Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Prima Facie Evidence – Summoning Upheld – Petitioner was summoned as additional accused under Section 319 CrPC in FIR registered under Section 306 IPC for abetting suicide of complainant’s brother – Suicide note and PW-1 testimony alleged continuous harassment and beatings by petitioner due to alleged illicit relationship with deceased’s wife – Held: Material on record, including suicide note and corroborative testimony, sufficient to meet prima facie threshold under Section 319 CrPC – Power rightly exercised – Petition dismissed [Paras 1–14].

Criminal Procedure – Section 319 CrPC – Scope and Threshold – Strong Prima Facie Evidence Required – Reaffirmed that the power under Section 319 CrPC is extraordinary and to be used sparingly – Must be exercised only when strong and cogent evidence appears against a person not already an accused – Evidence must be such that, if unrebutted, it may lead to conviction – Reference made to Hardeep Singh and Sukhpal Singh Khaira decisions on proper procedure and satisfaction standard under Section 319 [Paras 6–8].

Criminal Law – Section 306 IPC – Instigation and Proximate Causation – Ingredients Satisfied – Allegations against petitioner not limited to extra-marital affair but extended to active physical and mental harassment of deceased – Suicide note mentioned repeated beatings and humiliation – Held: These acts created a proximate link to suicide and satisfied ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC [Paras 9–11].

Distinguishing Precedents – Petitioner’s Case Found Factually Different – Petitioner’s reliance on Mahendra Aware, Prakash, and Jayedeepsinh rejected – Held: Those cases lacked specific allegations or direct causal connection unlike present case where suicide note and testimony directly implicated petitioner in active harassment [Para 12].

Revisional Jurisdiction – No Interference Without Perversity or Illegality – Citing Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, reiterated that revisional powers must be exercised sparingly and only where there is manifest illegality or perversity – Found none in impugned order summoning petitioner [Para 13].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Order dated 05.05.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge summoning petitioner under Section 319 CrPC upheld – No infirmity or illegality found – Petitioner to face trial along with co-accused.

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Confirmed – Appellant convicted for the murder of his wife by inflicting a fatal head injury with a hammer – Sole eyewitness (daughter) turned hostile – Statement under Section 164 CrPC not relied upon as substantive evidence – Chain of circumstantial evidence complete and consistent with guilt – Blood-stained hammer and marble cutter recovered from spot – Forensic evidence corroborated injuries – Appellant's presence with deceased in room not disputed – Failure to offer plausible explanation under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act constituted an additional incriminating circumstance – Held: Conviction under Section 302 IPC proper [Paras 12–33].

Evidence Law – Section 164 CrPC – Hostile Witness – Statement not substantive evidence – PW-5 (daughter) turned hostile and retracted from her statement under Section 164 CrPC – Trial court did not rely on the 164 CrPC statement as substantive evidence – Only used for limited corroboration – Conviction not based on such statement [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Section 309 IPC – Attempt to Commit Suicide – Valid Conviction – Medical evidence confirmed simple incised wound on neck of appellant – Injury consistent with self-infliction – Possibility of use of marble cutter ruled in – Conviction under Section 309 IPC upheld – Section 309 continues to be valid despite prior repeal attempt [Paras 31–32].

Criminal Law – Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Failure to Explain Circumstances – Adverse Inference Drawn – Deceased found dead within four walls of matrimonial home – Appellant failed to offer any acceptable version of events – Defence theory of third-party intrusion found to be improbable – Held: Failure to explain incriminating circumstances warranted conviction [Paras 25–30].

Motive – Suspicion on Wife's Chastity – Frequent Domestic Quarrels – Evidence from family members showed appellant habitually suspected wife’s character – Such motive supported the prosecution’s case and explained intent – Held: Proof of motive reinforced the circumstantial evidence [Paras 20–21, 30].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 309 IPC confirmed – No interference warranted by appellate court.

Civil Law – Local Commissioner – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Improper Rejection – Appointment Directed – Trial court dismissed plaintiff's application seeking appointment of Technical Engineer as Local Commissioner to demarcate disputed wall and report physical condition – Held: Though appointment of Commissioner is discretionary, such discretion must advance cause of justice – Where real controversy relates to physical features or encroachment, court must allow factual verification – Refusal to appoint Local Commissioner stifles adjudication of real issue – Impugned order set aside – Trial court directed to appoint Commissioner for inspection and report [Paras 1–10].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Superintendence Over Subordinate Courts – Interference Justified – High Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct error committed by trial court in refusing crucial procedural aid for just determination – Held: Interference under Article 227 warranted to prevent failure of justice and facilitate effective adjudication [Paras 6–10].

Commissioner Report – Scope – Not to Determine Possession or Title – Court clarified that Commissioner is to report physical condition only and not express opinion on possession or rights – Appreciation of report lies with the court – Purpose is to aid adjudication, not to substitute judicial evaluation [Para 6].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 04.07.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to appoint Local Commissioner to inspect site and report existing physical condition – Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

Civil Law – Arrest and Detention in Execution – Mandatory Procedure Not Followed – Order Set Aside – Executing Court allowed decree-holder’s application under Section 51 CPC and Order 21 Rules 37 and 39 CPC directing arrest of judgment-debtor after deposit of subsistence allowance – Held: Executing Court failed to comply with mandatory requirements of issuing show cause notice, conducting enquiry into means, and recording reasons – Judgment-debtor’s liberty cannot be curtailed without strict adherence to procedural safeguards – Impugned order dated 18.03.2025 set aside and matter remanded [Paras 1–8].

Review Jurisdiction – Limited Scope – Dismissal Upheld – Review petition filed by judgment-debtor under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC challenging arrest order on grounds of procedural illegality – Held: Grounds raised went to merits and legality of order, not error apparent on face of record – Executing Court rightly dismissed review petition on 09.09.2025 – Dismissal upheld [Paras 7–8].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction Invoked to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice – High Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct jurisdictional error and material irregularity in execution proceedings – Emphasised that compliance with CPC safeguards is non-negotiable before depriving liberty of a citizen [Para 8–9].

Decision: Civil revision partly allowed – Impugned order dated 18.03.2025 set aside – Matter remanded to Executing Court for fresh consideration of decree-holder’s applications strictly in accordance with Section 51 CPC and Order 21 Rules 37–40 CPC – Review order dated 09.09.2025 upheld – No opinion on merits of applications – Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

Arbitration – MSMED Act – Commercial Dispute – Supply of Goods – Dispute over unpaid dues under three purchase orders raised by micro enterprise Ranjana Industries against Mahindra – Mahindra raised objections of late delivery and quality defects – Held: Objections not raised within statutory 15-day window under Section 2(e) of MSMED Act – Arbitral Tribunal rightly treated delivery as deemed accepted – No proof of return or rejection of goods shown – Finding upheld [Paras 2–16, 27–38, 44–48].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Review under Sections 34 & 37 – Concurrent findings of Arbitral Tribunal and District Court held not perverse or contrary to fundamental policy – Appellate court cannot reappreciate evidence – Mahindra’s claims of defects, rejection and counter-claim for damages not substantiated with proof – No ground to interfere under Section 37 – Appeal dismissed [Paras 39–41, 49–50].

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) – Protection of Small Suppliers – MSMED Act provides statutory framework to ensure timely payments – 15-day deadline for objections mandatory, not directory – Mahindra’s conduct amounted to unfair delay and frustration of statutory entitlements of micro supplier – Held: Deadline under Section 2(e) has substantive legal consequences including accrual of interest under Section 16 [Paras 45–46].

Evidence – Onus of Proof – Rejection of Goods – Onus on Mahindra to prove that goods were defective and returned – No debit notes, return challans, or payment proof for alternate vendor produced – Tribunal’s inference that goods were accepted and used is reasonable and based on preponderance of probability [Paras 19, 33–36, 38–39].

Corporate Litigation – Abuse of Process – Cost and Conduct – Court criticises Mahindra’s continued litigation despite two concurrent findings – Notes power asymmetry between large corporates and micro enterprises – Cost of litigation treated as “miscellaneous expense” by Mahindra – Interest and deposit provisions under MSMED Act meant to deter such conduct – Mahindra directed to pay Rs. 1.5 lakh as costs and release deposit [Paras 51–54].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Arbitral Award and District Court order upheld – Mahindra directed to pay Rs. 16,16,950 with interest under Sections 15 & 16 of MSMED Act within one month – Costs of Rs. 1.5 lakh to be paid to Respondent within four weeks – Deposit to be released to Respondent [Paras 50–52].

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax – Cross-Empowerment – Jurisdiction of CGST Officers – Petitioners assigned to State Tax Authorities challenged issuance of show cause notices by Joint Commissioner, CGST – Held: Section 6(1) of CGST Act provides inherent and automatic cross-empowerment to officers of Centre and States – Notification required only when conditions are imposed – No notification necessary for activation of jurisdiction – Clarified by CBIC circular dated 22.06.2020 and upheld in Armour Security India Ltd. – Objection on jurisdiction rejected [Paras 14–32, 38].

GST – Intelligence-Based Enforcement – Petitioners alleged to have availed fraudulent ITC through paper transactions among 12 firms in a single textile park – Searches conducted and evidence revealed paper turnover without actual supply – Held: Intelligence-based action is valid ground for CGST initiation irrespective of administrative allocation – Central authority not barred from initiating action – Show cause notice upheld [Paras 4–6, 37–42].

CGST – Competence of Joint Commissioner – Petitioners argued that Joint Commissioner could not issue show cause notice for demand < Rs.1 crore – Held: Section 5(2) of CGST Act authorises senior officers to exercise powers of subordinate officers – Circular dated 09.02.2018 merely administrative – Joint Commissioner is competent to issue notice regardless of amount involved [Paras 34–36].

GST – Bunching of Multiple Financial Years – Petitioners challenged issuance of a single show cause notice for five assessment years – Held: No express bar under Section 74 against such bunching – Issue left open for adjudication by authority concerned – No interference at notice stage [Para 33].

GST – Enforcement vs Audit – Distinction clarified – Enforcement actions based on intelligence not restricted by administrative allocation – Dual proceedings not permitted on same subject matter – Intelligence-based proceedings may be initiated by either authority – Reaffirmed through Supreme Court’s ruling in M/S Armour Security India Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST Delhi East, 2025 INSC 982 [Paras 38–41].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Section 6(1) of CGST Act provides for automatic cross-empowerment – Show cause notices valid and within jurisdiction of CGST authorities – Petitioners free to raise other defences before adjudicating authority – Interpretation of Section 6 conclusively decided; other issues left open [Para 42].

Judicial Service – Premature Retirement – Validity of Notification – Petitioner, serving as Additional District Judge, prematurely retired at age 53 under Rule 21 of Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Challenge on ground that Notification issued without Governor’s personal satisfaction and instead based on recommendation to Government – Held: As per Articles 163 and 166 of Constitution and relevant business rules, orders issued in the name of Governor by authorized officers are valid – No illegality found in issuance of Notification [Paras 19-31]

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – High Court’s administrative recommendation based on Committee report assessing petitioner’s service record from 2001 to 2015 – Performance recorded as ‘just adequate’ or ‘adequate’ in several years and ‘poor’ in one quarter – Petitioner’s challenge to one ‘poor’ entry rejected – Held: Premature retirement is based on subjective satisfaction – No malafide, procedural breach, or absence of material found – No ground for judicial interference made out [Paras 32-35]

Natural Justice – Applicability – Petitioner’s plea for opportunity of hearing before compulsory retirement rejected – Held: Compulsory retirement is not a punitive action – Principles of natural justice not applicable – Even one adverse or uncommunicated entry may justify retirement in public interest [Paras 33-34]

Governor’s Role – Interpretation of Rule 21 – Petitioner’s argument that the recommendation must be addressed to the Governor personally held untenable – Held: Governor acts on aid and advice of Council of Ministers under Article 163 – Decision by High Court was forwarded to State Government in accordance with established procedure – No deviation from constitutional or statutory mandate [Paras 19-31]

Integrity and Standards of Judicial Officers – Court reaffirmed the high standards expected from members of the judiciary – Administrative Committee and Full Court entitled to assess overall performance and reputation of judicial officers and act in public interest – Held: Courts cannot interfere unless the decision is arbitrary, mala fide or based on no material [Paras 34-35]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Impugned Notification dated 18.07.2016 upheld – Rule discharged – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Murder – Kidnapping for Ransom – Conviction upheld – Deceased (Devang) was kidnapped and murdered by the accused-appellants – Trial court convicted accused under Sections 302, 364A, 363, 201, and 506(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found the chain of circumstantial evidence to be complete and consistent with the hypothesis of guilt – Theory of “last seen together”, discovery of body and incriminating articles at the instance of accused, forensic report and CDRs established guilt – No explanation offered by accused under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction upheld [Paras 1 to 37].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen Theory – Deceased last seen with both accused at 8:00 AM at Bindu Sarovar pick-up stand (PW-9, PW-10) – Accused identified as Nirav @ Ravi Shah and Dhaval @ Jato Darji – PW-9 saw Devang enter the accused's car – PW-10 corroborated same – Defence failed to establish inconsistency or enmity – Delay in recording witness statements held not fatal – Presence of accused with deceased established [Paras 8 to 12].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Ransom Call – PW-1 (father of deceased) received ransom calls from deceased's phone demanding ₹40 lakhs and threatening murder if police were informed – Phone number used belonged to complainant and was used by deceased – Deposition corroborated by documentary evidence (Exh.138, Exh.145) – Factum of kidnapping, ransom demand and subsequent murder of Devang proved beyond reasonable doubt – Non-examination of relatives Deviprasad and Avinash Thakar not fatal [Paras 13, 14, 32].

Evidence Act – Extra-Judicial Confession – PW-11 (Suraj Rami) deposed that accused Dhaval confessed to murder in conversation – Accused allegedly discussed use of spray/medicine to render someone unconscious – Witness informed police only on 24.08.2015 – Court held confession not used as foundation of conviction but to lend assurance to other established evidence – Delay and nature of relationship did not erode credibility significantly – Held: Extra judicial confession supports prosecution case [Paras 15 to 15.1].

Discovery and Recovery – Section 27 Evidence Act – Dead body exhumed at instance of accused Nirav Shah (PW-4) – Clothes of deceased, blood-stained clothes of accused, knife and car used in crime recovered at instance of Nirav and Dhaval (PWs 5, 8) – Serological report (Exh.126) confirmed blood group of deceased found on clothes of accused – Court held recoveries proved in accordance with law – Minor discrepancies in keys and house entry not material [Paras 18 to 26, 28].

Criminal Procedure – Section 313 CrPC – Accused offered no explanation to incriminating evidence put to them – Repeatedly denied knowledge or truth without rebuttal – Absence of any credible defence or alternate hypothesis – Held: Adverse inference against accused is justified [Paras 34, 35].

Indian Evidence Act – Sections 8, 106, 114 – Conduct of accused in leading police to recovery sites held admissible under Section 8 – Accused last seen with deceased but gave no explanation under Section 106 – Presumption under Section 114 drawn from natural conduct and silence of accused – Held: Entire chain of evidence consistent with guilt – No other hypothesis possible [Paras 35, 36].

Motive – Prosecution failed to prove specific motive regarding debt or desire for luxury – Court held motive not essential when chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and points only to guilt – Absence of motive does not create reasonable doubt when other evidence is cogent and convincing – [Para 27].

Appeal – Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302, 364A, 363, 201 and 506(2) IPC upheld – Accused to surrender within 4 weeks if on bail [Para 37].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction upheld – Accused to surrender before jail authorities within four weeks if on bail.

Civil Law - Property Dispute – Real Brothers – Terrace and Toilet Usage – Injunction Upheld – Parties are real brothers who separately purchased different floors of the same house – Plaintiff/respondent purchased second floor with terrace rights – Petitioners/defendants purchased first floor – Dispute arose over usage of second-floor terrace and toilet – Appellate court restrained petitioners from interfering with respondent’s possession – High Court upheld appellate order, relying on sale deed recitals explicitly granting terrace rights to second-floor owner – Observed: Until final adjudication, possession of terrace shall remain undisturbed [Paras 1–20].

Civil Procedure – Interim Injunction – Possession Rights Pending Suit – Valid Restraint – Though both parties claimed usage of disputed area, the court held that interim protection was warranted in favour of the party having express terrace rights – Held: Prima facie title and peaceful possession are sufficient for ad interim injunction – Construction during pendency disallowed – Status quo ante to be restored [Paras 17–20].

Sale Deed Interpretation – Express Clause – Terrace Rights Recognised – Sale deed of second floor explicitly included “entire second floor with terrace rights” – No such clause in sale deed of first floor – Court held that express recital must be given effect unless rebutted through trial – Injunction granted accordingly [Para 18–19].

Equity – Family Dispute – Direction for Expeditious Trial – Court noted the dispute between siblings and potential escalation – Directed trial court to expedite proceedings and ensure no change to property status meanwhile – Emphasised restraint on both parties from altering structure or denying access for essential needs (e.g., water tank maintenance) [Para 20].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Injunction order of Additional District Judge upheld – Petitioners restrained from interfering with respondent’s possession of second-floor terrace and toilet – Any construction raised post-injunction to be removed – Trial court directed to decide suit expeditiously without being influenced by present observations