Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Trial Court discharged respondent for lack of material evidence beyond co-accused statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Revision petition filed by Union of India challenging this discharge – High Court emphasized the need for sufficient material to form a prima facie case [Paras 1-14].

Evidence – Call Detail Records (CDRs) – CDRs of mobile phones showing contact between co-accused and respondent, while in jail, considered significant – High Court highlighted CDRs and physical meetings as material evidence that must be examined during trial – Reaffirmed by Supreme Court’s stance in State by (NCB) Bengaluru vs. Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta & Anr.; CDR details admissible and should be scrutinized at trial [Paras 9-10, 12].

Confessional Statements – Section 67 of NDPS Act – Statements made to NCB officers are inadmissible as per Section 25 of Evidence Act and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu – Additional material evidence required to support such statements for charges to sustain [Paras 8, 14-15].

Decision – Revision Allowed – Held – Order of trial court set aside – Directed to frame charges against respondent and proceed with trial – Importance of CDRs and other corroborative evidence underlined for establishing prima facie case [Para 18].

Specific Performance – Sale Agreement vs. Loan Security – Appellants contended that the sale agreement was intended as security for a loan – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found in favor of the respondent, confirming the sale agreement and granting specific performance – Appellants’ argument regarding clause allowing for refund with interest rejected – Judgment upheld [Paras 1-13].

Evidence and Pleadings – Admission by Defendants – Trial Court noted defendants’ admissions regarding the execution of the sale agreement and receipt of sale consideration – First Appellate Court affirmed findings, emphasizing that clause regarding refund was protective, not exclusive of specific performance – No substantial question of law found for second appeal [Paras 5-12].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Held – No error in concurrent findings of lower courts – Sale agreement deemed valid and enforceable – Clause for refund does not negate right to specific performance [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR alleging dowry harassment and related offenses – High Court emphasized that FIR can only be quashed in the rarest of rare cases – Court found specific allegations of dowry demands and harassment substantiated by the complaint – Held that the Court cannot examine the veracity of allegations or conduct a detailed inquiry at this stage – Application dismissed [Paras 1-29].

Dowry Harassment – Continuous Offense – Allegations of continuous harassment for dowry from the date of marriage until the filing of FIR – Court held that harassment compelling the complainant to live in parental home amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC – Delay in filing FIR justified as a continuous offense [Paras 7-10].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Scope and Limitations – High Court discussed the limited scope of exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that the power should be used sparingly and not to stifle legitimate prosecution – Detailed examination of evidence not permissible at this stage [Paras 11-24].

Decision:

Application dismissed – No grounds found for quashing the FIR – Allegations warrant trial and cannot be summarily dismissed [Para 29].

Land Tenancy Rights – Legal Status and Recording – Appellant’s recorded tenancy rights altered by Sub-Divisional Officer without due notice and hearing – High Court examines legal position post-1952 Act and full Bench decision in Tara & 35 Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan – Orders of revenue authorities and learned Single Judge set aside – Case remanded for proper enquiry under settled legal position [Paras 1-18].

Procedural Fairness – Due Process in Revenue Entries – Sub-Divisional Officer’s correction of revenue entries without enquiry held as improper – Emphasized necessity for notice and enquiry per Land Revenue Act – Rights of appellant to be determined based on status as tenant or labourer [Paras 3-4, 14-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court directs Sub-Divisional Officer, Bali to conduct a fresh enquiry – Order of learned Single Judge and prior revenue authority orders set aside – Sub-Divisional Officer to determine appellant’s rights with proper opportunity for evidence and hearing [Para 16-18].

Transfer of Case – Matrimonial Proceedings – Convenience of Petitioner-Wife – Petition filed under Section 24 of CPC for transferring matrimonial case from Bengaluru to Tiptur – Petitioner residing in Tiptur with aged parents – Traveling to Bengaluru (190 km) causes hardship and inconvenience – Transfer granted considering convenience of the wife and legal precedent emphasizing the wife's convenience in matrimonial disputes [Paras 1-8].

Judicial Precedent – Transfer Petitions in Matrimonial Cases – Reliance on Smt. M.V. Rekha v. Sri Sathya @ Suraj, ILR 2010 KAR 5407 – Court must consider economic soundness, social strata, and convenience of the wife while deciding transfer petitions – Importance of trying interconnected cases together to avoid conflicting decisions [Para 7].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Case M.C. No. 5714/2023 transferred from I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Tiptur – Directions issued for prompt transmission of records and expedited disposal of the case by the transferee court [Para 8].

Criminal Procedure – Pre-arrest Bail – Consideration of Custodial Interrogation Requirement – Petitioners were not in charge of the society at the time the deposits were made – Accusations involve civil nature allegations, making custodial interrogation unnecessary – Bail granted with conditions for cooperation with the investigation [Paras 1-10].

Fiduciary Responsibility – Alleged Cheating – Petitioners were later elected to the governing body and not responsible for initial transactions – Depositors received interest, and partial repayment made during bail application pendency – No mens rea established [Paras 2-9].

Condition for Bail – Surrender before Investigating Officer – Execution of bond and sureties – Prohibition against tampering with evidence and requirement to surrender passports – Violation of conditions leading to potential bail cancellation [Para 10].

Decision – Bail Application Allowed – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with investigation and prevention of tampering with evidence – Emphasis on procedural compliance and investigation continuation [Para 10].

Hindu Succession Act – Coparcenary Rights – Plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Murugan, claimed coparcenary rights in the ancestral properties – Defendants contended that the properties were self-acquired by D1 – High Court held that all the suit properties are ancestral and plaintiffs are entitled to coparcenary rights by birth under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Trial Court’s findings on coparcenary status and superstructures reversed – [Paras 14-35].

Evidence Act – Additional Evidence – Plaintiffs filed petitions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to receive additional documents – High Court allowed the petitions, marking the documents as Ex-A.8 to Ex-A.11 – Documents were vital to decide the dispute [Paras 15-18].

Civil Procedure – Sale Deeds and GPA – Transactions pending suit – Certain sale deeds and GPA executed by D1 in favour of D2 and others during the pendency of the suit – High Court held that transactions were done to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transactions not protected under proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Paras 30-33].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court modified – Preliminary decree granted to plaintiffs for 1/3 share each in ancestral properties – Suit dismissed in respect of certain properties due to prior valid sale deeds – CMP petitions allowed, additional documents received and marked [Paras 35].
 

Electricity Connection - Alternative Remedy - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum: Petitioner sought court direction for a new electricity connection amidst pending civil suit for property possession and criminal writ for protection. High Court emphasized the statutory framework for consumer grievances under the Electricity Act, providing an effective, expeditious remedy through the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman. It underscored that writ petitions should not bypass prescribed statutory remedies unless exceptions apply [Paras 1-17].

Civil Procedure - Application of Order II Rule 2 CPC: Court noted petitioner’s previous suit encompassed similar relief for electricity load restoration, thus Order II Rule 2 CPC barred repetitive litigation in alternative forums. Petitioner’s claim of a new cause of action was rejected as misleading, portraying an artificial distinction to evade statutory process [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner directed to seek remedy through statutory consumer grievance mechanisms. Court highlighted procedural integrity and necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 12-17].

Arbitration Clause Interpretation – Scope and Ambit – Arbitration clause in the agreement, covering disputes “arising out of or in relation to the agreement”, was not restricted solely to the validity of the agreement – Court emphasized the need for purposive interpretation to give effect to all expressions in the clause and avoid redundancy – Forum selection clause read in conjunction with the arbitration clause, indicating all disputes related to the agreement, including validity, were referable to arbitration [Paras 22-28].

Issue of Limitation – Force Majeure Clause Consideration – Petitioners contended that mining operations were halted due to government restrictions, invoking the force majeure clause in the agreement – The court held that the issue of limitation was arguable and required evidence, thus should be decided on merits by the arbitrator [Paras 43-49].

Cause of Action for Arbitration – Court found the cause of action arose from the respondent’s failure to place purchase orders and provide post-dated cheques as per the agreement – The agreement was based on a previous debt and the dispute was not “dead wood” – Arbitration clause intended to cover such disputes [Paras 50-60].

Decision: Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allowed – Sole arbitrator appointed to resolve the disputes – All issues left open for consideration by the arbitrator [Paras 61-63].