Civil Law – Suit For Recovery - Limitation – Acknowledgment of Debt – Barred Suit – Plaintiff relied on alleged last payment of ₹4,080 on 18.07.1992 as acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act – Trial Court held the document (Ex-A10) untrustworthy due to surrounding circumstances and timing amid criminal litigation between parties – Held: Plaintiff failed to prove valid acknowledgment – Suit filed on 17.07.1995 is barred by limitation [Paras 14, 21–25].

Negotiable Instruments – Inchoate Instrument – Section 20 NI Act – One promissory note (Ex-A5) left blank in the promisee column though duly stamped and signed – Plaintiff failed to fill in promisee’s name before filing suit – Held: Document incomplete and unenforceable – Section 20 does not rescue claim absent completed instrument at time of suit – No decree can be granted on incomplete negotiable instrument [Paras 18–19].

Evidence Act – Presumption under Section 118 NI Act – Defendants admitted borrowal of ₹2,04,000 in reply notice (Ex-A9) but claimed it was paid via Ashok Sharma and related to another entity – Held: Presumption under Section 118 applies to Ex-A2 to A4, which were in plaintiff’s name and not rebutted by acceptable evidence – However, relief denied due to bar of limitation and defects in Ex-A5 [Paras 15–17].

Civil Procedure – Verification of Pleadings – Inconsistency in description of plaintiff's status—Suit filed as "Proprietor" but verified as "Partner/Manager"—Held: Unexplained ambiguity in business structure and verification creates procedural defect—Plaintiff failed to clarify firm status even after remand—Trial Court rightly found plaint defective [Para 26].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Against Dismissal – Concurrent Findings – Trial Court dismissed suit after remand for failure to prove limitation and validity of documents – High Court found no perversity in Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence – Held: No reason to interfere with findings—Appeal dismissed [Paras 26–27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree of Trial Court dated 04/09/2013 in O.S. No. 5989 of 1997 upheld – Suit barred by limitation and based on incomplete documents – Defendants entitled to recover deposit amount with accrued interest, if not already withdrawn – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Single Blow – Eyewitness Credibility – FIR Delay – Recovery – Appellant (A2) convicted for murder on the basis of consistent ocular testimony of independent temple witnesses (PWs 8 & 9) corroborated by medical evidence establishing homicidal death from a deep penetrating stab wound – Delay in registration and forwarding of FIR held satisfactorily explained and not fatal – Recovery of knife at appellant’s instance not indispensable in view of strong ocular and medical evidence – Plea to convert conviction to Section 304 Part II rejected; the single stab, aimed at the chest and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, attracts Section 300 “Thirdly” – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed [Paras 12, 14–23, 24 (FIR delay), 26–28].

Witnesses – Credibility – Independent/Unrelated Eyewitnesses – PWs 8 & 9 were natural witnesses present within temple premises; no suggestion of bias or motive to falsely implicate – Minor discrepancies held natural and not going to the root of the case; testimonies inspire confidence and bear the “ring of truth” [Paras 16–23].

Evidence – FIR – Delay – FIR recorded at 2:34 p.m. on 18.11.2015 and reached Court at 4:20 p.m. the same day; sequence of medical and investigative steps (inquest 11:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m.) explained – Held, no undue delay undermining prosecution case [Para 24 (FIR delay)].

Evidence – Recovery under Section 27 (Disclosure) – MO6 knife – Even assuming infirmities in seizure procedure or ownership of premises, conviction sustained on robust ocular and medical evidence; recovery not the sole or essential link in chain [Para 24 (recovery)].

Penal Code – Section 300 “Thirdly” – Single Injury Homicide – Where a single stab is intentionally inflicted on the chest with force, traversing vital organs (heart/aorta/esophagus), and is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, offence is murder and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Prayer to alter conviction to Section 304 Part II declined [Paras 26–28].

Medical Jurisprudence – Autopsy Findings – Penetrating chest wound (left front chest; track piercing costal cartilages, pericardium, right ventricle, left atrium, part of aorta, and esophagus) – Opinion supports homicidal death; weapon MO6 capable of causing described injury [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC affirmed; fines and default clause maintained [Para 28; Final Order].

Suo Motu - Education Law – Suicide of Law Student – Alleged Mental Harassment – Attendance Norms – Institutional Responsibility – Court-Initiated Writ Petition – Directions Issued for Mental Health and Legal Education Reform – Held: Criminal proceedings closed due to lack of evidence linking suicide to any direct instigation – However, Court proceeds to address systemic failures in mental health and rigid attendance requirements in legal education – Guidelines issued to Bar Council of India and UGC for reform [Paras 1–13, 144–147, 233–252]

Criminal Law – Section 306 IPC – Suicide – Closure Report – Lack of Proximity – Ld. ACJM accepts cancellation report in FIR No. 153/2017 filed against faculty and administration of Amity Law School, Delhi – Held: No act of instigation, provocation or conspiracy made out – No mens rea established – Student had not attended college in three months preceding the suicide – Detention due to low attendance was in line with university and BCI norms – No legal ground to prosecute faculty or administrators [Paras 11–13, 146–147]

Evidence – Mental Harassment Allegations – Unsubstantiated Claims – Email communication from deceased seeking exemption from debarment cited – Held: Lack of direct communication or threats from faculty – Conversations with friends cited general dissatisfaction but not sufficient to show intention to provoke suicide – Relying on M. Arjunan v. State, mere harsh behaviour insufficient to constitute abetment [Paras 146, 39–41]

Settlement – Out-of-Court Agreement – Amity Law School and deceased’s family enter into settlement – All legal proceedings including protest petition to be withdrawn – Professors removed from array of parties – Institution to remain only for assisting Court on systemic issues – No further claims to be pursued against them [Paras 19–21, 12, 20]

Judicial Review – Scope – Court holds it cannot interfere with criminal court’s acceptance of closure report – However, exercises jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 to address larger public interest issues of mental health and attendance in legal education [Paras 147–148]

Mental Health – Student Suicides in Higher Education – Grievance Redressal Committees (GRCs) – Held: Mental health is part of right to life under Article 21 – Courts cite cases from NIT Jamshedpur, IIT Guwahati, NLU Delhi – Supreme Court decisions in Amit Kumar and Sukdeb Saha underscore institutional responsibility – Institutions act in loco parentis – GRCs to include 50% student representation, not just special invitees – Presence of trained counsellors/therapists mandatory – Weekly, proactive engagement with students emphasized [Paras 149–163, 248]

UGC Regulations – Grievance Redressal Committees – UGC (Redressal of Grievances of Students) Regulations, 2023 – Held: Current structure insufficient – Student role must be strengthened – Mandate issued to UGC to amend regulations – Institutions to immediately appoint 2–3 student members on GRCs pending amendments [Paras 156–163, 248]

Legal Education – Mandatory Attendance – Rigid Norms Under BCI Rules – Held: Rule 12 of BCI Legal Education Rules, 2008 too inflexible – Penalises students with detention for not meeting 70% attendance without adequate flexibility – Disproportionate and archaic in light of NEP 2020 – Fails to consider internships, moot courts, model parliaments as educational equivalents – NEP and 2003 UGC Regulations emphasize flexibility, blended learning – Court directs BCI to reconsider attendance norms and consult stakeholders [Paras 164–229, 249–250]

Comparative Standards – Attendance in Other Disciplines – Court finds professional courses like medicine/dentistry justify attendance due to practical lab/patient work – However, legal education has multiple dimensions including court visits, moots, field work – Flexibility necessary – Institutions like BITS Pilani show attendance can be voluntary with continuous evaluation [Paras 177–179]

Right to Education – Attendance and Right to Appear in Exams – Held: Barring students from exams for shortage of attendance disproportionate – Institutions to adopt flexible measures – Weekly attendance updates, parental intimation, extra classes, home assignments, internships to compensate shortage – If attendance not met despite measures, student may face grade reduction but not be barred from exams or progression [Paras 215–232, 249]

Data Privacy – Biometric and CCTV Attendance Surveillance – BCI Circular dated 24.09.2024 mandates biometric tracking and CCTV in classrooms – Court finds it invasive – Rejects implementation citing privacy and disproportionate surveillance – Held: Data protection under Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 does not justify intrusive attendance mechanisms – Circular not to be enforced [Paras 207–209, 249(4)]

Regulatory Oversight – Role of Bar Council of India – BCI retains authority to set standards – But must act in consonance with NEP 2020 and evolving student welfare needs – Court directs BCI to publish city-wise list of advocates and firms offering internships, especially for EWS and differently abled students – Timeline of three months given [Paras 243–244, 249(3)]

Decision: Writ Petition disposed – Criminal case closed based on closure report – Professors removed as parties – Institution to remain for systemic reform – Directions issued to UGC and BCI for reformation of GRCs and attendance norms – Biometric tracking circular of BCI stayed – Institutions directed not to bar students from exams solely on attendance shortfall – Alternative evaluative measures and reforms ordered in line with NEP 2020 [Paras 233–252]

Service Law – Age of Superannuation – NTC Employee – Validity of Reduction in Retirement Age – Petitioner, a mill-grade employee of Model Mills (taken over by NTC), challenged superannuation at age 58, claiming his retirement age was 60 – Labour Court and Industrial Court rejected complaint holding employer had legal authority to reduce retirement age to 58 – Writ Court upheld concurrent findings, relying on NTC Rules, 1985 and Section 14 of the Nationalisation Act, 1974 – Held: NTC validly altered conditions of service, including retirement age – No unfair labour practice established [Paras 2.3, 3, 6–8, 10].

Labour Law – MRTU & PULP Act – Complaint Under Item 1 of Schedule IV – Illegal Termination – Not Made Out – Superannuation notice challenged as illegal termination – Labour Court held notice was legal as per service rules – Revision by employee dismissed by Industrial Court – Writ Court concurred with lower courts and held action of employer did not amount to unfair labour practice [Paras 3, 4, 10].

Interpretation of Service Rules – Applicability of NTC Rules, 1985 – Whether Agreement with Union Overrides Rules – Petitioner relied on past agreement between Model Mills and Union to claim retirement age of 60 – Court held such an agreement was not an industry-wise agreement under Rule 2.3 of NTC Rules – Held: Agreement confined to one establishment cannot override NTC Rules applicable post-nationalisation [Paras 7–8].

Binding Precedent – Reliance on Division Bench Decision in Vasant Sheshrao Kale (2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 610) – Issue squarely covered by binding precedent holding that NTC validly altered age of superannuation through statutory rules – Petition devoid of merit in light of precedent and concurrent findings of fact [Paras 6–8, 10].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No error found in concurrent findings of Labour Court and Industrial Court – No unfair labour practice or illegal termination established – Rule discharged, no costs awarded [Para 10, Order].

SARFAESI Act – Delay in Filing Securitisation Applications – Limitation Act Applicability – Section 17 Proceedings Are Original in Nature – DRT Has Jurisdiction to Condon Delay – Borrowers filed writ petitions challenging DRT orders rejecting their SAs for delay beyond 45 days – Petitioners argued that the DRT erred in holding that it lacked power to condone delay – Held: There is no express exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act in SARFAESI – Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act applies – Provisions of the Limitation Act including Section 5 apply to applications under Section 17 – DRT is a judicial forum and proceedings under Section 17 are original in nature – Borrowers cannot be non-suited merely on technical delay [Paras A-24, A-28, C-1, C-2]

SARFAESI and RDB Acts – Harmonious Construction – DRT Jurisdiction – Both Acts Complementary – Borrowers’ Right to Fair Adjudication Requires Delay Condonation Where Justified – Courts emphasized that the SARFAESI and RDB Acts operate in the same field and DRT has overlapping jurisdiction – When banks/financial institutions can seek benefit of Limitation Act under RDB Act, same cannot be denied to borrowers under SARFAESI – Tribunal cannot mechanically reject SAs without examining grounds for delay [Paras A-17 to A-21, A-30]

Interpretation of Special Laws – Section 29(2) of Limitation Act – No Express Exclusion in SARFAESI – Hence, Sections 4 to 24 Apply – Court held that in absence of express exclusion, general limitation provisions remain applicable – Provisions of Limitation Act to be read as supplementing SARFAESI – DRT can condone delay based on judicial discretion [Paras A-23, A-24, A-45]

COVID-19 Pandemic and Practical Difficulties – Consideration of Bonafide Delay Grounds – Technical View Not Justified – Court observed that borrowers often explore loan settlement or OTS schemes, during which time limitation may expire – Physical absence of DRT at local seats and pandemic-related disruptions further justified delay – Such factors must be considered while applying limitation principles [Paras A-31, P-7 to P-9]

Precedents Followed – Apex Court Rulings in Transcore, Mardia Chemicals, Consolidated Engineering, Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal, M.P. Steel Corporation – High Court in Fair Style Embroidery Works – All Support Applicability of Limitation Act to SARFAESI Proceedings – Ratio of Supreme Court judgments confirms that Limitation Act applies to original proceedings before Tribunals unless expressly excluded – Section 5 applicable for condonation of delay, and Section 14 for exclusion of time due to bona fide proceedings [Paras A-32 to A-36, A-41, A-42]

Decision: Miscellaneous Petition No. 6432 of 2023 and Miscellaneous Petition No. 4104 of 2023 allowed – Impugned DRT orders set aside – Matters remanded to DRT for deciding Section 5 Limitation Act applications afresh – Review Petition No. 453 of 2024 dismissed [Para C-3]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Cheque Issued as Security – Accused issued cheque for ₹10 lakhs, allegedly in discharge of loan liability – Defence claimed cheque was given as security for registration charges in real estate transaction – Trial Court held real estate transaction and RTGS payment occurred on same date, lending credence to defence – Held: Cheque not proved to have been issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Acquittal upheld [Paras 5, 10, 11].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Principles – High Court reiterated that unless trial court’s view is perverse or impossible, appellate court will not interfere – Omission in statutory notice and doubtful version of complainant regarding earlier cheques considered relevant – Held: Trial Court’s view plausible and not liable to be disturbed in appeal [Paras 6, 12].

Presumption under NI Act – Rebuttal – Accused denied liability and explained cheque was given as security – Complainant failed to prove that cheque was issued in discharge of existing debt – Held: Presumption rebutted – Burden not discharged by complainant – DW-1’s testimony partially favourable but insufficient to prove complainant’s case beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 7, 8, 10].

Pleadings – Omission in Statutory Notice – Complainant admitted two earlier cheques were issued and replaced by impugned cheque – Omission to mention earlier cheques in statutory notice undermined credibility – Held: Such omissions can raise doubt about genuineness of transaction when key part of liability is left out [Paras 5, 11].

Decision: Criminal appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Trial Court upheld – No perversity or illegality found in the reasoning – Complainant failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act successfully rebutted.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – Acquittal – Respondent No. 2 accused of showing obscene videos and attempting to molest a minor girl – FIR lodged after delay of 4 days – No medical evidence or certified age document produced to prove minority of victim – Photocopy of birth certificate not verified per statutory requirement – Held: Prosecution failed to establish victim’s age under Section 94 of the JJ Act and Rule 12 of JJ Rules – Absence of proof of age fatal to prosecution under POCSO [Paras 10–14, 28]

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference – Trial Court had acquitted respondent on findings that victim’s testimony was inconsistent and not corroborated – No recovery of mobile phone, video, or other evidence – Witnesses other than victim were hearsay – Delay in lodging FIR not explained – Held: Acquittal based on plausible view supported by record – Appellate court not to interfere unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No compelling reason found to reverse acquittal [Paras 15–29]

Evidence – Credibility of Witness – Victim’s version introduced for first time during examination-in-chief not supported by earlier Section 161/164 CrPC statements – Contradictions noted in testimony – Recovery not made – Investigating Officer admitted lapses in probe and failure to verify key evidence – Held: Prosecution evidence lacked consistency and credibility – Trial Court justified in treating evidence as insufficient [Paras 18, 28]

Burden of Proof – Failure of Prosecution – Held: Burden to prove guilt always lies on prosecution – Minor inconsistencies could be ignored, but failure to prove key ingredients (age, recovery, corroboration) undermines case – Burden never shifts unless prima facie case made – Trial Court’s reasoning not contrary to settled law [Paras 26–29]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent No. 2 upheld – No interference warranted by appellate court – Trial court’s view held to be a possible and reasoned view based on evidence.

Excise Law – Illegal Transportation of Liquor – Acquittal – Accused intercepted while allegedly transporting 55 cartons of country liquor without permit – Prosecution relied solely on police testimony as independent witness turned hostile – Photographer did not confirm seizure proceedings – No photographs of search or sealing of liquor bottles produced – Held: Serious procedural lapses and contradictions in prosecution version created reasonable doubt – Acquittal by Trial Court upheld [Paras 6, 17, 19, 22].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – Reaffirmation of legal principles that interference is warranted only if trial court’s view is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if no other conclusion except guilt is possible – Held: Trial court’s evaluation of evidence was plausible and based on contradictions and lack of independent corroboration – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12, 13, 23].

Witness Credibility – Hostile Witness – Independent witness denied witnessing seizure and stated he signed on police request – Police failed to examine any other neutral witnesses despite the seizure occurring at a public bus stand – Held: Non-association of independent witnesses and hostile testimony cast doubt on fairness of investigation – Prosecution case not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 20–22].

Contradictory Testimony – Chain of Events Not Plausible – Rukka, site plan, and officer testimonies conflicted on number of officials chasing vehicle and their mode of travel – Motorcycle could not carry four police personnel – Discrepancies undermined the reliability of prosecution story – No clear evidence of actual seizure at the stated spot [Paras 15–17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – Trial Court’s judgment found to be a reasonable view based on gaps in evidence, contradictions, and lack of corroboration – High Court declined to interfere under settled principles of appellate review against acquittal.

Family Law – Return of Gold Ornaments/Istridhan – Recovery Claim – Marriage Gifts – Wife claimed 65 sovereigns of gold ornaments were entrusted to husband and in-laws – Family Court allowed recovery of 52.955 sovereigns or value thereof – Held: Photographs and evidence proved possession of at least 53 sovereigns – Admission of husband inconsistent – Decree modified to return 45 sovereigns or market value as on date of recovery [Paras 2–10, 12]

Evidence – Documentary Evidence – Admissibility of Invoices – Appellants challenged admissibility of Exts. A6–A8 (jewellery invoices) citing non-compliance with VAT Rules – Held: Non-compliance may entail tax consequences but does not per se make document inadmissible in matrimonial litigation – Documents marked through shop owner PW2 found credible [Paras 7, 10]

Civil Procedure – Discretion to Award Alternate Relief – Market Value of Gold – Rule 7 of Order VII CPC permits court to grant general or alternative relief not specifically prayed for – Held: Where gold not returned, Family Court can direct payment of value at prevailing market rate as on date of payment – No bar on such relief in matrimonial proceedings [Para 12]

Family Law – Cross Objection by Wife – Court rejected claim for 12 sovereigns for lack of evidence – Wife failed to examine any relatives who allegedly gifted that portion of gold – Cross-objection allowed in part – Decree confined to 45 sovereigns only [Paras 4, 10]

Decision: Appeal and cross objection partly allowed – Appellants directed to return 45 sovereigns of gold ornaments to the respondent within one month – On failure to return, respondent entitled to recover prevailing market value of 45 sovereigns as on the date of actual recovery – No interest to be awarded.