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].
 

Civil Law – Recovery - Promissory Note – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff Discharged Burden – Defendant Failed to Rebut – Suit Based on Two Promissory Notes – Plaintiff examined himself and proved original documents – Defendant, who alleged forgery, failed to enter witness box or produce any evidence – Burden to rebut shifted to defendant and remained undischarged – Findings of Trial and Appellate Courts upheld [Paras 15-18]. 
 
Execution of Document – Attestation Not Mandatory – Promissory Note Valid Without Witnesses – Court reiterated that promissory notes are not compulsorily attestable documents – Plaintiff’s oral testimony supported by original documents was sufficient – Presence of attesting witness not mandatory [Paras 15-16]. 
 
Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Limited Scope Under Section 100 CPC – No Interference in Concurrent Findings of Fact – High Court reiterated limited jurisdiction in second appeal – No interference warranted unless findings are perverse or based on inadmissible evidence – No such infirmity found in concurrent findings [Paras 14, 18]. 
 
Failure to Lead Evidence – Adverse Inference Against Defendant – Presumption Invoked – Defendant’s refusal to step into witness box or challenge order rejecting his IA under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (for handwriting expert) led to adverse inference – Applied principle from Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao, AIR 1999 SC 1441 [Para 16]. 
 
Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Findings Upheld – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit – Costs to be borne by parties – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 19]. 
 

Civil Writ - Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Challenge to Declaration of Land as Slum Area – Absence of Title – Declaration Upheld – Petitioners claimed tribal status and ownership over land declared as slum area in 2016 – Relied on decades-old revenue records and Village Specimen No. 2 – Held: No valid document of title or order of allotment produced – Mere entries in revenue records insufficient to establish ownership – AGRC rightly held Petitioners as unauthorized occupants [Paras 34-49, 50-51].

Delay in Challenge – Eight-Year Delay – Slum Scheme Substantially Progressed – No Interference Warranted – Notification declaring slum area issued in 2016 – Petitioners approached Court and AGRC in 2024 – Meanwhile, 2255 out of 2313 slum structures demolished – Held: Delay defeats equity – Slum scheme too advanced to halt – Reliance placed on Apex Court decision in Mansur Ali Farida Irshad Ali [Paras 57-60].

Scope of Section 3C – Declaration of Slum Area Without Prior Declaration Under Section 4 – Legally

Permissible – Petitioners argued absence of declaration under Section 4 invalidated subsequent steps – Held: Section 3C is independent and not dependent on Section 4 – Supported by precedent in Santosh Tukaram Patil – AGRC decision sustained [Paras 52-53].

Implementation on Gairan Land – Mutation in Government Name – Slum Scheme Valid – Petitioners claimed land was Gairan and not legally available for redevelopment – Held: Mutation Entry No. 4598 records land in Government name – Gairan status no longer applicable – Notification and scheme valid – Cited Santosh Madhukar Bhondve and Jagpal Singh cases distinguished [Paras 54-56].

Eviction Proceedings – Validity of Eviction Orders under Sections 33 and 38 – Confirmed – Petitioners contended eviction orders violated their rights as alleged owners – Held: No ownership proved – Orders passed after due process and rightly upheld by AGRC – No interference required [Paras 61-64].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Implementation of Slum Scheme Not to Be Halted – Court finds no merit in Petitioners’ claim of ownership or challenge to slum declaration – Petitioners entitled to rehab tenements if eligible – Scheme implementation must proceed for benefit of majority slum dwellers [Para 65].

Consumer Law - Challenge to order of NCDRC – Refund for Delay in Possession – Flat Purchaser Entitled – State Commission Order Upheld – Petitioner Builder failed to deliver flat despite investment of ₹6.5 lakhs by Respondent in 2010-2011 – State Commission ordered refund with 9% interest and compensation – NCDRC rejected delayed appeal – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 3-7].

Delay Condonation – 1132-Day Delay Not Satisfactorily Explained – Condonation Denied – National Commission found petitioners’ justification (COVID, firm dissolution, health issues, settlement talks) unsubstantiated and casual – Held: Law of limitation requires reasonable, good-faith explanation – No interference warranted by High Court [Paras 8-20].

Consumer Status – Flat Purchaser is a Consumer – Challenge Baseless – Petitioner argued Respondent not a “consumer” under the Act – Rejected: Respondent paid for residential flat and falls within definition under Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act [Para 16].

Abuse of Process Allegation – No Evidence – Dismissed as Bald Assertion – Petitioner accused Respondent of fabricating receipts and abusing law – Held: Allegations baseless, unsupported by material – Can't substitute for legal grounds [Para 16].

Writ Jurisdiction – No Relief Without Clean Hands – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Petitioners failed to act diligently, adopted “wait and watch” approach till settlement failed – Attempt to defeat execution process – Held: Writ remedy cannot aid party lacking bona fides [Paras 20, 23-24].

Consumer Law – Beneficial Legislation – Delay Defeats Purpose – Emphasis on Expeditious Resolution – Referring to Alpha G Corp. and other SC cases, Court reiterated that delay thwarts consumer justice mechanism – High threshold for condonation reaffirmed [Paras 18-29].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – NCDRC acted within law, applied correct principles – Writ petition held misconceived and dismissed without costs [Paras 30-31].
 

Civil Writ - Customs Law – Amendment of IGM – Section 30(3) of the Customs Act – Delay and Noncompliance – Amendment Permissible - The Court held that authorities failed in their statutory duty under Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, to amend the Import General Manifest (IGM) despite a valid Bill of Lading showing Ludhiana as the final destination – Their reliance on a circular requiring shipping company’s request was misplaced – Such delay resulted in hardship to the petitioner importing perishable items [Paras 3-5, 26-28, 30-33].

Transshipment – Refusal to Shift Goods – Negligent Handling – Interim Relief Granted - The Court had to repeatedly intervene due to non-compliance with its directions, including transshipment orders and failure of Customs Officers and shipping line to coordinate – Goods were wrongly shifted to Saurashtra Freight Pvt. Ltd. instead of GRFL ICD, Ludhiana, leading to further delays and obstruction [Paras 11-13, 20-21, 31-33].

Refund of Customs Duty – Perishable Goods – Goods Rendered Unfit – Refund Granted – Despite Section 26A(3) Disallowing Refund - The Court held that when imported goods perish due to official delay and inaction in violation of court orders, refund of customs duty paid under protest is justified – Section 26A(3) does not bar refund in such extraordinary circumstances – The importer had placed sufficient proof of damage and disposal of goods [Paras 25, 36, 49-55].

Compensation for Damages – Negligence of Customs and Shipping Line – Principles of Bailment and Unjust Enrichment Applied – Compensation Allowed - The Court invoked principles of strict liability and unjust enrichment – Held that Customs acted as bailee with duty to preserve goods – Delay in clearance and mismanagement by authorities and shipping line led to destruction of perishable items, warranting compensation for the value of goods (`66,79,674) and refund of customs duty [Paras 50-57].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Court Orders Refund of Duty and Compensation – Customs and Shipping Company Found Liable – Court directed refund of customs duty and awarded compensation for loss of goods due to delay caused by respondents – Held that bureaucratic delay and disregard of orders caused perishable imports to deteriorate and must be compensated in writ jurisdiction [Paras 49-57].
 

Civil Writ - Teacher Recruitment – Validity of Selection Advertisement – Supreme Court Binding Directions – Relief Denied - Petitioners sought a direction to commence the recruitment process as per the Advertisement dated 07.12.2012 – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak (2018) had already moulded relief by permitting the State to issue a fresh advertisement for remaining vacancies, thereby rendering the continuation of the 07.12.2012 advertisement untenable – Held: Petitioners’ prayer directly contravenes Supreme Court directions and is rejected [Paras 4, 6-9].

Re-Evaluation of OMR Sheets – Allegation of Malpractice in TET 2011 – Barred by Final Judgment – Petitioners prayed for re-evaluation of OMR sheets and cancellation of candidature of those using whitener – Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar Pathak upheld the appointments made, and rejected reopening settled issues – Held: Prayers barred and not maintainable [Paras 5, 10].

Frivolous Litigation – Imposition of Cost – Petitions Held to be Luxury Litigation – Court observed that despite knowing the finality of the Supreme Court judgment, petitioners filed repetitive and baseless writs wasting judicial time – Held: All 6402 petitioners to pay Rs. 100 each as cost to High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, with compliance directed through deponents/pairokars [Paras 11-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – All prayers found contrary to binding precedent and settled law – All writ petitions dismissed with cost [Para 11].

Labour Law - Industrial Dispute – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Tribunal’s Award Set Aside – The Industrial Tribunal’s finding that the petitioner-workman was illegally refused employment and entitled to full back wages was based solely on the workman’s written statement, without any evidentiary basis – High Court held that the tribunal erroneously presumed termination in absence of documentary proof – Award set aside [Paras 1820, 28]. 
 
Transfer of Workman – Employer's Right to Allocate Work – Refusal by Workman – Not Termination – 
Employer offered the workman alternative positions in active departments due to closure of Roving Department – Workman’s insistence on working only in Roving Department held to be an unjustified refusal – Tribunal's failure to appreciate this amounted to error of law [Paras 14-17, 23-26]. 
 
Procedural Fairness – No Trial on Merits – Matter Remanded – Tribunal treated the act of permitting rejoining as consent to all claims including back wages – High Court held this violated principles of natural justice and deprived employer of full hearing – Directed re-trial on merits [Paras 21-22, 27-28]. 
 
Industrial Tribunal – Duty to Record Evidence – Final Award Without Trial Invalid – High Court emphasized that dispute on abandonment vs. refusal to permit joining must be adjudicated through evidence and not assumption – Remanded for fresh disposal within six months [Paras 27-28]. 
 
Decision – Award Dated 29.01.2024 Set Aside – Writ Petitions Disposed – High Court set aside the tribunal award and directed adjudication of Case No. 16 of 2020 afresh, on merits, after recording evidence from both parties [Paras 28-29].