Limitation – Suit for Recovery – Applicability of Article 14 – Not a Mutual Open Account – Plaintiff company supplied tyres and flaps on credit between 1980 and 1984 – Defendant made part payments totaling ₹2,27,380/-, and plaintiff sought to recover ₹34,971.05 with interest – Trial Court held suit within limitation based on last payment in March 1983 – Held: Lower Appellate Court rightly applied Article 14 of Limitation Act; limitation begins from date of each delivery, not from last payment [Paras 6–7, 10, 13].

Running Account – Mutual Open Account vs. Successive Supplies – Plea Rejected – Appellant argued that the dealings constituted a mutual and current account, invoking Article 1 of Limitation Act – Court found no reciprocal obligations or debits/credits to constitute mutuality – Plaintiff’s ledger entries were unilateral – Held: Article 1 inapplicable; case governed by Article 14 [Paras 9–11].

Appropriation of Payments – Sections 59–61 Contract Act – Does Not Extend Limitation – Appellant argued it could appropriate payments to prior debts per Contract Act – Court held that such appropriation determines which debt is discharged but does not affect the limitation period for cause of action—Recovery claim for deliveries beyond 3 years remains time-barred [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Lower appellate court’s dismissal of suit as time-barred upheld – No error found in application of limitation principles – Trial court’s contrary view incorrect [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Drugs Without Valid License – Petitioner (Accused No.2), a licensed drug distributor, alleged to have supplied allopathic drugs to Accused No.1, a non-registered practitioner running a clinic without drug license – Proceedings initiated under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Act of 1940 – Court held that such supply violated the license conditions of the petitioner – Held: Offences prima facie made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 3, 7].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Complaint alleged to be barred as maximum punishment for Accused No.2 is two years – Court held that offences against co-accused (Accused No.1) are punishable up to five years – As per Section 468(3) CrPC, limitation is computed with reference to most severe offence in joint trial – Petition not barred by limitation [Paras 4, 8].

Authority of Complainant – Drug Inspector’s Locus Standi – Petitioner contended that complainant was not notified as Inspector for Gadag Circle under Section 21(1) of the Act – Court held: Once duly notified as Inspector for Shivamogga Circle, subsequent transfer covered under Section 21(2) – No fresh Gazette Notification required for each transfer – Narrow interpretation rejected as impractical and contrary to object of Act – Held: Inspector was competent to file complaint [Paras 9-16].

Cognizance and Trial – Role of Magistrate – Petitioner argued Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 32 – Court held: Sessions Court alone competent to try offences under Chapter IV of the Act – However, cognizance must be taken by Magistrate and committed under Section 193 CrPC – Held: Complaint properly committed to Sessions Court under Section 209 – No illegality [Paras 17-20].

Special Laws and Cognizance – Comparison with SC/ST Act and PC Act – Court contrasted express cognizance provisions under other special statutes – Noted absence of similar provision in Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Reinforced need for committal procedure via Magistrate – Petitioner's argument rejected [Paras 11-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Proceedings against petitioner under Sections 18(a)(vi) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 upheld – Complaint held valid in law – Committal to Sessions Court proper – No ground for quashing.

Medical Negligence – Failed Sterilization – No Presumption of Liability – Plaintiff underwent sterilization in January 1987 but gave birth to a severely deformed child in December 1987 – Plaintiffs claimed ₹2,40,000 as compensation alleging negligent sterilization – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held there was no evidence of negligence – High Court affirmed findings, holding failure alone does not establish negligence [Paras 1–5, 8–10, 15].

Proof of Negligence – Bolam Test – Burden on Plaintiff – Relying on Shiv Ram v. State of Punjab and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, Court held that mere birth of a child post-sterilization does not prove negligence – Failure rate of 2–4 per 1000 cases acknowledged in medical literature – Plaintiff must plead and prove specific negligence, which was absent here [Paras 11–12].

Medical Termination – No Claim if Pregnancy Continued by Choice – Court held that once pregnancy occurs despite sterilization, the option of termination is available under the MTP Act – If a couple voluntarily continues pregnancy, the child cannot later be termed “unwanted” to claim compensation [Para 12.3].

Distinction in Precedents – Decisions Contrary to Shiv Ram Not Applicable – Judgments such as Smt. Shobha v. GNCT Delhi and Tmt. Dhanam v. State of Tamil Nadu held not binding, as they either pre-date or do not consider Shiv Ram – Consistent line of authority affirms no liability without proven negligence [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings upheld – No evidence of negligence – No entitlement to compensation in absence of breach of duty by surgeon [Para 16].

Consolidation Proceedings – Concurrent Findings – Interference by High Court – Limited Scope – Petitioners challenged orders of Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer of Consolidation, and Deputy Director of Consolidation denying their claim based on a Will – All authorities recorded concurrent findings that Will was suspicious, not proved, and executed under questionable circumstances – Held: High Court cannot reappreciate evidence under Article 226 unless findings are perverse or without jurisdiction [Paras 2, 8-13].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Unnatural Exclusion of Heirs – Petitioners claimed ownership under a Will by Kadedeen excluding his minor grandson Kamla Kant – Authorities below found that testator had cordial relations with his family and no reason was shown to exclude grandson – Will was neither proved nor supported by village witnesses – Held: Will rightly disbelieved due to suspicious circumstances and lack of legal proof [Paras 3-4, 10-12].

Procedural Fairness – Framing of Issues – No Prejudice Shown – No Objection at Trial Stage – Petitioners argued no issue framed on validity of Will – However, no objection was raised before Consolidation Officer nor evidence led on Will – Authorities below dealt with the Will despite lack of formal framing – Held: No procedural error justifying remand or interference [Paras 5, 9].

Delay – Laches – Consolidation Proceedings Filed in 1977 – Writ Filed in 1980 – No Attempt to Assert Will-based Rights for Over 20 Years – Petitioners failed to take timely steps to record their names based on Will – Held: Inordinate delay supports presumption against genuineness of Will [Paras 4, 13].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – No case for interference in concurrent findings of fact – No perversity or jurisdictional error found [Para 15].

UAPA – Bail – Prima Facie Accusation Not Made Out – Section 43-D(5) – Appellant arrested for alleged links with banned terrorist organizations and accused of maintaining accounts for drug and arms smuggling operations – Prosecution relied only on co-accused’s disclosure and vague secret information – No recovery made from appellant – No material corroborating disclosure – Held: Accusation not prima facie true – Bail cannot be denied solely based on vague, uncorroborated claims [Paras 14-15].

Right to Speedy Trial – Long Incarceration – Delay in Trial – Appellant in custody for nearly 3 years – Only 3 out of 39 witnesses examined – Trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Long pre-trial custody and delay in proceedings violate Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent continued deprivation of liberty [Paras 16-17].

Constitutional Courts – Power to Grant Bail Despite Statutory Bar – UAPA – Supreme Court jurisprudence in K.A. Najeeb, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen and others reiterated – Held: Constitutional Courts can override statutory restrictions under Section 43-D(5) if trial is unduly delayed or rights under Article 21 are violated – Seriousness of allegations alone not sufficient to deny bail [Paras 15, 17-21].

Parity – Bail to Similarly Placed Co-Accused – Appellant’s co-accused Lovepreet Singh and Sukhjinder Singh granted regular bail in similar circumstances – Held: Parity a relevant factor in bail decisions – No justification to deny bail to appellant when similarly situated co-accused are on bail [Para 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned bail rejection order set aside – Appellant ordered to be released on regular bail with stringent conditions – Clarification that observations are limited to bail and not on merits [Paras 23-27].

Public Contracts – Tender – PIL – Composite procurement (thermal + solar) – Prior approval for deviations – MERC displeasure vs. ultimate approval – Locus of political functionary – Judicial review under Art. 226 confined to illegality/irrationality – Non-impleadment of successful bidder – Petition filed before bids opened – No Article 14 infraction shown – PIL dismissed – IA rejected [Paras 1–5, 9–11, 12–17, 18]

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability/Locus Standi – A political office-bearer (petitioner) challenged a commercial tender without demonstrating real, concrete public interest – Court reiterates that strangers/busybodies/meddlesome interlopers lack standing in commercial tender disputes absent violation of fundamental rights or demonstrable public interest – Held: PIL not maintainable; abuse of process aimed at publicity and stalling a public project [Paras 11–13, 15]

Electricity Law – Procurement under Section 63 – Composite Bid (Thermal + Solar) – Though MERC expressed displeasure about delay in seeking prior approval, it examined demand/supply, deviations and approved the process on 12/07/2024 – Non-issuance of specific Section 63 guidelines permitting composite procurement does not bar competitive bidding – Held: No illegality in floating composite NIT; deviations duly approved; no infirmity shown [Paras 4–10]

Tender Law – Judicial Review – Scope – Under Article 226, Court does not choose a bidder or re-write tender terms; intervention limited to Wednesbury illegality/irrationality or Article 14 violations – Commercial expediency, demand growth, cost, and timing are executive considerations; mere procedural lapse or market speculation (share price movements/news clippings) insufficient – Held: No arbitrariness, favouritism, or transparency deficit proved [Paras 13–17]

Facts Noted – Timeline/Parties – NIT dated 13/03/2024; bid window extended; MERC order dated 12/07/2024 granting approvals for deviations; Letter of Intent 13/09/2024; Letter of Award 03/10/2024 – Petition filed before bids opened and without impleading successful bidder – Held: Fatal omissions undermine the challenge [Paras 2, 6–10, 14–15]

Result – Petition & IA – Held: PIL misconceived and misdirected; dismissed with dismissal of IA No. 13336 of 2024 [Para 18]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 148 – Conditional Deposit for Appeal – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act challenged in appeal – Appellate Court directed deposit of 30% compensation amount as condition for hearing – Petitioners alleged they were not granted opportunity to oppose application under Section 148 and cited exceptional circumstances including lack of legal debt – Held: No procedural irregularity shown – Petitioners were heard – No exceptional circumstance proved to justify waiver of statutory deposit – Conditional direction under Section 148 valid – Norm is to require deposit, waiver is exception requiring recorded reasons [Paras 1, 6–12]

Criminal Procedure – Section 91 CrPC – Rejection of Defence Application – Petitioners’ application under Section 91 CrPC for production of Del Credere agency agreement was rejected by Trial Court as not necessary – Held: Trial Court's discretion valid – Petitioners had opportunity to raise all defences at trial – No miscarriage of justice shown [Paras 2, 5]

Judicial Precedents – Section 148 NI Act – Harmonisation of Supreme Court Rulings – Appellate Court rightly relied on Surinder Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi – Petitioners failed to establish any exceptional ground under later rulings in Jamboo Bhandari and Muskan Enterprises to warrant waiver of deposit – Held: No conflict in authorities – Later judgments reiterate principle that reasons must be recorded for waiver – Not automatic [Paras 10–12]

Relief – Modification of Impugned Order – Court upheld requirement of deposit but granted extended time of 60 days for compliance – Directed Appellate Court to proceed with appeal on merits if deposit made – No interference otherwise warranted [Paras 15–17]

Decision:

Revisional application dismissed – Order requiring 30% deposit upheld – Time to deposit extended by 60 days – Appeal to proceed on merits if condition met.

Family Law - Senior Citizens Act – Gift Deed – Cancellation – Section 23(1) – Deemed Condition of Maintenance – Gift deed executed by 88-year-old mother-in-law in favour of daughter-in-law – Tribunal refused to cancel the deed as there was no express condition of maintenance in the document – District Magistrate reversed the decision and directed cancellation – Held: Execution of gift by a senior citizen to a close relative implies expectation of care and maintenance – Failure to provide such care attracts the deeming clause under Section 23 – No requirement of express stipulation in the deed – Tribunal and appellate authority justified in declaring the transfer void [Paras 30–36].

Pleadings – Implied Condition of Maintenance – Gift deed need not contain explicit clause – Condition of care can be inferred from facts, relationship, and contemporaneous conduct – Evidence including letters from the transferor highlighting neglect and abuse sufficient to establish breach of implied condition – Tribunal should consider entire material, not just bare pleadings [Paras 24–29, 31–35].

Interpretation of Beneficial Legislation – Purposeful Construction – Strict literal interpretation of Section 23(1) rejected – Court followed purposive approach to uphold statutory objective of protecting elderly citizens from being deprived of property and dignity – Reference to judgments in Urmila Dixit, Nitin Rajendra Gupta, and Mohamed Dayan affirming broader interpretation favouring senior citizens [Paras 23–29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Single Judge upheld – District Magistrate’s order restoring senior citizen’s property affirmed – Tribunal empowered to declare transfer void even without express condition in the deed – Costs not imposed.

SC/ST Act – Cognizance – Caste-based Abuse – Public View – Appellants challenged cognizance order under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)/3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act – Alleged that caste-based remarks were made inside house and not in public view – Trial court relied on FIR, injury report, restatement of informant and witness statements indicating villagers assembled after hearing alarm – Held: When villagers gathered on hearing alarm and were present at the time of utterance, the abuse qualifies as being made within "public view" – Ingredients of offence under SC/ST Act prima facie made out – No interference warranted [Paras 3, 8, 10-14]

Criminal Procedure – Cognizance – Application of Judicial Mind – Appellants contended that trial court did not apply judicial mind while taking cognizance – Held: Trial court examined FIR, case diary paras 5, 6, 7, and 31, and found prima facie case – Re-statement of informant corroborated allegations – Application of judicial mind evident – Cognizance order upheld [Paras 6, 13]

Judicial Review – Scope at Cognizance Stage – Defence arguments based on case law (Hitesh Verma, Swaran Singh, Karuppudayar) rejected as distinguishable – Held: At cognizance stage, court only needs to assess prima facie case based on prosecution material – Not required to evaluate defence evidence or potential for conviction – FIR and case diary provide sufficient basis for prima facie case under SC/ST Act [Paras 5, 9, 12]

Marriage – Caste-Based Discrimination – Scheduled Caste Woman Harassed by In-laws – Informant, a Scheduled Caste woman, married into upper-caste family – Allegedly subjected to caste-based abuse and physical assault by in-laws – Trial court found allegations supported by injury report and witness statements – Held: Prima facie case made out for caste-based harassment, physical assault, criminal intimidation and trespass [Paras 3-4, 6-8]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 27.03.2023 taking cognizance upheld – No interference warranted – Appeal rejected at admission stage.