PIL - Town Planning – Change of Land Use – Petition challenged the conversion of land designated for sports complex to residential and commercial use by CIDCO – Contention that such conversion violates MRTP Act and prior Government Resolutions – High Court found CIDCO's actions contrary to statutory provisions and lacking necessary government approval – CIDCO's tender process for allotment to private developers held illegal [Paras 1-23].

Government Resolution – Compliance – State Government's shift of sports complex site to a rural area without infrastructure questioned – High Court held decision arbitrary and against public interest – Directed reinstatement of land use as per original government resolution [Paras 20-22].

Public Land Allotment – Arbitrary and Illegal Allotment of Public Land for Commercial Use – Challenge to Government Decision and CIDCO Tender Process – High Court examines lack of legal basis and disproportionate pricing of land allotted to State Government and private parties – Comparison with similar allotments at significantly lower rates – Held: The decision to demand Rs. 2500 crores from the State Government for 20 acres, while 36 acres were allotted to NMMC for Rs. 22.17 crores, was arbitrary and lacked any legal foundation. The transfer of cost burden to NMMC and subsequent tender for private allotment was manipulative and not justified by any record. [Paras 86-88]

Public Interest and Sports Facilities – Illegal Shifting of Reserved Land for Government Sports Complex – High Court finds Government and CIDCO’s actions contrary to public interest – Emphasizes need for proportionate and reasonable pricing of public land and adherence to earmarked purposes – Decision to shift sports complex to a remote area without justification is illegal and arbitrary – Public interest in maintaining sports facilities highlighted. [Paras 89-91]

Earmarking and Reservation of Public Land – High Court stresses importance of preserving earmarked land for public facilities – CIDCO’s allotment of land reserved for Government Sports Complex to private parties deemed illegal – Maintains that earmarked land should be treated akin to reserved land – Actions contrary to CIDCO’s established zoning and development plans quashed. [Paras 93-95]

Judicial Oversight of Executive Actions – Importance of Judicial Scrutiny in Preventing Unreasonable Government Decisions – High Court rejects delay and laches argument in public interest matters – Asserts that public interest must prevail over private interest – Reiterates importance of maintaining public amenities for future generations. [Paras 96-97]

Sports and Public Welfare – Supreme Court and High Court Emphasis on Importance of Sports Facilities – High Court references judicial opinions and literature underscoring significance of sports in society – Criticizes Government’s lack of commitment to developing sports infrastructure – Decision to commercialize earmarked land instead of utilizing it for sports facilities quashed. [Paras 98-115]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held: Government Resolution shifting sports complex from Ghansoli to Nanore quashed – CIDCO directed to hand over land at Ghansoli for Government Sports Complex free of cost or at a specified rate – Allotment of plot to private respondent set aside with refund and interest – State Government allowed to develop additional sports facilities at Nanore if desired – Four-week stay on order for handing over land. [Paras 116-118]
 

Adverse Possession – Requirements – Plaintiff’s claim for adverse possession dismissed – Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court found the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite animus for adverse possession – Emphasis on the necessity of proving continuous and hostile possession – Appeal dismissed on similar grounds, confirming lower courts’ findings [Paras 1-5].

Permanent Injunction – Proof of Possession – Plaintiff restricted his claim to permanent injunction on appeal – Courts reiterated that lawful possession must be proved to grant an injunction – Absence of substantial documentary or oral evidence led to dismissal – Appellant’s reliance on admissions by defendant’s witnesses deemed insufficient without corroborative evidence [Paras 3-5].

Substantial Question of Law – Non-existence – High Court declined to frame substantial questions of law as required under Section 100 CPC – Held that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts did not warrant interference – Emphasis on the principle that substantial questions of law arise only in the presence of significant errors in law or procedural misapplications [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Regular Second Appeal dismissed – High Court upheld the findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court – Reiterated that neither adverse possession nor lawful possession for the purpose of injunction was proved by the plaintiff [Para 5].

Injunction – Temporary Injunction – Contract Dispute – Petition to quash appellate order granting temporary injunction to plaintiff – Allegations of misrepresentation and unfair terms in the agreement – Appellate Court found prima facie case favoring plaintiff – Trial Court’s decision overturned due to failure to consider impact on plaintiff’s reputation and potential for irreparable harm – Temporary injunction granted to prevent defendants from obstructing plaintiff’s work [Paras 1-21].

Negative Covenant – Validity and Enforcement – Agreement between parties included exclusivity clause preventing plaintiff from working with others – Plaintiff challenged the agreement as void due to misrepresentation, lack of consideration, and unfair terms – Court found terms one-sided and plaintiff had already rescinded the contract – Defendants’ silence post-rescission indicated acquiescence – Agreement deemed prima facie invalid [Paras 15-20].

Contract Law – Bargaining Power – Agreement’s fairness evaluated based on parties’ relative bargaining power – Plaintiff had inferior bargaining power and agreed to terms under duress – Defendants’ non-response to rescission notice and lack of enforcement action supported plaintiff’s position – Contract not binding under these circumstances [Paras 17-20].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Temporary injunction upheld – Court found prima facie evidence of unfair terms in agreement and potential for irreparable harm to plaintiff’s career and reputation if injunction not granted [Paras 21-22].
 

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Recovery Proceedings Against Personal Guarantors – Petitioners, personal guarantors of term loans and working capital facilities granted to M/s Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited (ACCIL), challenged the recovery actions initiated by respondents post-approval of a resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The main contention was that with the assignment of the principal borrower's debt and issuance of No Due Certificates, no liability remained against the petitioners​​.

Assignment of Debt and Personal Guarantees – Petitioners argued that the assignment of debt to M/s Hasaud Steel Limited and the issuance of No Due Certificates to the principal borrower extinguished their liability as guarantors. They contended that only the assignee of the debt could enforce the personal guarantees​​.

Excluded Rights in Resolution Plan – The resolution plan approved by the NCLT included provisions for "excluded rights" that allowed financial creditors to pursue legal remedies against personal guarantors. The NCLAT upheld the financial creditors' rights to proceed against the guarantors, stating that such rights were explicitly safeguarded in the resolution plan​​.

Supreme Court's Affirmation – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against the NCLAT's decision, affirming the financial creditors' rights to recover from the personal guarantors despite the approval of the resolution plan and assignment of debt​​.

Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the financial creditors retained the right to pursue recovery actions against the petitioners as personal guarantors. The petitioners' claims were found to be without merit in light of the comprehensive framework of the IBC and the specific provisions of the resolution plan​​.

Criminal Law – Summoning Order – Validity – Petition to quash summoning order for offences including fraud and conspiracy – Accused alleged to have falsely claimed educational qualifications to contest elections – Court found prima facie evidence supporting allegations – Magistrate’s procedure in conducting police investigation and recording preliminary evidence deemed appropriate despite procedural anomalies – Summoning order upheld [Paras 1-11].

Election Fraud – Educational Qualification – Allegations of presenting false educational certificates to meet election eligibility criteria – Complainant obtained information via RTI showing discrepancies in accused’s educational records – Civil court already set aside election on similar grounds – Criminal proceedings based on prima facie evidence of fraud and conspiracy sustained [Paras 2.1-2.7, 10].

Procedural Compliance – Section 202 Cr.P.C. – Examination of complainant and witnesses – Requirement of police investigation due to out-of-jurisdiction accused – Magistrate’s actions within permissible scope, retaining control over investigation and enquiry phases – No prejudice against accused established – Summoning order found legally valid [Paras 3-9].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Summoning order and criminal proceedings sustained – Court emphasized that at summoning stage, only prima facie case needs to be established, not final determination of guilt or innocence [Paras 10-11].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Framing of Charges – Section 306 IPC – Allegations based on suicide note – Deceased allegedly committed suicide due to non-repayment of loan by petitioner – Suicide note does not indicate instigation or intent to abet suicide by petitioner – Mere refusal to repay loan insufficient to constitute abetment – Insufficient material to frame charges under Section 306 IPC – Order framing charges set aside – Petitioner discharged [Paras 1-37].

Evidence Law – Suicide Note – Role in Framing Charges – Suicide note alleging harassment due to unpaid loan – Forensic report inconclusive on handwriting – No direct or indirect evidence of instigation or intent to abet suicide – Charge under Section 306 IPC requires clear instigation or aiding of suicide [Paras 19-30].

Legal Principles – Framing of Charges – Judicial Review – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Court’s duty to sift and weigh evidence to determine prima facie case – Charges should not be framed on suspicion alone – Application of principles from Prafulla Kumar Samal and Kanchan Kumar cases [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order framing charges under Section 306 IPC set aside – Petitioner discharged in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 355/2020.
 

Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – Agreement to sell – Transfer by way of affidavit with possession – The Court held that an affidavit does not amount to relinquishment of title and must be registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. However, the affidavit can be treated as an agreement to sell with delivery of possession, protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court found that the ingredients of Section 53A were fulfilled as the defendant had paid the total consideration and was in continuous possession [Paras 9-10].

Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act – Protection of possession – The Court noted that Section 53A protects the possession of the proposed purchaser if the transferee has taken possession or continued in possession and has performed their part of the contract. In this case, the defendant's possession was protected as the plaintiff had received the entire sale consideration and acknowledged the defendant's possession [Paras 9-10].

Plaintiff's Conduct – Estoppel – The plaintiff's conduct, including remaining out of the village and not contesting the mutation of the property in favor of the defendant, supported the defendant's claim. The Court applied the rule of estoppel under Section 53A, preventing the plaintiff from denying the defendant's rights [Para 9].

Decision: The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside, and the trial court's judgment is restored. The plaintiff is not entitled to the decree of possession of the suit property.

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentence – Evidence Assessment – Witness Credibility – Fardbeyan Credibility – Conviction for murder based on conflicting witness testimonies – High Court scrutinized witness statements and police procedures – Hostile witness evidence partially relied upon – Inconsistencies in prosecution case led to benefit of doubt – Convictions and sentences set aside due to reasonable doubt [Paras 1-49].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Hostility – Sole eyewitness testimony by Pardeep Kumar (PW3) was supported by Urmila Devi (PW5) and Kusum Devi (PW7) – PW5A (Dhuri Mahto) declared hostile, his initial statement partially corroborated prosecution case – Other witnesses’ credibility questioned due to contradictions – High Court emphasized caution in accepting testimony of witnesses related to the deceased – Discrepancies noted in the positioning of signatures on fardbeyan and witness proximity to the deceased during the incident [Paras 10-13, 18-22, 25-27].

Inquest and Post-Mortem Reports – Procedural Gaps – Issues in the recording of fardbeyan and positioning of signatures raised suspicion – Post-mortem confirmed homicidal death but raised questions about assailant’s identity and shooting distance – No blackening or charring near the wound despite claim of close-range shooting – Absence of forensic examination of seized items weakened prosecution case – The investigator’s delayed visit to the crime scene and failure to examine key neighbors further compromised the investigation [Paras 39-41].

Hostile Witness – Legal Precedents – Hostile witness evidence can be relied upon if consistent with the prosecution’s case – Reference to Supreme Court rulings on handling hostile witnesses and assessing their testimony for corroborative value – Hostile witness (Dhuri Mahto) testified signing a blank paper and hearing deceased naming a different assailant (Chhotu) – High Court referenced precedents including Khuji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [Paras 19-23].

Benefit of Doubt – Contradictions and Lack of Evidence – Multiple contradictions in witness statements regarding presence and actions during the incident – No documentary evidence supporting land dispute motive – Lack of injury to other alleged eyewitnesses despite close proximity to the deceased – Doubts about prosecution’s narrative led to acquittal of all appellants [Paras 43-46].

Decision – Convictions Set Aside – Benefit of Doubt – High Court set aside convictions and sentences due to reasonable doubt – Appellants acquitted – Arvind Kumar @ Mathura Prasad directed to be released if not detained in any other case; Ranjit Kumar and Manjit Kumar discharged from bail liabilities [Paras 44-49].
 

Insurance Ombudsman – Powers and Jurisdiction – The appellant challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge, arguing that the Insurance Ombudsman has the authority to direct the insurer to issue a policy at a pre-revised premium rate – High Court analyzed the provisions of Rules 13 and 17 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 – Rule 13 allows the Ombudsman to receive and consider complaints relating to disputes over premium, but Rule 17 limits the Ombudsman's power to awarding compensation, not issuing directives to insurers – Appellant’s reliance on previous apex court decisions found inapplicable as they did not involve Insurance Ombudsman awards [Paras 1-7].

Decision – Writ Appeal Dismissed – Held – Insurance Ombudsman exceeded jurisdiction by directing issuance of policy at specified premium – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld, quashing such directions in Ombudsman’s award – Court clarifies limits of Ombudsman’s powers under Rule 17 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017 [Para 7].