Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Statutory Notice – Presumption of Service – General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 27 – Complaint dismissed by JMFC as premature for non-production of track report of registered notice – Revisional Court affirmed dismissal holding presumption of service arises only after 30 days from dispatch – High Court finds both courts erred – Held: Once a statutory notice is properly addressed, prepaid and dispatched by registered post, presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act arises; non-production of track report or acknowledgment due card is not a ground to dismiss the complaint at the threshold; actual service is a matter of evidence to be examined at trial – Courts below set aside – Complaint restored [Paras 8–18].

Presumption of Service – Statutory Notice – Registered Post – Section 27, General Clauses Act, 1897 – Misinterpretation of Supreme Court Precedent – Revisional Court read Ajeet Seeds Ltd. and C.C. Alavi Haji as mandating a fixed 30-day period for presumption of service – Held: Neither judgment lays down any such rigid rule; presumption operates on the basis of ordinary course of postal business which depends on distance and mode of dispatch – High Court frames guidelines for computing presumed date of service based on geographical proximity [Paras 10–12].

Guidelines – Presumption of Service of Statutory Notice – Section 138 NI Act read with Section 27 General Clauses Act – For notices sent within the same city or district, service may ordinarily be presumed within 3 to 5 days from dispatch – For notices to another district within the same State, 5 to 7 days – For notices to another State, 7 to 10 days – Additional time permissible for remote or rural addresses – Presumption is rebuttable; accused may lead evidence to show notice was not received; complaint shall not be rejected at threshold on account of absence of track report [Para 13].

Application to Facts – COVID-19 Pandemic – Inability to Obtain Track Report – Both parties residents of Satna; notice dispatched on 12.08.2020 within the same city – Service presumed on or about 15.08.2020 – 15-day statutory period expired thereafter – Complaint filed on 01.09.2020 held to be within time and not premature – Non-production of track report during pandemic does not defeat the complaint [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders of JMFC dated 01.07.2022 and Sessions Court dated 08.02.2023 set aside – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act restored to its original number – JMFC, Satna directed to proceed on merits – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case [Para 18].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Wife and Minor Child – Section 18 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act – Partial Modification of Quantum – Family Court granted maintenance to wife and minor son at different slabs for different periods – On appeal, High Court upheld entitlement of wife and child to maintenance but modified quantum payable from the date of order – Held: Wife entitled to Rs.8,000/- per month and minor son to Rs.4,000/- per month from 27.06.2024 instead of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively [Paras 11–18].

Maintenance – Entitlement of Minor Child – No Dispute as to Relationship – Minor Son Living Separately from Father – Held: Minor child’s right to maintenance is absolute and unquestionable – No objection can be entertained against grant of maintenance to minor son [Para 11].

Maintenance – Wife Living Separately – Justification – Allegations on Fidelity – Neglect by Husband – Court held that baseless allegations on character of wife and failure to take steps for restitution of conjugal rights justify wife living separately – Entitlement to maintenance upheld [Paras 13–14].

Income of Husband – Determination of Maintenance – Payslip Evidence – Husband employed as Fireman in Naval Dockyard – Gross salary Rs.44,249/- per month – Net salary around Rs.19,160/- – Held: Net salary not decisive as deductions may be voluntary and variable – Husband has sufficient earning capacity to pay reasonable maintenance [Paras 15–16].

Quantum of Maintenance – Reasonableness – Scope of Appellate Interference – High Court found maintenance awarded by Family Court generally reasonable – However, future maintenance from date of order slightly on higher side – Modified keeping in view earning capacity and overall circumstances – Rest of directions confirmed [Paras 16–18].

Maintenance Proceedings – Rajnesh v. Neha Guidelines – Non-filing of Affidavits of Assets – Objection Raised at Appellate Stage – Held: Objection merits no consideration when appellant himself did not comply with disclosure requirements – Plea treated as an attempt to delay or dilute proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Maintenance Reduced Prospectively – Past maintenance and other directions of Family Court confirmed – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 18].

Deemed Conveyance – MOFA Section 11 – Article 227 – Scope of writ/supervisory jurisdiction – Challenge to deemed conveyance order/certificate, unilateral deemed conveyance deed, corrigendum/supplementary agreement and mutation on grounds of fraud, want of jurisdiction and breach of natural justice – Held: Competent Authority’s jurisdiction under Section 11 is limited and summary to enforce statutory obligation of conveyance in terms of Section 4 agreements – Disputes as to title, extent, inclusion of structures and development rights are for civil court – Petition dismissed with liberty to file civil suit – All questions kept open [Paras 12-20, 28-31].

MOFA Section 11 Proceedings – Nature of jurisdiction – Competent Authority not a civil court – Cannot adjudicate complicated title disputes – Order of deemed conveyance transfers only such right, title and interest as promoter/landholder actually possesses – Does not enlarge title – Civil court not bound by Competent Authority’s observations – Remedy for landowner/legal heirs alleging excess conveyance is substantive civil suit for declaration/partition/cancellation/rectification [Paras 13, 15-19, 28].

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed questions of fact – Extent of land conveyed and inclusion of structures – Allegation that agreements refer to different CTS number/area and that chawl/temple/ancestral structures and undivided co-ownership rights were included – Held: Issues are mixed questions of fact and law requiring examination of title documents, revenue records, sanctioned plans and evidence – Not amenable to adjudication under Article 227 [Paras 14, 17-19].

Natural Justice – Service of notice – Test of “real prejudice” – Supreme Court principles in State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh – Mere breach not sufficient – Court must see whether actual prejudice caused and whether outcome would differ – Held: Estate of deceased owner represented before Competent Authority – one legal representative participated – several heirs gave no objection – proceedings are summary/document-based – petitioner failed to show what additional material would change statutory analysis – no real prejudice demonstrated – no interference [Paras 20-27].

Relief – Relegation to civil remedy – Where challenge to deemed conveyance essentially concerns title/quantum/structures and alleged overreach – Proper remedy is civil suit seeking declaration of title, partition (if advised), cancellation/rectification of conveyance and consequential relief – Writ petition dismissed – no costs – all questions kept open [Paras 28-31].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioner relegated to civil suit remedy – All questions kept open – No order as to costs [Paras 29-31].

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Pre-Institution Mediation – Mandatory Nature – Suit instituted after 20.08.2022 without compliance – Liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless it genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief – Reliance placed on M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. and Novenco Building – Compliance mandatory and not directory [Paras 6, 8, 18].

Urgent Interim Relief – Test – Not dependent on ultimate grant of relief – Court to examine plaint and supporting material from standpoint of plaintiff – Relief must not be moonshine or camouflage to bypass mediation – Urgency must be real, immediate and supported by material – Mere pleading not sufficient [Paras 10, 12, 18].

Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Attachment Before Judgment – Requirements – Court must be satisfied that defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution – Vague and general allegations insufficient – Particulars and material necessary – Reliance on Onkar Mal Mittal v. State Bank of Patiala [Paras 14, 15].

Attachment Before Judgment – Insufficient Pleadings – Plaintiff alleged defendant was “wandering in village to sell land” – No specific particulars or material indicating intention to defeat decree – Held: Allegations too discrepant and vague to satisfy requirements of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Urgent interim relief not genuinely made out [Paras 13, 16, 18].

Section 12A Exception – Not Attracted – Where urgent interim relief claimed is unfounded and unsupported, suit does not fall within exception to mandatory mediation – Plaint liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Liberty granted to file fresh suit after compliance [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Decision: Both revision petitions allowed – Order dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 set aside – Plaint rejected for non-compliance of Section 12A of 2015 Act – Plaintiff at liberty to file fresh plaint in accordance with law – Connected applications disposed of [Paras 19–21].

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Accused Nos.1 to 3 convicted under Sections 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC – Deceased murdered to avoid repayment of loan of Rs.2 lakh – Prosecution case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen together, recovery of stolen articles, extra-judicial confession and conduct of accused – Trial Court conviction affirmed [Paras 12, 39–42, 75–76].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Principles reiterated – Prosecution must prove that circumstances are fully established and consistent only with guilt of accused – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision distinguishing “may be proved” and “must be proved” – Held: Chain of circumstances complete and unbroken, pointing unerringly to guilt of accused [Paras 39–42].

Homicidal Death – Medical and Ocular Evidence – Dead body exhumed from forest area – Multiple stab and crush injuries found on neck, head and skull – Medical evidence corroborating eyewitness and inquest testimony – Held: Death of deceased proved to be homicidal [Paras 43–47].

Motive – Financial Dispute – Evidence showing accused borrowed Rs.2 lakh from deceased and failed to repay – Deceased repeatedly demanded repayment – Accused hatched plan to eliminate deceased to avoid repayment – Motive established through testimony of wife and relatives of deceased [Paras 48–49].

Last Seen Theory – Accused and Deceased Seen Together – Evidence of dhaba staff, relatives and villagers showing deceased last seen in company of accused travelling towards place of incident – Proximity of time and place established – Accused failed to explain separation from deceased – Adverse inference drawn – Last seen circumstance proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 50–57].

Recovery of Stolen Articles – Section 27 Evidence Act – Gold chain, rings, Titan watch, mobile phone and clothes of deceased recovered at instance of accused from their houses – Recoveries proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer – Discovery of facts within special knowledge of accused – Recovery held valid and reliable [Paras 58–65].

Identification of Property – Wife of deceased identified recovered gold ornaments, watch and mobile phone as belonging to deceased – Ownership and connection of recovered articles with crime established [Para 66].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Accused made voluntary confession before village elder/Sarpanch – Confession corroborated by other circumstantial evidence – Principles governing extra-judicial confession applied – Confession found reliable and admissible [Paras 67–71].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Conduct of Accused – Facts relating to murder and possession of deceased’s belongings within exclusive knowledge of accused – Failure of accused to offer any explanation – Such failure providing additional link in chain of circumstances [Paras 72–74].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 06/02/2018 and 08/02/2018 confirmed – Accused held guilty of offences under Sections 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 75–76, Order].

Criminal Law – Complaint Case – Mandatory Examination under Section 223 BNSS – Pre-Cognizance Notice – Illegality – Petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging issuance of pre-cognizance notice by Magistrate without recording sworn statement of complainant and witnesses – Complaint alleging reputational harm due to depiction of respondent as terrorist in feature film “Article 370” – Held: Examination of complainant on oath and reduction of substance in writing is mandatory prior to issuance of notice – Failure vitiates proceedings [Paras 5–11].

Criminal Procedure – Opportunity of Hearing to Accused – Scope of Proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS – Proviso mandates opportunity of being heard to accused only after Magistrate records sworn statement and before taking cognizance – Opportunity cannot be an empty formality – Notice must be accompanied by complaint, sworn statement and material relied upon – Issuance of notice without such material held unsustainable [Paras 6–9].

Pre-Cognizance Stage – Non-Application of Mind by Magistrate – Record revealed no sworn statements recorded and blank notice issued to petitioners – Mechanical issuance of notice without adherence to statutory procedure deprecated – Impugned order dated 30.12.2025 held prima facie illegal [Paras 8–11].

Interim Relief – Stay of Complaint Proceedings – In view of procedural illegality under BNSS, proceedings before Forest Magistrate, Srinagar stayed till next date of hearing – Liberty granted for alteration, modification or vacation on motion [Paras 12–13].

Miscellaneous Application – Dispensation of Certified Copies – Requirement of filing certified copies of impugned complaint and order dispensed with, subject to filing within two weeks – Application allowed [CrlM No. 72/2026, Paras 1–2].

Civil Law – Reopening of Evidence – Additional Documents – Belated Applications – Certified Copies of Sale Deeds – Discretion of Trial Court – Petitioners sought reopening of evidence and permission to mark additional documents more than three years after closure of their evidence – Applications filed under Section 151 CPC, Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC and Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Trial Court dismissed applications for failure to explain delay and absence of foundational pleadings – Held: No infirmity or arbitrariness in refusal to reopen evidence at such belated stage [Paras 2–4, 6].

Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC – Production of Documents – Requirement of Due Diligence and Foundational Pleadings – Documents sought to be produced were not pleaded or relied upon in plaint – Petitioners had prior knowledge of documents even at time of chief affidavit – No explanation offered for non-production earlier – Held: Documents cannot be permitted to be introduced at a later stage without justification or pleadings [Paras 6–7].

Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC – Limited Scope – Not Intended to Fill Lacunae – Power to recall witnesses or reopen evidence is discretionary and to be exercised sparingly – Cannot be invoked to patch up omissions or prolong litigation – Held: Applications were rightly rejected as an attempt to delay proceedings [Paras 3, 6].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Interlocutory Orders – High Court cannot substitute its view for that of Trial Court unless order is perverse or arbitrary – Petitioners failed to demonstrate any jurisdictional error or unreasonableness – Held: No ground made out for interference under Article 227 [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Common order dated 07.10.2025 upheld – No costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Election Law – Election Petition – Affidavit in Form 25 – Allegations of Corrupt Practices – Substantial Compliance – Curable Defect – Interlocutory application filed seeking striking out of pleadings and dismissal of election petition under Section 86 of the R.P. Act on the ground that no affidavit in Form 25 was filed along with the election petition – High Court earlier dismissed the application but granted time to file Form 25 affidavit – Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration on limited issues relating to defects, curability, limitation and power of the High Court – On remand, High Court examined compliance with Orissa High Court Rules and Form 25 requirements – Held: Affidavit already filed, though not strictly in Form 25, cannot be treated as non-est – Defect pertains to form and not substance – Substantial compliance with proviso to Section 83(1)(c) made out – Election Petition not liable to be dismissed in limine [Paras 1–29, 36(i)–(ii)].

Election Law – Corrupt Practices – Non-disclosure of Criminal Cases, Assets and Liabilities – Nature of Pleadings – Allegations in Paras 14-A to 14-E relating to non-disclosure of criminal cases, assets, immovable properties and liabilities – Though not labelled as “corrupt practices” by the petitioner, Court held such allegations prima facie amount to corrupt practices in light of settled law – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and assets constitutes corrupt practice – Necessity of affidavit under Form 25 attracted [Paras 13, 16, 23–24].

Affidavit – Form 25 – Requirement under Section 83(1)(c) – Defect of Form vs Defect of Substance – Affidavit accompanying election petition did not segregate allegations based on personal knowledge and those based on information – However, affidavit generally stated sources including petitioner, polling agents, counting agents, authorised agent and advocates – Held: Absence of strict segregation does not amount to total absence of affidavit – Defect is procedural and curable – Affidavit substantially complies with Form 25 requirements [Paras 24–28].

Limitation – Filing of Supplementary Affidavit – Doctrine of Relation Back – Contention that affidavit filed after expiry of time granted and beyond limitation period is barred – Rejected – Election Petition itself filed within limitation – Filing of supplementary affidavit to cure procedural defect does not amount to extension of limitation – Supplementary affidavit relates back to the date of presentation of election petition – Law of limitation not attracted to curable procedural defects [Paras 31–34, 36(iii)–(iv)].

Powers of High Court – Election Tribunal – Amendment and Rectification of Pleadings – High Court has jurisdiction to permit rectification of procedural defects and filing of supplementary affidavit before commencement of trial – Section 86(1) does not contemplate dismissal for violation of Section 83 – Section 86(5) permits furnishing of further particulars – Hyper-technical approach deprecated – Justice-oriented interpretation preferred [Paras 32–35].

Decision: Interlocutory Application disposed of – Election Petition not dismissed – Defect in affidavit held curable – Supplementary affidavit permitted – Agreed portions of pleadings struck off by consent – Parties granted time to carry out consequential amendments – Election Petition to proceed further.

Land Acquisition – Unauthorized Occupation by State Instrumentalities – Right to Property under Article 300-A – Continuing Cause of Action – Delay and Laches – Non-acquisition of Land – Petitioners, recorded owners/cultivators of land measuring 41 kanals 02 marlas (Khasra No. 1651, Village Birpur), alleged illegal occupation by SICOP/SIDCO since 1983–84 without any acquisition proceedings or compensation – Revenue records and Court-directed demarcation conclusively established petitioners’ title and absence of any entry in favour of SICOP/SIDCO – Held: Unauthorized possession by State instrumentalities amounts to trespass and violates Article 300-A – Doctrine of delay and laches not applicable in cases of continuing illegal deprivation of property – State cannot legitimize unconstitutional occupation by pleading delay – Respondents directed to either restore possession or initiate acquisition under the 2013 Act and pay compensation – Rental compensation also directed for period of unauthorized occupation [Paras 19–33].

Constitutional Law – Article 300-A – Right to Property as Constitutional and Human Right – Though no longer a fundamental right, right to property remains a constitutional and human right – Deprivation permissible only by authority of law – State action of occupying private land without acquisition or compensation shocks judicial conscience – Courts must prioritize substantive justice over technical pleas of limitation and laches [Paras 19–24, 21].

Writ Jurisdiction – Disputed Questions of Fact – Maintainability – Objection that writ petition involved disputed facts rejected – Official revenue records, RTI replies, and demarcation reports admitted by respondents themselves established petitioners’ title and respondents’ possession – When facts are admitted or borne out from State’s own record, writ court competent to adjudicate – Mere plea of disputed facts cannot oust Article 226 jurisdiction [Paras 25–26].

Evidence – Revenue Records and Demarcation Reports – Evidentiary Value – Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari consistently recorded ownership/cultivation in favour of petitioners and predecessors – Court-ordered demarcation confirmed physical possession of Khasra No. 1651 by SICOP and SIDCO without any legal backing – Absence of acquisition notification or compensation fatal to respondents’ claim [Paras 27–31].

Relief – Restitution or Acquisition – Rental Compensation – State instrumentalities occupying private land illegally must either vacate and restore possession or acquire land following due process – Direction issued to initiate acquisition under the 2013 Act or restore land within three months – Deputy Commissioner directed to assess and pay rental compensation for entire period of unauthorized occupation if possession restored [Para 33].

Decision:

Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to either restore possession of land measuring 41 kanals 02 marlas under Khasra No. 1651, Village Birpur, within three months or initiate acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Rental compensation directed for period of unauthorized occupation.