Service Law – Enhancement of Age of Superannuation – Petitioner, a Veterinary Officer, claimed entitlement to the extension of retirement age from 60 to 62 years as granted to other Veterinary Officers under the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service and those in Autonomous District Councils – High Court held that the petitioner is similarly situated and entitled to the same benefits – Respondents’ refusal deemed arbitrary and discriminatory – Writ petition allowed [Paras 1-14].

Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India – Equality Before Law – Principle of non-discrimination in granting privileges – Court emphasized the importance of treating similarly situated persons alike – Held respondents’ action violated the constitutional mandate of equality [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Age of superannuation of the petitioner shall stand extended to 62 years – Directions issued to the respondents to extend the benefit accordingly – No cost [Paras 14].

Hindu Marriage – Ceremonial Requirements – Appellant's suit for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 dismissed; respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights decreed – Appeal contends no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Trial court found documentary evidence reliable, but ignored inconsistencies and lack of proper ceremony – High Court finds no valid marriage solemnized as per Section 7 of the Act, 1955 – Certificates issued by Arya Samaj and Registrar not proof of valid marriage without customary rites [Paras 1-35, 40].

Fraud and Consent – Appellant alleges fraudulent registration of marriage – Evidence shows appellant and her family were under the respondent's influence – Appellant and her mother signed papers under false pretexts – No free consent for marriage [Paras 4-10, 17-19].

Burden of Proof – Respondent failed to prove valid solemnization of marriage – No evidence of required ceremonies – Witness testimonies and documents inadequate – Trial court's reliance on documents without corroborative evidence flawed [Paras 20-25, 35-39].

Marriage Registration – Mere registration under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 does not validate a marriage absent proper ceremonies – Supreme Court's guidance in similar cases highlighted – Registration certificates not sufficient proof of marriage [Paras 26-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of trial court set aside – Suit of appellant under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 allowed – Respondent's suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 dismissed – Declared no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Certificates from Arya Samaj and Registrar deemed null and void [Paras 40-43].

Partition – Family Property – Joint Family – Appeal against the trial court’s partial decree in partition suit – Appellant’s father managed joint family properties – Defendants contended partition occurred in 1952 with subsequent partition lists – Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of continued joint family properties – Trial court correctly relied on documentary and oral evidence supporting defendants’ claim of partition – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-30].

General Power of Attorney – Evidence – Trial court’s reliance on Power of Attorney holder’s testimony – Power of Attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of joint family properties – Supreme Court precedent states Power of Attorney holder cannot testify on principal’s behalf in matters requiring personal knowledge – Appellant’s failure to testify leads to presumption against their case [Paras 17-23].

Documentary Evidence – Partition Lists and Sale Deeds – Trial court accepted partition list (Ex.B-2) and sale deeds as proof of partition – Oral and documentary evidence demonstrated independent purchase and sale of properties by family members – Court upheld findings that several properties were not joint family properties but were self-acquired [Paras 24-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the trial court confirmed – Pending applications closed – Each party to bear their own costs [Para 30].

Mental Health – Competence to Stand Trial – Petitioner, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia with 95% mental disability, found unfit to stand trial – Multiple medical reports and testimonies confirm severe mental disorder – Court directs postponement of trial against the petitioner and continuation against co-accused – Emphasis on provisions under Sections 328, 329, and 330 Cr.P.C. and the Mental Health Act, 1987 [Paras 1-32].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Initial bail granted with stringent conditions – Subsequent modification allowing bail through petitioner’s father due to mental incapacity – Court orders petitioner’s release under care of a relative with undertaking for regular psychiatric treatment – Ensures compliance with Cr.P.C. Sections 328-330 and Mental Health Act [Paras 33-34].

Evidence Assessment – Medical Examination and Expert Testimony – Detailed analysis of medical examinations by various doctors, including Chief Medical Officer, psychiatrist, psychologist, and superintendent of district hospital – Consistent findings of severe disorganized behavior and psychotic features – Expert testimonies support the petitioner’s incapacity to stand trial [Paras 4-10].

Judicial Review – Procedural Errors in Lower Court – Initial rejection of petitioner’s mental illness plea due to lack of documents – Higher court’s intervention leading to re-examination and confirmation of mental disorder – Lower court’s mechanical and arbitrary order for petitioner’s appearance despite medical evidence criticized and set aside [Paras 2-7, 11-13, 27-30].

Directive for Deferred Proceedings – Legal Provisions Invoked – Invoking Sections 328 to 333 Cr.P.C., the court underscores the procedure for dealing with accused persons of unsound mind – Emphasizes postponement of trial until the petitioner’s recovery – Trial against co-accused to proceed as per law [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Criminal Revisional Application allowed – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner’s case deferred until recovery from mental illness – Directed trial against co-accused to continue – Bail granted to petitioner with conditions for psychiatric treatment and regular reporting to the court [Paras 32-34].

Corporate Law – Rights Issue and Allotment of Shares – Petition filed by shareholders alleging oppressive acts and mismanagement by the company’s management – NCLT's interim order dated 12.06.2024 restrained the company from proceeding with the rights issue and mandated maintaining the status quo of shareholding until the main petition is decided – Learned Single Judge set aside the NCLT’s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision with a reasoned and speaking order [Paras 2.3, 2.4, 3.4, 3.5].

Oppression and Mismanagement – Interim Orders – Court emphasized the necessity of a reasoned and speaking order by the NCLT when deciding interim applications under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act – Observations on the conduct of the company’s affairs and compliance with interim orders [Paras 3.6, 6.1, 6.2].

Decision – Appeals Disposed of with Directions – NCLT directed to independently reconsider the case and decide on merits without being influenced by prior observations – Status quo regarding shareholding to be maintained until final decision – Allotments and transactions during the pendency to be subject to final order – NCLT to expedite the decision process [Para 6.4, 6.5, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Application – Petitioners filed third bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Previously rejected twice – Argument that no prima facie case against petitioners based solely on co-accused’s confessional statement during police custody – Confession not falling within the ambit of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as no discovery of fact corroborated [Paras 1-5].

Evidence – Admissibility of Confession – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Confession of co-accused in police custody not admissible unless leading to discovery of new facts – No recovery or discovery linking petitioners to offense – Cited Supreme Court precedent in Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) for narrow applicability of Section 27 [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Held – Petitioners entitled to bail due to lack of substantive evidence apart from co-accused’s statement – Petitioners to furnish personal bonds and sureties – Court emphasizes need for corroborative evidence for future proceedings [Paras 8].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Appellant convicted for kidnapping a minor girl and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault multiple times – Trial court imposed life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life and additional ten-year imprisonment under IPC Section 366(A) – High Court modified sentence based on discrepancies in evidence and procedural delays [Paras 1-17].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Discrepancies – Prosecution’s key witness, the victim, had inconsistencies in statements regarding the use of a weapon and the sequence of events – Court highlighted the importance of consistent testimonies and immediate filing of complaints to support the credibility of allegations [Paras 6-14].

Sentencing – Application of Amended POCSO Act – Trial court applied maximum sentence under amended Section 6 of POCSO Act – High Court reduced sentence to minimum ten years due to investigative lapses and the pre-amendment provisions being more favorable to the appellant [Paras 15-17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under IPC Section 366(A) and POCSO Act confirmed – Sentence under POCSO Act reduced to ten years – Sentence for IPC Section 366(A) remained unaffected [Para 17-18].

Income Tax – Unexplained Cash Deposits – Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 47,30,000/- deposited in his bank account – Claimed cash belonged to Kana Ram, who sold an immovable property but had no bank account – Kana Ram’s contrary statement led to the addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- as income – Tribunal and lower authorities upheld the addition – Appeal dismissed – Court found no substantial question of law [Paras 1-10].

Burden of Proof – Onus on Assessee – Appellant’s explanation deemed insufficient – Kana Ram’s lack of tax returns or proof of immovable property sale contributed to the decision – Reliance on earlier judgments regarding unexplained investments and cash credits [Paras 4-7].

Concurrent Findings – No interference required – Both appellate authorities’ decisions consistent – No substantial question of law identified [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of appellate authorities upheld.

Hindu Marriage – Ceremonial Requirements – Appellant's suit for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 dismissed; respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights decreed – Appeal contends no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Trial court found documentary evidence reliable, but ignored inconsistencies and lack of proper ceremony – High Court finds no valid marriage solemnized as per Section 7 of the Act, 1955 – Certificates issued by Arya Samaj and Registrar not proof of valid marriage without customary rites [Paras 1-35, 40]. 

Fraud and Consent – Appellant alleges fraudulent registration of marriage – Evidence shows appellant and her family were under the respondent's influence – Appellant and her mother signed papers under false pretexts – No free consent for marriage [Paras 4-10, 17-19]. 

Burden of Proof – Respondent failed to prove valid solemnization of marriage – No evidence of required ceremonies – Witness testimonies and documents inadequate – Trial court's reliance on documents without corroborative evidence flawed [Paras 20-25, 35-39]. 

Marriage Registration – Mere registration under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 does not validate a marriage absent proper ceremonies – Supreme Court's guidance in similar cases highlighted – Registration certificates not sufficient proof of marriage [Paras 26-34]. 

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of trial court set aside – Suit of appellant under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 allowed – Respondent's suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 dismissed – Declared no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Certificates from Arya Samaj and Registrar deemed null and void [Paras 40-43].