Company Law – Challenge to Sale Transactions – Validity of Board Resolutions – Appellant disputed the execution of sale deeds in favour of 36 purchasers alleging lack of authority and fraudulent resolutions – Court found that the board resolutions dated 12.01.1996, 10.02.1996, and 27.11.1999 were validly passed – Appellant was signatory to key resolutions and raised no timely challenge – Sales upheld as valid and binding [Paras 16–24, 28–30].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 10F Companies Act – Scope – Court reiterated that appeals under Section 10F lie only on substantial questions of law – Factual findings by Company Law Board cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse – Cited decisions in V.S. Krishnan, Purnima Manthena, Dale & Carrington, and others – No legal infirmity found in CLB findings [Paras 28–33].

Oppression and Mismanagement – Winding Up – Appellant sought winding up on grounds of ceased business and mismanagement – Court held mere lack of business does not warrant winding up where substantial assets remain – Findings of Company Court that oppression not proved upheld – No just and equitable ground for winding up made out [Paras 25–27, 34–40, 54].

Indoor Management Rule – Siblings as Directors – Appellant claimed ignorance of company affairs – Court rejected invocation of Turquand's rule – All directors had knowledge and participated in decisions – Cannot disclaim responsibility for valid acts of the board [Paras 41–44].

Sale Consideration – Verification by Chartered Accountant – Chartered Accountant appointed by Company Law Board and again by Court confirmed receipt of sale consideration by the company – Minor discrepancies noted but no evidence of misappropriation – No basis to direct deposit or surrender by directors [Paras 45–48, 56–57].

Specific Performance Suit – Mrs. Jayaraj – Suit filed for specific performance based on alternate board minutes dismissed – Minutes III disavowed – Title conferred only to 36 purchasers under registered sale deeds – No recognition of other alleged agreements [Paras 18–19, 52–53].

Decision: All appeals (O.S.A. Nos. 430 & 431 of 2001, C.M.A. No.403 of 2007, Company Appeal No.17 of 2009, C.M.P. No.2007 of 2025) dismissed – Sale deeds to 36 purchasers upheld – Winding up refused – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 51, 54, 58].

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Extra-Judicial Confession and Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Ordered – The appellant was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for the alleged murder of his parents based on extra-judicial confessions and recoveries made at his instance – The High Court found that the alleged confessions were made in the presence of police and were not recorded under Section 164 CrPC, making them inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act – Further, the prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, with no forensic report linking the accused to the crime – Held: The conviction was not legally sustainable and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused – The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted [Paras 4, 16, 21–22, 26–33].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Presence of Police – Inadmissible and Unreliable – The conviction was based largely on extra-judicial confessions allegedly made by the appellant before local witnesses – Held: As confessions were made in presence of police personnel, voluntariness is doubtful and such statements cannot be relied upon – No confession was recorded under Section 164 CrPC – Confession inadmissible as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act [Paras 26–31].

Recovery of Weapons – Non-Compliance with Section 27 Evidence Act – Doubt Cast – Though weapons and blood-stained clothes were allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused, there was no recorded discovery statement – No FSL report to link recovered items with the crime – The prosecution failed to establish nexus between recovery and the alleged offence [Paras 21–22, 27].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain Incomplete – Conviction Not Sustainable – The prosecution failed to prove motive, discovery statement, or forensic link – No eyewitness and no direct evidence – Medical opinion did not support weapon used – Held: Chain of circumstances not complete to exclude every hypothesis other than guilt – Conviction unsustainable in law [Paras 4, 16, 32].

Standard of Proof – Extra-Judicial Confession Requires Greater Scrutiny – Citing precedents including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda and Ramu Appa Mahapatar, court held that extra-judicial confession must be voluntary, reliable, and corroborated – These standards were not met in the present case – Confession not recorded in safe environment – No voluntary or corroborated statement [Paras 11–15, 30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal Ordered – The High Court found serious procedural lapses and gaps in evidence – Benefit of doubt extended to the accused – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/201 IPC set aside – Appellant directed to be released unless wanted in any other case [Para 33].

Permanent Injunction – Lawful Possession Under Registered Lease – Protection Granted – Plaintiff obtained a mining lease under G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 25.02.2012 for pyrophyllite mineral excavation – Registered lease deed and mining work orders established lawful possession – Held: Possession under lease being lawful, plaintiff is entitled to protection from interference by State authorities through a decree of permanent injunction [Paras 3–4, 16–20].

Forest Land Dispute – Government Lease Overrides Forest Department Objection – No Evidence Led by Defendants – Defendants claimed mining occurred in reserved forest (Madhavaram block), but failed to produce oral or documentary evidence – Held: Mere pleading without proof is insufficient – Defendants did not enter witness box or rebut plaintiff’s evidence – Forest officials’ claims of illegality unsubstantiated [Paras 6–7, 17–18].

Section 80 CPC – Objection Raised for First Time in Second Appeal – Waiver Inferred – Defendants argued lack of notice under Section 80 CPC – Held: No such plea was raised in the written statement or first appeal – Trial court had dispensed with notice under Section 80(2) CPC – Such objection cannot be entertained for the first time in second appeal [Para 19].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Held: Both trial and first appellate courts rightly decreed the suit – Appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC – Mere reappreciation of evidence or alternate view not permissible – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13–23].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent Decrees Affirmed – The High Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiff – Suit for injunction upheld based on lawful possession – No costs awarded – Pending applications closed [Para 23].

Civil Law - Rejection Of Plaint  - Order VII Rule 11 CPC  - Maintainability of Suit – Tenant Seeking Cancellation of Sale Deed – No Locus Standi – Plaintiff-tenant filed a suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed executed by landlord in favour of a third party, claiming peaceful possession since 2008 – Held: Tenant, not being the owner, cannot challenge the validity of the sale deed merely on the basis of possession – The plaint discloses no cause of action for cancellation of sale deed [Paras 10–14].

Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Allegation of Illegal Transfer Not Sustainable – Trial court allowed defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejecting the plaint – Held: As per Supreme Court ruling in Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., a caretaker or tenant cannot claim ownership or challenge title based on long possession – The suit was rightly dismissed without trial as the plaint failed to disclose a maintainable cause [Paras 12–17].

Pending Litigation – Concealment of Facts – Effect on Maintainability – It was revealed that proceedings between parties were already pending before a Commercial Court and the tenant failed to disclose the same – Held: Material suppression of pending litigation coupled with lack of ownership disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief – Suit not maintainable [Paras 5–6, 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Appellate court upheld trial court’s decision rejecting the plaint – Suit found to be barred by law and not maintainable – First Appeal dismissed, trial court judgment sustained [Paras 18–19].

Civil Law - Succession – Scheduled Tribe – Application of Indian Succession Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants challenged judgments declaring the plaintiff/respondent as the successor to agricultural land formerly owned by Tulsabai (widow of Gamna), asserting absence of adoption and claiming title based on ancestral gift and possession – Held: No exemption under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 was proved to exclude Bhil tribe – Therefore, succession rightly governed by Sections 24, 28, and 32 of the Act – Plaintiff, as nephew of deceased, was closest kindred entitled to succeed – Second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 13-21, 26-30].

Adoption – Custom Not Proved – Succession Upheld on Basis of Kindred – Plaintiff's adoption was not accepted by the courts below for lack of evidence – However, concurrent findings held him to be the nearest surviving relative of the deceased couple – Courts rightly relied on statutory succession principles rather than unproven adoption or custom – Adoption plea immaterial to final outcome [Paras 12-15, 21].

Customary Law – Inapplicability Due to Lack of Exemption – Hindu and Indian Succession Acts Apply – Appellants contended that Bhil tribe is governed by custom and not general succession laws – Court held that without notification under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, no exemption applies – Indian Succession Act validly governs devolution of property – Appellants' reliance on Madhu Kishwar distinguished [Paras 18-19].

Mutation and Compensation – No Independent Right Created – Sale by Defendants Invalid – Mutation in favour of defendants and subsequent sale to State under Mahi Canal Project did not create valid title – Original sale deed from 1966 in favour of Gamna remained unchallenged – Courts rightly declared mutation and sale-deed null and void – Compensation declared payable to rightful heir i.e. plaintiff [Paras 5-8, 22-23].

Substantial Question of Law – Not Made Out – Concurrent Findings Not Interfered With – Appellants failed to show any perverse findings or misapplication of law – Legal issues raised regarding adoption, mutation, and compensation did not satisfy threshold under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed in limine [Paras 13, 26-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arose – Plaintiff/respondent declared rightful successor and owner – Defendants’ mutation and sale of land declared invalid – Compensation awarded to plaintiff – Costs not imposed [Paras 29-30].

SARFAESI Act – Delay in Execution of Section 14 Order – Writ of Mandamus Issued – Bank sought implementation of order passed under Section 14 by CJM, Ludhiana – Tehsildar failed to take possession of secured assets – Held: Delay defeats purpose of SARFAESI Act which aims for expeditious recovery of NPAs – Writ allowed directing execution of order within 30 days [Paras 1-4].

Public Functionaries – Failure to Act on Statutory Duty – Condemned – Court found repeated cases of non-compliance by District and Revenue Authorities in executing orders under SARFAESI Act – Directed that such delays frustrate legislative intent and impose unnecessary financial burden on banking system – Warning issued against systemic neglect [Paras 5-7].

Judicial Training – Orientation Course Ordered – Compliance Failure – Citing continuous lapses, Court directed Chandigarh Judicial Academy to conduct orientation for all District Magistrates and Tehsildars in Punjab, Haryana and UT Chandigarh on procedures and timelines under Section 14 – Emphasis on ensuring statutory compliance within prescribed deadlines [Paras 10-14].

SARFAESI Scheme – Role of District Magistrate – Ministerial Nature of Function – Relying on SC judgment in R.D. Jain & Co. v. Capital First Ltd., Court reiterated that powers under Section 14 are ministerial, not quasi-judicial – DM must act within 30 days, extendable to 60 days, and ensure execution within further 30 days – Delay in compliance to be treated as contempt [Paras 9, 14-15].

Final Directions – Writ Allowed – Time-bound Compliance Mandated – Direction to execute CJM order within 30 days – Ordered submission of compliance report by 07.11.2025 – Warning of contempt in case of further dereliction – Petition disposed accordingly [Paras 15-17].

Civil Law – Return of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Dismissal Set Aside – Trial Court dismissed suit despite holding it lacked jurisdiction, which was upheld in first appeal – Held: When a court concludes it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, it must return the plaint without deciding other issues – Dismissal was erroneous and legally impermissible – Suit to be tried de novo by competent court if re-presented [Paras 6–9].

Jurisdiction – Distinction between Trial and Appellate Stage – Uniform Rule Applies – The Court held that whether the issue of jurisdiction is raised at trial or appeal, the correct course upon finding lack of jurisdiction is return of plaint, not dismissal – Held: Court must not enter into merits once jurisdiction is declined [Para 6].

Interpretation of Precedent – Mst. Ananti v. Channu No Longer Good Law – Full Bench decision in Mst. Ananti (AIR 1930 All 193) overruled in light of Supreme Court judgments in Athmanathaswami (AIR 1965 SC 338) and EXL Careers (2020) 12 SCC 667 – Held: Return of plaint is mandatory where jurisdiction is lacking, irrespective of trial stage reached [Paras 4–6].

Procedure – Fresh Suit in Competent Court – De Novo Trial Permitted – Where plaint is returned due to lack of jurisdiction, it can be presented to the appropriate forum – Plaintiff entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Trial to proceed afresh [Para 6].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments set aside – Direction issued to return the plaint – Liberty granted to appellants to present plaint before competent forum [Paras 6–9].

Arbitration Law – Interim Measure – Section 9 Arbitration Act – Relief Granted – The Petitioner sought interim protection to secure claims arising out of breach of a Gas Supply Agreement (GSA) where the Respondent failed to meet the Minimum Guaranteed Offtake (MGO) – Held: Under Section 9, the Court is empowered to grant interim measures for protection of contractual rights and to prevent frustration of arbitration – Relief granted in form of partial deposit and disclosure of assets [Paras 29-31].

Minimum Guaranteed Offtake (MGO) – Liquidated Damages – Enforceable Contractual Provision – The GSA provided for liquidated damages in case of shortfall in gas offtake – The Respondent argued that such damages were in the nature of penalty – Held: Where parties agreed on a clear formula and rate, such clauses are enforceable and do not constitute penalty per se – Prima facie, Petitioner established breach and entitlement [Paras 26-28].

Securing Arbitrable Claims – Balance of Convenience – The Court assessed whether a prima facie case was made out, and whether irreparable injury would be caused if interim protection was denied – Held: Respondent's financials showed insufficient liquidity; petitioner’s right needed safeguarding pending arbitration – Ordered Respondent to deposit ₹1.25 Crores and disclose assets [Paras 31-34].

Section 9 vs. Final Relief – Scope Clarified – The Court reiterated that a mini-trial is impermissible under Section 9 – However, where the claim is clear, liquidated, and based on an admitted contract, interim protection can be granted to safeguard the arbitration outcome [Para 27].

Interim Protection – Conditions for Grant – Application Partly Allowed – The Court partly allowed the petition by directing the Respondent to deposit ₹1.25 Crores with the Registrar General and disclose assets – Remaining prayers including attachment of property were declined at this stage [Paras 35-36].

Criminal Writ - Police Surveillance – History-Sheet – Single Case Registered in 2016 – History-Sheet Quashed – Petitioner had only one criminal case registered in 2016 under the Cow Slaughter Act – No further offence, complaint, or FIR registered – Despite this, history-sheet under Category 18-A was opened and representation for closure rejected – Held: No reasonable basis or suspicion to justify opening of history-sheet under Paragraphs 228 & 240 – Surveillance not warranted – Police acted without sufficient material [Paras 2-4, 6-14].

Constitutional Rights – Article 21 – Illegal Surveillance Violates Personal Liberty – Unwarranted use of history-sheet powers violates the citizen’s right to dignity and liberty – Supreme Court cautions against arbitrary surveillance in Govind v. State of M.P. and Malak Singh v. State of Punjab – Held: Power under Police Regulations is not unbridled – Must be backed by cogent reasons and prior criminal conduct – Absent in this case [Paras 9-11, 13-14].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Police Action – Non-Speaking and Mechanical Order – Representation for closure of history-sheet was rejected in a casual and mechanical manner without consideration of facts – Held: Order dated 23.06.2025 is arbitrary and unsustainable – Directions issued to close the history-sheet and refrain from further surveillance [Paras 11-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Order dated 23.06.2025 passed by Superintendent of Police, Siddharthnagar quashed – Respondents directed to close History-Sheet No. 18-A and not to keep the petitioner under surveillance [Para 15].