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].

Service Law – Seniority Dispute – Bona Fide Correction Permissible – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant's seniority was initially fixed on the basis of incorrect date of appointment (01.01.1978 instead of 17.01.1978) – Upon correction, his position was changed from Serial No.23 to 47-A – Held: Authorities have the right to rectify bona fide mistakes in seniority lists – Employee has no vested right to seniority acquired due to administrative error – No junior was shown senior post-correction – Re-fixation justified [Paras 12–14].

Civil Suit – Seniority Challenge – Concurrent Findings – No Interference – Trial Court decreed suit directing re-fixation based on length of service – Lower Appellate Court reversed decree, upholding correction of appointment date and subsequent seniority – High Court upheld appellate findings – Held: No perversity or illegality in re-fixation of seniority; no interference warranted in second appeal [Paras 6–13].

Judgment – Second Appeal Dismissed – No substantial question of law involved – Lower Appellate Court’s reasoning based on undisputed facts and correct legal position – Appeal found meritless and dismissed [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Revision – Framing of Charges – Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Charges Quashed – Petitioner challenged trial court's order framing charges for cruelty and abetment of suicide – High Court held that allegations in dying declaration and witness statements were general in nature and lacked specific acts of cruelty or instigation – Petitioner and deceased were living separately for over a decade – No evidence of direct abetment or wilful conduct driving the deceased to suicide – Held: Trial court erred in framing charges – Charges quashed, petitioner discharged [Paras 1, 21–25, 33–36].

Matrimonial Cruelty – Section 498A IPC – Absence of Wilful Conduct – The prosecution failed to establish any conduct on part of petitioner that could amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498A IPC – Mere strained relations and second marriage of petitioner not sufficient – Held: No prima facie case made out under Section 498A IPC [Paras 23–25].

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Mens Rea Not Established – Dying declaration of deceased referred to mental harassment and emotional distress but lacked any proximate or specific instigation or active role by petitioner – Law requires proof of instigation or aiding of suicide under Section 107 IPC – Held: No mens rea or direct act leading to suicide proven – Charge under Section 306 IPC unsustainable [Paras 14–22, 25].

Framing of Charge – Judicial Mind Required – Trial court must apply limited scrutiny to see if prima facie case exists – Court cannot act as post office of prosecution – If ingredients of alleged offences not made out even assuming material to be true, discharge is mandatory – Held: Trial court failed to apply judicial mind – High Court interference justified [Paras 26–33].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Abuse of Process – High Court held that permitting trial based on vague allegations unsupported by evidence would amount to grave injustice and abuse of judicial process – Held: Revisional interference warranted to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 34–36].

Decision:

Order dated 08.08.2023 framing charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC quashed – Petitioner discharged – No evidence establishing ingredients of offences – Bail bonds, if furnished, to remain in force [Para 36].

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 Law - Section 138 NI Act - Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheque – Presumption of legal liability under Sections 118 and 139 arose – Accused failed to rebut the presumption by credible defence – Held: Courts below rightly convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act [Paras 6, 7, 18, 23, 25, 30].

Security Cheque Defence – Inconsistent Defence – Not Substantiated – Accused claimed cheque was taken by complainant as security – Defence found contradictory and unsupported by evidence – No account statement or documentation produced – Held: No plausible explanation given for holding blank cheques – Defence rightly rejected by courts below [Paras 5, 24-25].

Service of Notice – Presumption under General Clauses Act – Valid Service Established – Legal notice was sent to correct address – Accused failed to rebut statutory presumption of service – No payment made after receipt of court summons – Held: Notice deemed served under Section 27 of General Clauses Act – C.C. Alavi Haji principle applied [Paras 33-35].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference Permissible – No Perversity Shown – Held: Revisional court not to reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice – Findings of conviction supported by evidence – No error of law or jurisdiction found – Revision dismissed [Paras 13-17].

Sentence and Compensation – Not Excessive – Compensation Justified – Accused sentenced to 2 months’ simple imprisonment and ₹1,60,000 as compensation for dishonoured cheque of ₹90,000 – Held: Sentence not excessive given the deterrent object of the NI Act and 10-year delay in realisation – Compensation rightly awarded [Paras 37-40].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit in contention regarding limitation, lack of notice or absence of liability – Trial and appellate courts rightly convicted and sentenced the accused – No interference warranted [Paras 36, 42].

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].

Quashing - Criminal Complaint – Section 18(a)(i), 17B, and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act  - Conflicting Drug Test Reports – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Complaint Quashed – The Petitioners, including a pharmaceutical company and its directors, challenged the continuation of prosecution on the basis of a Government Analyst's report (CIPL, Ghaziabad) declaring their drug substandard – They relied upon a second test report by the Government Analyst, Vadodara certifying the same drug as of standard quality – Held: Where two official test reports conflict, and the latter exonerates the accused, the court must consider the version favorable to the accused – The Vadodara report was found to be an official document of impeccable quality and formed part of the investigation record – Petitioners were entitled to discharge and quashing of proceedings [Paras 86-100].

Consideration of Defence Documents – Sterling Quality Test – Exception to Debendra Nath Padhi – The court reiterated that ordinarily, defence documents cannot be considered at the stage of framing charge – However, if the documents are unimpeachable, official, and part of investigation, they may be considered – The Gujarat Government Analyst’s report met these criteria and cast serious doubt on the prosecution case [Paras 52-69].

Right to Challenge Analyst’s Report – Section 25 D&C Act – Violation of Procedure – The Drug Inspector failed to send the sample and report to the manufacturer (Petitioner), thereby depriving them of their right to challenge the analyst’s report under Section 25(3) – Even though the Petitioners attempted to challenge the report within 28 days of knowledge, they were denied this statutory safeguard [Paras 79-85].

Test Methodology – Discrepancy in Testing Standards – TLC vs HPLC – The impugned Ghaziabad laboratory report used the TLC method, but failed to perform a full assay due to lack of equipment – The Gujarat laboratory, using the same method, found the drug compliant – This disparity weakened the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence [Paras 94-96].

Prima Facie Case – Abuse of Process – Petition Allowed – The Court held that no prima facie case was made out and continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process – The petition was allowed, complaint quashed, and Petitioners discharged [Paras 103-104].

Regular Bail – Allegations under BNS and POCSO – Bail Granted – Petitioners sought regular bail in connection with FIR alleging harassment of two minor girls aged 13 and 14 under Sections 126(2), 78(1), 79, 352 BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act – Charge-sheet filed and investigation completed – Petitioners in custody for over four months with no prior criminal record – Held: Seriousness of allegations alone not sufficient to deny bail pre-trial – Bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure victim safety and fair trial [Paras 3, 6, 15-18].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Section 439 CrPC – High Court's Power to Entertain Bail Petition – Argument that bail lies before High Court only upon change in circumstances after Sessions Court rejection held to be incorrect – Held: High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is original and concurrent with Sessions Court – No bar on moving High Court after bail refusal by Sessions Court on same facts – Reliance placed on Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State [Paras 13-14].

Victim Safety and Bail Conditions – Risk Mitigated by Stringent Terms – Petitioners directed not to contact victims or visit their village – Surrender of passports and mandatory disclosure of mobile and social media accounts ordered – Conditions imposed to ensure petitioners do not intimidate witnesses or abscond – Held: Such protective measures justify release despite seriousness of offence [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Bail Allowed – Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds of ₹1,00,000 with one surety each – Held: Continued detention not justified in absence of antecedents and in light of completed investigation – Violation of bail terms would entitle prosecution to seek cancellation [Paras 18-20].

Family Law - Marriage – Validity of Hindu Marriage – Section 7 of the HMA – Appeal dismissed – Husband sought declaration that marriage was void on ground that Saptapadi was not performed – Held: Section 7(1) allows solemnisation of marriage as per customary rites of either party, without mandating Saptapadi in all cases – Sub-section (2) applies only if Saptapadi forms part of customary rites – Thus, absence of Saptapadi does not by itself invalidate marriage [Paras 8-9].

Burden of Proof – Non-performance of Saptapadi – Appellant failed to discharge burden – Husband, despite alleging non-performance, did not examine priest, relatives, or witnesses – Mere non-production of marriage album by wife does not shift burden – Presumption of validity of marriage operates in law – Hence, plea of invalidity rejected [Paras 7, 10, 13].

Presumption of Marriage and Legitimacy – Evidence Act, Sections 50 and 114 – Strong presumption arises when parties cohabit as husband and wife and child is born – Such presumption cannot be lightly rebutted – Reliance placed on Ningu Vithu Bamane v. Sadashiv Ningu Bamane, 1986 SCC OnLine Bom 30, affirming presumption of marriage and legitimacy of children – Appellant failed to adduce strong and conclusive evidence to rebut presumption [Paras 10-11].

Decision – The Family Court’s dismissal of husband’s suit upheld – Appeal dismissed – Presumption of valid marriage stands, and no ground to declare marriage void [Paras 14].