Criminal Law – Conviction Reversed: Appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court based on conflicting dying declarations of the deceased. High Court observed material contradictions between the two declarations, leading to acquittal due to lack of reliable and consistent evidence [Paras 14-25].

Dying Declarations – Inconsistencies: Two dying declarations recorded; the first before the police (Ex.P/6) and the second before the Magistrate (Ex.D/10). Significant discrepancies between these declarations regarding identities of the assailants and incident circumstances undermined the reliability of the prosecution’s case [Paras 15-18].

Witness Testimony – Reliability: Sole eyewitness, Naseeb Kaur (PW.3), provided statements containing contradictions deemed unreliable. Court stressed need for independent corroborative evidence to support conviction, which was absent [Paras 19-20].

Judicial Precedents on Dying Declarations: Court cited several precedents emphasizing need for consistency in multiple dying declarations and preference for declarations recorded by a Magistrate over those by police officers, especially when material contradictions are present [Paras 18.1-18.3].

Decision: Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence passed by Sessions Judge quashed. Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 302/34 and 447 IPC. Bail bonds discharged [Paras 24-25].
 

Land Assignment and Patta Validity – Irregularities and Fraudulent Transactions – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their thandaper accounts by the Tahsildar, contending they purchased the land from legitimate pattadars after due diligence – High Court upheld the cancellation, citing procedural irregularities and fraudulent actions in the issuance of the original patta – Petitioners directed to seek redressal against the vendors if aggrieved [Paras 1-10].

Administrative Law – Procedural Validity and Natural Justice – Tahsildar’s decision to cancel thandaper accounts challenged for alleged extraneous considerations – High Court found no procedural faults or violations of natural justice principles – Independent findings of Tahsildar after examining relevant records justified [Paras 9-12].

Further Investigation Directed – Special Investigation Team – Given the manipulations involved, the court directed a detailed enquiry by the Special Investigation Team constituted as per previous court directions – Appropriate action to be taken against officials and others involved in fraudulent transactions [Paras 10-14].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Thandaper cancellations upheld – Further probe and action ordered by the Special Investigation Team.
 

Banking Law – Classification of NPA – SBI classified Atibir Industries’ account as NPA on October 16, 2020, based on defaults in cash credit and term loan facilities. Borrower challenged this classification and subsequent sale to ARC, citing RBI guidelines and moratoriums during COVID-19. Court upheld SBI’s classification, stating cash credit account was irregular, and all credit facilities became NPA [Paras 55-67].

Transfer of Loan Exposures – Compliance with RBI Directions – SBI’s sale of financial assets to ARC on February 10, 2023, under Section 5 of SARFAESI Act was challenged by the borrower. Court confirmed compliance with RBI’s Master Direction and upheld the transfer, noting borrower’s accounts were classified as SMA or NPA as required [Paras 74-77].

Procedural Obligations under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act – Borrower’s failure to respond to notice under Section 13(2) raised a rebuttable presumption of acceptance of default. Court emphasized the borrower’s burden to prove incorrect classification, which was not discharged [Paras 91-92].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Borrower’s writ petition dismissed – Classification as NPA and subsequent sale of financial assets by SBI to ARC upheld – Court found no violation of RBI guidelines or statutory provisions.
 

Matrimonial Law – Permanent Alimony – Appeal and Modification – The Family Court dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the respondent, directing the appellant to pay ₹14,00,000/- as permanent alimony. On appeal (MATA No. 64 of 2018), the High Court reduced the alimony to ₹10,00,000/-, with a direction for payment within four months. Failing timely payment, the amount was to carry 6% interest from the date of filing the appeal. The appellant’s special leave petition to the Supreme Court was dismissed. Payment was made post-dismissal. The court held that pursuing legal remedies in the Supreme Court does not constitute willful default, acknowledging immediate compliance post-dismissal [Paras 1-9].

Execution and Satisfaction of Order – The High Court recorded the execution, discharge, and satisfaction of its order dated 9th February 2023, noting the appellant’s bona fide in pursuing the special leave petition and immediate payment post-dismissal. Directed the Executing Court to dispose of Civil Execution Case No. 11 of 2018 accordingly [Para 8-9].

Decision: Appeal disposed of. Execution and satisfaction of order recorded. Directions issued for disposal of Civil Execution Case No. 11 of 2018.
 

Eviction and Recovery of Possession – Rent Arrears – Plaintiff sought a decree for eviction and recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises, along with arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 5,48,903/- from November 2018 till September 2021. Additionally, a decree for Rs. 14,40,000/- and mesne profit at Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. per month from October 1, 2021, until the handover of vacant possession, was sought. The Court allowed the application for a final judgment and decree, subject to conditions [Paras 1-33].

Notice of Termination – Validity – The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, addressed only to defendant no.1, was contested for not being served to the firm or defendant no.2. The Court held that the notice to a partner (defendant no.1) operates as notice to the firm under Section 24 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The objections to the notice were deemed waived due to no immediate objection from the defendants upon receipt [Paras 27-33].

Procedural Issues in Suits by and Against Firms – The Court discussed the procedural requirements under Order XXX of the CPC for suing and being sued in the firm’s name. The suit filed against defendant no.1 individually, despite the firm being a partnership, was upheld due to the specific circumstances and prior knowledge of the plaintiff [Paras 30-31].

Conditions for Leave to Defend – The Court outlined the conditions under which the defendants could proceed with the suit, emphasizing the requirement to secure Rs. 11,00,000/- with the Registrar within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in eviction [Paras 32-33].

Decision:

Application (G.A. No. 1 of 2023) disposed of. Defendants permitted to proceed with the suit subject to securing the specified amount within the stipulated period, failing which they must vacate the premises.

Criminal Procedure – Framing of Charges – Revision Petition – Petitioners challenged the order of the 5^th Special Court at Calcutta framing charges under multiple sections of the Companies Act and SEBI Act, arguing that the charges were beyond the scope of the initial complaint and framed without proper judicial consideration – High Court observed that the trial court included sections not mentioned in the complaint and failed to provide a clear and precise charge to the accused – Held, the trial court’s order and formal charge set aside – Directed trial court to reconsider and frame charges afresh within 15 days, ensuring compliance with legal requirements and principles of natural justice [Paras 1-34].

Judicial Application – Scope of Complaint – High Court emphasized that charges must be based strictly on the scope of the complaint and evidence on record – Trial courts must apply judicial mind and provide clear, unambiguous charges to the accused – Emphasized importance of fair trial and proper notice of accusations [Paras 19-26].

Decision: Revision allowed – Order dated 17.01.2020 and formal charges framed by the 5^th Special Court at Calcutta set aside – Trial court directed to reconsider and frame charges afresh within 15 days [Paras 28-34].

Advance Ruling – Eligibility of Recipient – Petition challenging AAR order rejecting application for advance ruling on transportation exemption – AAR held that petitioner, as recipient and not supplier, could not seek advance ruling – Court found this interpretation erroneous – Sections 95, 97 allow registered persons, including those liable on reverse charge basis, to seek rulings – Definition and context of ‘applicant’ and ‘advance ruling’ under CGST Act support inclusivity – AAR directed to reconsider application [Paras 1-20].

Reverse Charge Mechanism – Scope and Application – Section 9(3) CGST Act – Government notification mandates tax payment on reverse charge basis by recipients in specified categories – Court emphasizes recipient treated as supplier for tax purposes – Application for advance ruling valid for recipients in reverse charge scenarios – Order under Section 98(2) CGST Act appealable if procedural requirements unmet [Paras 10-17].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal Process – Section 100 CGST Act – Appeal limited to orders under Section 98(4), not rejections under Section 98(2) – Court clarifies jurisdiction for writ petition due to lack of alternative remedy against preliminary rejection [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned AAR order set aside – Matter remanded to AAR for fresh decision under Section 98(4) CGST Act in light of statutory interpretations and context [Paras 19-20].
 

Building Permits – Unauthorized Construction – Petitioners constructed a building on a parking area originally designated under a valid permit – Panchayat cancelled the permit upon discovering the misuse – Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions ordered partial occupancy, which was contested – High Court held the construction illegal and upheld the Panchayat’s cancellation – Petitioners directed to either demolish the unauthorized construction or provide an equivalent parking area [Paras 1-11].

Jurisdiction and Powers – Local Self Government – Tribunal’s Order – Tribunal directed partial occupancy and numbering of building despite unauthorized construction – High Court found Tribunal’s order erroneous as it conflicted with established legal provisions – Emphasized necessity of compliance with original permit conditions and due process in construction approvals [Paras 4-9].

Property Rights and Dispute Resolution – Pending Civil Suit – Noted that a civil suit for partition was ongoing between the parties – Highlighted the importance of resolving proprietary rights through civil court – Interim relief granted to petitioners to avoid building disuse, allowing conditional numbering and occupancy subject to final civil court decision [Paras 5-10].

Decision: Writ Petitions Partly Allowed – High Court set aside Tribunal’s partial occupancy order – Upheld Panchayat’s permit cancellation – Directed Panchayat to number remaining rooms temporarily – Petitioners to bear expenses – Final occupancy subject to civil court decision in ongoing partition suit.

Criminal Law – Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust – Petitioners accused of inducing the respondent to supply goods based on false promises and then failing to make full payment – Trial court issued summons based on prima facie evidence – High Court finds no fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the beginning of the transaction, and the disputes are purely civil in nature – Proceedings and order issuing summons quashed [Paras 1-20].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process of law – High Court emphasizes the need to distinguish between civil disputes and criminal offences – Summons issued without sufficient grounds for proceeding under criminal law – Order set aside [Paras 5-13].

Commercial Transactions – Civil vs. Criminal Liability – Transactions between parties purely commercial – Non-payment of dues constitutes a civil breach, not a criminal offence – Judicial precedent supports differentiation between breach of contract and criminal acts [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Revision application allowed – Proceedings and order issuing summons quashed – Civil remedies advised for recovery of dues [Paras 14-15].