial Credibility – PW-17 declared hostile and cross-examined – Although he retracted some police statements, core testimony on dragging body and shutter closure remained consistent – Court held such testimony admissible and reliable under Section 145 – Presence of accused and circumstantial evidence unerringly pointed to guilt [Paras 34–36]. 
 
Culpable Homicide – Sudden Provocation – Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability Considered – Deceased initiated quarrel by abusing A-2, which escalated into fatal fight – Court relied on precedents including Pulicherla Nagaraju and Dauvaram Nirmalkar to hold that appellants acted without premeditation in a fit of anger – Conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 37–42]. 
 
Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Period Already Undergone – Appellants from lower socio-economic background – No prior criminal record – Having undergone nearly 10 years of incarceration – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – No fine imposed [Para 42]. 
 
Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction altered from Section 302/34 to Section 304 Part II IPC – Appellants sentenced to imprisonment for period already undergone – No fine imposed [Paras 42–43]. 
 

Civil Law - Land Dispute – Claim of Succession – Section 171 UPZA & LR Act – Relationship Not Established – Petitioner claimed inheritance rights over land previously held by Ruda Singh – Claimed to be nephew through maternal line – Court held: No reliable documentary or oral evidence was filed to establish familial relationship – Certificate from Gram Pradhan found vague and unauthorized – Earlier order vesting land in State unchallenged for decades – Held: No succession right established [Paras 3, 14, 21, 39– 44, 56–63]. 
 
Consolidation Proceedings – Effect of Prior Orders – Order Vesting Land in State Remained Unchallenged – Despite initiation of consolidation in 1995, earlier order dated 17.09.1984 under Section 194 UPZA & LR Act vesting land in State was never properly challenged – Revision against consequential order dismissed – Consolidation authorities erred in ignoring prior final order – Deputy Director rightly rectified error [Paras 9, 26, 41–48, 55, 69–71]. 
 
Pleadings and Conduct – Suppression and Contradictory Claims – Petitioner filed multiple objections under Section 9-A(2) with inconsistent grounds—initially on succession, later on unregistered will – No evidence of will brought – Serious discrepancies in age, identity documents, signatures, and name aliases found – Execution of gift deeds soon after name entry recorded in revenue record raised suspicion – Petitioner acting as proxy for third party with history of land grabbing – Held: Petition tainted by concealment, lacks merit [Paras 24–25, 52–54, 64–68, 70]. 
 
Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Deputy Director of Consolidation’s order upheld – Earlier unchallenged order of land vesting in State prevails – Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer erred in granting rights to petitioner without examining credibility and prior orders – Interim order vacated – Costs made easy [Paras 69–71]. 
 
 

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Commercial Quantity – Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Accused in custody since 31.10.2023 for offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)A, 22(c), and 25 of NDPS Act – Trial pending before Additional Sessions Judge-V, Thiruvananthapuram – Petitioner seeks bail citing prolonged incarceration and delay in trial – Held: Though commercial quantity is involved, prolonged incarceration due to prosecution’s laches militates against Article 21 – Petitioner can approach Trial Court for bail in light of Apex Court precedents [Paras 2, 4, 5, 6–11]. 
 
Prolonged Incarceration – Article 21 vs Section 37 NDPS Act – Accused in custody for more than 20 months – Court observed that prolonged incarceration without fault of the accused violates Article 21 – Referenced SC decisions in Ankur Chaudhary v. State of M.P., Nitish Adhikary v. State of W.B., and Hasanujjaman v. State of W.B. which held that delay in trial caused solely by prosecution can override rigour of Section 37 NDPS – Also relied on Kerala HC’s own precedent in Shuaib A.S. v. State of Kerala [Paras 6–11]. 
 
Trial Delay – Prosecution's Lapses – Prosecution failed to cite all necessary witnesses initially – After examining existing witnesses, prosecution filed petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon more witnesses without clear purpose – Petition was dismissed; prosecution later given another chance to file proper petition – Delay attributed solely to prosecution, not to accused – Such delay justified consideration of bail despite Section 37 bar [Paras 9–11]. 
 
Decision: Bail application disposed – Petitioner allowed to file fresh bail application before Trial Court – Trial Court directed to consider bail on merits applying principles laid down by SC and HC in cited cases – To be decided within two weeks of application [Para 10].