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].

Defamation – Issuance of Summons – Petition challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Mandi, H.P., issuing summons to the petitioners in a defamation case filed by the complainant – The complaint alleged defamatory publications in newspapers with mala fide intention to defame the complainant – Trial court issued summons without properly considering the documents and evidence on record – Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. maintainable against such an order – The High Court quashed the complaint and the summoning order [Paras 1-27].

Maintainability of Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Issuance of summons not an interlocutory order – Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be filed against such orders – High Court emphasized the importance of examining the material on record before issuing process [Paras 9-18].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Held – Complaint and summoning order quashed – Publication based on true reproduction of a resolution brought on record by the complainant himself, hence not defamatory [Paras 19-27].

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].

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].

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].

Arbitration and Conciliation – Setting Aside Arbitral Award – Appellant challenged the dismissal of their petition to set aside an arbitral award favoring the claimant for damages due to damaged consignments – Court upheld the arbitral award, stating the arbitrator acted within jurisdiction, provided equal opportunity, and passed a well-reasoned award – Court emphasized minimal judicial interference in arbitral awards unless there is a patent illegality or error on the face of the record [Paras 1-24].

Arbitral Procedure – Jurisdiction and Validity – Arbitrator’s jurisdiction upheld based on the arbitration clause in the agreement – Arbitrator followed due process, issuing notices and considering submissions from both parties – Settlement limited to specific claims did not affect unresolved disputes under arbitration [Paras 12-14].

Public Policy and Patent Illegality – Court reiterated the limited grounds for setting aside an award under Section 34 – Emphasized that patent illegality must go to the root of the matter – Reappraisal of evidence by the court not permissible – No evidence of arbitrator’s misconduct or procedural unfairness found [Paras 16-23].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No costs awarded – Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed [Para 24].

Commercial Law – Additional Documents in Commercial Suit – Trial court allowed respondent’s application to bring additional documents on record under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Petitioner challenged on grounds of procedural error and irrelevance of documents – High Court found procedural lapses in trial court’s order, noting lack of urgency and sufficient time to file documents earlier – Application of respondent deemed vague for not specifying all additional documents sought to be filed – Order set aside, documents directed to be taken off the record [Paras 1-37].

Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court emphasized limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct errors of jurisdiction or law causing manifest injustice – Interference warranted where trial court’s order was against procedural requirements and principles of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Paras 19-21, 34-35].

Procedural Compliance – Non-disclosure of Documents – Respondent’s failure to file additional documents within stipulated time and lack of convincing reason for delay – Statements in application and earlier pleadings found inconsistent – Emphasized need for strict compliance with procedural rules in commercial suits to ensure expeditious disposal [Paras 23-35].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trial court’s order allowing additional documents set aside – Documents directed to be taken off the record – Liberty granted to respondent to use specific letter during evidence [Paras 35-37].

Sale Deed – Validity – Fraud Allegations – Appeal against judgments upholding sale deed validity despite allegations of fraud and violation of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (CNT Act) – Original suit filed 14 years post-execution claiming the sale deed was fraudulent – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held the sale deed void under Section 46(1)(b) of CNT Act due to absence of permission from Deputy Commissioner for a Scheduled Caste vendor – High Court overruled lower courts’ decisions, noting lack of specific pleadings and issues regarding caste and statutory violations – Held, sale deed presumed valid, plaintiffs’ claims unsupported by adequate evidence and pleadings [Paras 1-32].

Evidentiary Admission – Registered Partnership Deed – Deed of partnership executed between plaintiffs and defendant admitted sale deed’s validity – Contradicted plaintiffs’ fraud claims – Evidentiary admissions considered against plaintiffs [Paras 29-31].

Limitation – Suit Filed Beyond Statutory Period – Original suit barred by limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act – Plaintiffs aware of sale deed’s existence well before suit filing [Paras 22-23].

Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act – Section 46(1)(b) Application – Absence of Pleadings – Courts below erred in applying Section 46(1)(b) without specific pleadings or evidence regarding caste of parties and statutory violation – Judicial findings beyond pleadings impermissible [Paras 32-34].

Decision:
Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Suit dismissed on grounds of limitation, lack of specific pleadings, and evidentiary admissions confirming sale deed’s validity [Para 32].
 

Narcotic Drugs – Illegally Transporting Ganja – Mandatory Compliance under NDPS Act – Conviction Reversed: Appellants were convicted for illegal transportation of 30 kg of ganja. Trial Court’s conviction based on non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Karnataka High Court held that the seizure, inventory, and sampling of the contraband did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 52A, including lack of certification by the Magistrate. The non-compliance invalidated the primary evidence, leading to the vitiation of the trial and acquittal of the appellants [Paras 1-21].

Seizure and Investigation – Procedure Violations – Seized Contraband and Sample Examination: During a raid on 19.02.2019, appellants were found in possession of 30 kg of ganja. The seizure, preparation of the inventory, and sampling did not involve the jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated by Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the evidence, including photographs and FSL reports, lacked legal sanctity [Paras 3-10].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Compliance Required – Certified Inventory and Sampling: The court emphasized the necessity of preparing an inventory of the seized contraband and certifying the same before a Magistrate. The inventory, photographs, and samples drawn must be certified as primary evidence under Section 52A. Non-compliance renders such evidence inadmissible [Paras 10-18].

Failure of Prosecution – Impact on Trial Integrity – Evidence Admissibility: The Karnataka High Court pointed out that the lack of compliance with Section 52A led to the inadmissibility of primary evidence. This non-compliance was seen as a procedural lapse that impacted the integrity of the trial, necessitating the reversal of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellants [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directions issued for refund of fines and cancellation of bail bonds [Paras 19-21].