Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Complainant claimed accused borrowed Rs.5,40,000/- and issued cheque for Rs.2,50,000/- in partial discharge – Cheque dishonoured with remark “payment stopped by drawer” – Complainant relied on promissory note and supporting witness – Held: Initial presumption under Section 139 arises, but accused successfully rebutted it by establishing preponderance of probability that the cheque was not issued in discharge of alleged debt – Acquittal by trial court upheld [Paras 3–14].

Cheque Dishonour – Defence Evidence – Accused claimed cheque was issued for earlier loan of Rs.2,50,000/- and was later repaid – Accused relied on variations in handwriting/ink on cheque and promissory note, and testimony of his brother – Court found the defence plausible – Letter stopping payment on cheques predates dishonour – Held: Defence raised sufficient doubt about complainant’s version – Rebuttal of presumption under NI Act proved by defence evidence [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Appeal – Scope of Interference with Acquittal – Appeal against concurrent findings of acquittal by trial and sessions court – High Court found no perversity in appreciation of evidence – Held: View taken by trial court is reasonable and supported by evidence – No ground to interfere in acquittal under Section 378 CrPC [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent/accused confirmed – Trial court’s finding that presumption under NI Act was rebutted and complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt upheld.

Criminal Procedure – Successive Anticipatory Bail Application – Maintainability – Petition under Section 482 BNSS filed for grant of pre-arrest bail by accused previously denied same relief – Held: Successive applications for anticipatory bail are maintainable in law if there is a material change in circumstances – However, they must be placed before the same Judge to maintain judicial propriety and avoid forum shopping – Cited principles from Shahzad Hasan Khan and G.R. Ananda Babu cases [Paras 11-15].

Change in Circumstances – Grant of Bail to Co-accused – Held: Arrest and subsequent bail of other co-accused, and partial progress in investigation, do not by themselves constitute a substantial change in circumstances – Petitioner still absconding and custodial interrogation necessary – Petitioner failed to demonstrate fresh grounds warranting grant of pre-arrest bail [Paras 16-22].

Judicial Discipline – Forum Shopping – Reiterated that successive bail applications should be heard by the same Judge who decided earlier application, if available – This practice upholds judicial decorum and prevents inconsistent orders – Cited Supreme Court rulings discouraging forum shopping and emphasizing procedural consistency [Paras 11-13].

Case Law – Applicability – Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. Ananda Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu applied – Held: Mere passage of time, partial investigation, or grant of bail to other accused is insufficient for granting pre-arrest bail when serious allegations remain unresolved – No factual distinction shown from earlier rejection [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No substantial change in circumstances since previous rejection – Petitioner remains absconding – Serious allegations and custodial interrogation still required – Relief under Section 482 BNSS not justified.

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Oral Partition – Preliminary Decree – Plaintiff and deceased brother entitled to equal half share in property – Defendants claimed oral partition and exclusive right over building – No date, witnesses, mutation, or documentation produced to prove oral partition – Mere construction of house on one side of property not sufficient proof – Held: No valid oral partition established – Plaintiff entitled to half share in land excluding building [Paras 2–9, 17].

Property Law – Ownership of Building on Joint Land – Defendants claimed exclusive ownership of building constructed on northern half of property – Plaintiff claimed joint investment of ₹7 lakhs supported by bank withdrawals – Court found no material linking withdrawals to actual construction cost – Permit and tax documents stood in names of defendants – Held: Building constructed solely by defendants, not partible – Allotment of building to defendants without valuation adjustment upheld [Paras 10–15, 17].

Appellate Review – Scope of Interference – Trial court overlooked key documentary evidence such as bank statements, permit and assessment records – High Court found trial court erred in factual findings – Judgment partially modified – Held: Appeal partly allowed; preliminary decree modified to exclude building from partition and allot it to defendants [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Preliminary decree modified – One-half share each of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 declared in land excluding building – Building held not partible and to be allotted to defendants in final decree – Trial court directed to proceed with final decree proceedings without waiting for application, in terms of Supreme Court ruling.

Landlord and Tenant – Lease to Government – Assessment of Rent – Premises leased by plaintiff to Government for Taluk Office use – Plaintiff claimed rent at Rs. 1,58,890 based on PWD assessment – Defendant contended agreement to pay Rs. 1,00,000 per month subject to Government approval – Held: Plaintiff’s letter (Ex. B1) offering rent of Rs. 1,00,000 forms basis of agreement – PWD later revised rent downward to Rs. 1,00,000 – Trial court rightly fixed rent at Rs. 1,00,000 per month – No evidence of agreement to pay higher amount – No interference warranted [Paras 14–16, 19]

Tenancy – Surrender – Implied Surrender – Whether government tenants vacated and surrendered possession – Defendants produced surrender letter (Ex. B3) and videographic evidence – Plaintiff refused to accept possession – Affixture of notice and evidence of new office functioning established – Held: Implied surrender proved under Section 111(f) of Transfer of Property Act – Tenancy period from 16.03.2015 to 31.03.2017 [Paras 10–13]

Arrears of Rent – Calculation – Lease period fixed at 24.5 months – Rent at Rs. 1,00,000 per month – Part payment of Rs. 4,00,000 – Balance arrears held to be Rs. 20,50,000 – Trial court decree affirmed [Paras 17–18]

Civil Procedure – Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Scope – Where findings of trial court are based on evidence and legally sustainable, appellate court will not interfere – Held: No perversity in findings – Appeal dismissed [Paras 19–20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs – Judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019 in O.S. No. 82 of 2017 by II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram upheld – Arrears of Rs. 20,50,000 confirmed.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Interpretation of BNSS – Petitioners arrested on 10.05.2025 and remained in custody for 90 days – Application for default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS filed on 12.08.2025 – Charge-sheet not filed within statutory period – Trial court rejected application relying on Odisha amendment to CrPC providing 120-day period – Held: BNSS, 2023 repealed CrPC, 1973 by virtue of Section 531 – No express saving of Odisha amendment under BNSS – Period of 90 days under Section 187(3)(i) applies – Petitioners entitled to statutory bail [Paras 1, 3–5, 7, 9–12, 15].

Criminal Law – Repeal and Savings – Section 531 BNSS – State amendment to CrPC extending charge-sheet period not saved under new law – Notifications dated 16.07.2024 and 27.09.2024 do not alter substantive provision under BNSS – Odisha Rules framed under BNSS also specify 90-day limit – Trial court misdirected in applying repealed provision – Right to default bail accrued upon expiry of 90 days [Paras 6, 10–14].

Remand – Trial Court Order Quashed – Trial court directed to reconsider application for default bail under correct legal framework – Matter remanded for fresh hearing and disposal within two weeks from submission of certified copy of order [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.08.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration of default bail under Section 187(3) of BNSS.

Criminal Law – Discharge - Prevention of Corruption Act – Disproportionate Assets – Wife of public servant – Petitioner (A2), wife of Assistant Manager (Finance), BEL, arraigned for abetment – Prosecution alleges petitioner abetted accumulation and concealment of disproportionate assets in her name – Held: Several immovable properties and high-value transactions traced to petitioner – Prima facie materials exist requiring trial – Discharge rightly refused by Trial Court – No merit in revision petition [Paras 2, 6, 8]

Criminal Procedure – Discharge – Stage of Charge – At the stage of framing of charge or considering discharge, court not to conduct a roving enquiry into veracity of prosecution materials – Only prima facie case needs to be established – Petitioner’s explanations including income tax filings, gifts, salary, and investments are disputed facts to be tested during trial – Trial Court rightly held that such explanations cannot be evaluated at discharge stage [Paras 3, 6, 8]

Criminal Law – Abetment – Requirements – Mere ownership of property by spouse of public servant not sufficient – Must show active participation, instigation, or concealment – In present case, ownership of multiple properties and financial transactions in petitioner’s name create prima facie inference of abetment warranting trial [Paras 2, 6, 8]

Evidence – Income Tax Returns – Relevance – Filing of income tax returns does not ipso facto exonerate accused – Source of funds and actual flow of money must be explained – In this case, petitioner did not produce income tax documents before Court – Prosecution entitled to probe financial documents during trial [Para 8]

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed – Order of IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai dated 10.07.2025 in Crl.M.P. No. 1261 of 2024 upheld – Trial Court to proceed independently without being influenced by observations in this order – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Prevention of Corruption Act – Demand and Acceptance – Trap Case – Acquittal Upheld – Accused government servant alleged to have demanded ₹2000 as bribe for effecting mutation entry – Complainant approached ACB, trap laid, and accused caught with tainted money – Trial court acquitted the accused on ground that demand was not proved – Held: Mere inquiry “whether the money is brought” does not constitute demand in law – Initial demand alleged by PW-1 not found in his police statement and proved to be a material omission by PW-5 (Investigating Officer) – Evidence of PW-2 (Panch) and PW-3 (complainant’s son) also suffered from contradictions and omissions – Presence of all three key witnesses at the spot found doubtful – Acquittal justified [Paras 11–14].

Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Valid Sanction Mandatory – Sanction order (Exh. 56) issued by PW-4 (Sanctioning Authority) found to be based on a pre-drafted proforma sent by ACB – No independent evaluation of documents or service records – Held: Sanction was granted without application of mind – Invalid sanction vitiates prosecution under Section 19 of PC Act – Acquittal cannot be interfered where foundational legal requirement not met [Paras 15–17].

Suppression of Material Evidence – Non-filing of Accused’s Post-Trap Explanation – Adverse Inference – Though accused’s statement was recorded immediately after trap, prosecution did not place it on record or include it in charge-sheet – Held: Suppression of post-trap statement violates fair trial principles – Court entitled to presume that withheld evidence was adverse to prosecution – Material defect fatal to case [Paras 18–19].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Appeal Against Acquittal – Limited Scope – Interference Only if Findings Perverse – Reaffirmation of principles from P. Somaraju v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291 – Appellate court must respect double presumption of innocence in acquittal cases – Reversal only warranted where trial court’s view is manifestly illegal or unjust – Held: Trial court’s view was a possible and plausible one based on evidence and omissions – No interference warranted [Paras 6, 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Accused exonerated of all charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Arbitration – Section 8 Referral – Prima Facie Standard – Alleged Forgery of Arbitration Agreement – Commercial Court exceeded jurisdiction by undertaking detailed evidence review – Allegations of fraud/forgery in contracts between parties do not bar arbitration – Formal validity under Section 7 satisfied – Substantive validity to be examined by Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 – Appeal allowed, suit dismissed, parties referred to arbitration [Paras 56, 60–71, 72–74].

Arbitration Law – Section 8 Referral – Scope of Prima Facie Review – Limits of Judicial Scrutiny – Held that Courts at the referral stage may only examine the prima facie existence and formal validity of an arbitration agreement – The Commercial Court conducted a “mini-trial” and exceeded its jurisdiction by deeply analysing evidence and circumstances, contrary to Vidya Drolia, Cox & Kings, SBP & Co., and Re: Interplay – Referral courts must filter only “deadwood” or ex facie non-arbitrable matters; all other issues must be left to the Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 49–54, 63–66].

Arbitration Agreement – Allegations of Forgery/Fraud – Arbitrability – Allegations of forgery of signatures on the MOU do not, by themselves, render the dispute non-arbitrable – In line with K. Mangayarkarasi, Vidya Drolia, and Pravin Electricals, disputes involving fraud/forgery arising out of commercial relationships remain arbitrable – The necessity of expert evidence strengthens the case for arbitration rather than exclusion of arbitral jurisdiction [Paras 56–58, 60–62, 68–69, 72–73].

Arbitration Agreement – Requirement of Signature – Formal Validity under Section 7 – Section 7 requires only that an arbitration agreement be in writing; signature is not a mandatory requirement – Glencore International v. Shree Ganesh Metals applied – Clear intention to arbitrate can be inferred from written documents and conduct – Therefore, denial of signature could not justify refusal of reference [Paras 58–59, 71].

Competence-Competence – Section 16 – Substantive Validity to be Determined by the Arbitral Tribunal – Determining whether the MOU was forged requires substantive findings, expert evidence and cross-examination – As per Re: Interplay and Cox & Kings, such matters fall squarely within the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction and cannot be adjudicated at the referral stage [Paras 53, 65–67].

Section 8(2) Compliance – Production of Original Arbitration Agreement – Non-production of the original/certified copy of the MOU is a triable issue and does not defeat arbitration – Objections under Section 8(2) are procedural and fall within the Arbitral Tribunal’s domain under Section 16 – Exemption application filed; issue cannot bar referral [Para 70].

Non-Signatory and Group of Companies Doctrine – Commercial Court erred in holding that the defendant partnership firm was not a party to the MOU and hence could not be referred to arbitration – Cox & Kings clarified that non-signatories may still be bound based on conduct, intention and group of companies doctrine – Hyper-technical objections cannot defeat arbitration [Para 71].

Appeal – Section 37 – Interference Justified – Commercial Court’s refusal was unsustainable as it travelled beyond the permissible prima facie scope under Section 8 – The dispute is not ex facie non-arbitrable; Civil Court’s jurisdiction stood ousted by a valid written arbitration clause requiring deeper inquiry by Arbitral Tribunal [Paras 72–74].

Decision – Impugned order dated 28.08.2024 set aside – Application under Section 8 allowed – Parties referred to arbitration – Civil Suit dismissed as not maintainable – Liberty to initiate appointment of Arbitral Tribunal as per the Act [Para 74–75].

Civil Procedure – Partition Suit – Lis Pendens – Second Appeal filed by the 12th defendant, a lis pendens purchaser of item No.6 of suit property – Trial court excluded purchased portion from partition – Lower appellate court reversed the finding, holding that lis pendens purchaser’s rights are subject to outcome of suit – Held: Lis pendens purchaser cannot insist on exclusion of purchased property – His equities, if any, can only be considered at the stage of final decree – Transfer during pendency of suit is not void but does not confer independent rights against non-consenting co-sharers – Appellate court's approach affirmed as correct in law [Paras 8–15].

Transfer of Property Act – Section 52 – Pendente Lite Sale – Sale by some co-sharers during pendency of suit falls under Section 52 TPA – Appellate court rightly held that sale is not void but subject to final decree – Purchaser bound by result of litigation and can only claim equitable consideration during partition proceedings – Observation in appellate judgment declaring sale “void” held to be a misstatement, but corrected later within the judgment [Paras 12–14].

Appellate Practice – No Substantial Question of Law – Appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or legal error in appellate judgment – No substantial question of law arose – Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arises – Rights of lis pendens purchaser to be considered at final decree stage only.