Civil Revision – Amendment of Pleading – Dismissal of application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, for seeking amendment of pleading in the plaint by the plaintiff – Challenged by the plaintiff. [Para 1, 8-11]

Specific Performance and Declaratory Relief – Plaintiff sought specific performance of agreement to sell dated 19.10.2015 and declaratory relief against legal notices dated 09.05.2016, 01.06.2016, and 01.07.2016, and publications dated 10.06.2016 and 12.07.2016 issued by defendants through Advocate Sh. Ashwani Sharma as illegal, null, void, and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. [Para 2-4, 8]

Receipt of Earnest Money – Defendants admitted to receiving an amount of Rs.36,31,250/- as earnest money from the plaintiff at the time of executing the agreement to sell, with an amount of Rs.34,31,250/- received in cash and Rs.2,00,000/- received by way of cheques which were realized by the defendants. [Para 3]

Legal Notices and Publications – Defendants pleaded issuance of legal notices and publications in a Hindi daily newspaper “Viraat Vaibhav” urging the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract by paying the balance sale consideration, and on failure, declaring the agreement to sell as cancelled and rescinded. [Para 6-7]

Amendment Application – Plaintiff sought amendment in the prayer clause of the plaint to include challenge against additional legal notices and publications by the defendants; argued necessity of amendment for proper adjudication of the case without any malafide intention. [Para 8]

Response to Amendment Application – Defendants argued against the amendment citing it as an attempt to introduce a time-barred claim and cover up lapses and lacuna in the plaintiff’s suit, asserting that the amendment would cause prejudice to the defendants and is not maintainable as per Order VII Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. [Para 9, 16-17]

Legal Principles on Amendment – Citing precedent, counsel for the petitioner emphasized on a liberal approach towards amendment for determining the real questions in controversy, while ensuring no injustice or prejudice is caused to the other side; highlighted the exceptional circumstances of COVID-19 pandemic for consideration of delay in filing amendment application. [Para 13-15]

Judicial Interpretation – Citing precedent, counsel for the respondents argued against the amendment emphasizing on the principle that a new cause of action or a claim barred by law cannot be introduced through amendment. [Para 18]

Revision Petition – Re-hearing Due to Absence of Relevant Documents – Initial reservation of judgment on 04.09.2023 was revisited for re-hearing on 28.09.2023 due to absence of certain legal notices and publications, which were eventually presented and taken on record on 03.10.2023. [Para 21]

Legal Notices and Publications – Examination for Validity – Legal notices dated 09.05.2016, 01.06.2016, and 01.07.2016 alongside publications dated 10.06.2016 and 12.07.2016 were examined for their legality, context, and impact on the sale agreement dated 19.10.2015. [Para 22-26]

Rescindment of Agreement – Communication and Publication – Defendants communicated the decision of rescindment of the agreement to sell through legal notice dated 01.07.2016 and publicized it on 12.07.2016, which was later challenged by the plaintiff. [Para 28-29]

Amendment in Plaint – Introduction of New Challenge – The plaintiff sought to introduce a new challenge concerning the legal notice dated 01.07.2016 and its publication, which was initially deemed time-barred but was further examined for its potential impact on the case. [Para 30-32]

Judgment – Setting Aside Impugned Order and Allowing Revision – The impugned order dated 08.05.2023 was set aside, and the revision petition was allowed subject to the payment of costs of Rs.25,000/-. The amended plaint is to be filed before the learned trial Court by 20.11.2023, with a directive for expedited proceedings for a final decision. [Para 33]

Employment Dispute - Arrears of Salary and Retirement Benefits - Petitioner seeks directions for payment of arrears of salary from 2002 to 2011 and re-fixation of pensionary and retirement benefits - Petitioner's history of suspension, conviction, and subsequent acquittal - Dispute over withholding of salary and counting service for retirement benefits - Interpretation of relevant service rules. [Para 1-5]

Service Benefits – Payment of Salary during Suspension – Petitioner sought salary from the period of suspension to reinstatement – Suspension followed by dismissal due to conviction – Acquittal and reinstatement – Dispute over payment of salary for the suspension period. [Para 6-7]

Suspension and Dismissal – Bank employee suspended due to arrest by CBI – Subsistence allowance paid during suspension – Later dismissed upon conviction – Relevant provisions of SBI Rules invoked – Suspension period treated as not spent on duty – Employee's acquittal and reinstatement – Terms and conditions of reinstatement specified. [Para 7-9]

Back Wages – Employee acquitted after suspension and dismissal – Claim for back wages – Distinction between cases of departmental proceedings and criminal involvement – Supreme Court's precedent emphasizing different considerations for back wages in such cases. [Para 18-19]

Continuous Service – Period of suspension and dismissal treated as "not spent on duty" for back wages – However, reinstatement after acquittal entitles employee to consider the period as continuous service without any break – Re-fixing of pensionary and retirement benefits ordered accordingly. [Para 20-24]

Conversion of Sentences - Offences under IPC Sections 376 and 306 - Applicant seeks conversion of consecutive sentences to concurrent - Oral application made by appellant - Consideration of oral prayers allowed as no formal application required by Code - Arguments presented by appellant's counsel - Contention that suicide and rape offenses are part of the same transaction - Relying on precedent cases - State's opposition to the prayers - Gravity and seriousness of offenses argued by State - Assertion that the offenses are distinct - Reference to relevant case laws for sentence conversion. [Para 1-12]

Criminal Procedure – Scope and Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 – Examination of legislative provisions and relevant case law – Discretionary nature of Section 427 Cr.P.C. – Application of concurrent or consecutive sentences – Consideration of the intertwining and intrinsic facts of the offenses – Application of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 to the case – Directions for concurrent running of sentences – Appeal dismissed as not pursued. [Para 13-24]

Criminal Offenses – Rape and Abetment of Suicide – Offenses arising from the same transaction – Intertwined and intrinsic facts – Causal connection between offenses – Application of section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 to the case – Directions for concurrent running of sentences for section 376 and section 306 IPC – Benefit granted to the appellant. [Para 18-21]

Judicial Discretion – Discretion exercised on sound legal principles and factual foundation – No straight-jacket formula for applying section 427 Cr.P.C., 1973 – Consideration of the nature of offenses and facts of each case – Application of concurrent sentences in appropriate cases – Importance of judicial discretion in sentencing. [Para 16-17]

Decision – Appeal dismissed as not pursued – Sentences under section 376 and section 306 IPC directed to run concurrently. [Para 22-23]

Appeal Maintainability – The appeal, filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenges the judgment of a learned single Judge who refused to quash proceedings in C.C. No.290/2022 on jurisdictional grounds, argued through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC. The Bench examined the maintainability of the appeal based on the prayers and the jurisdiction exercised by the single Judge in the impugned judgment. [Para 1-6]

Jurisdictional Challenge – The appellants contended that the Magistrate Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed, urging for the quashing of all proceedings in the said complaint, arguing the dispute to be of civil nature arising from an agreement, and advocated for the matter to be handled through mediation and arbitration as provided in the agreement. [Para 9]

Section 5 of Kerala High Court Act – Emphasis on the provision which allows an appeal to a Bench of two Judges from a judgment or order of a Single Judge exercising original jurisdiction, with appellants asserting that the learned single Judge failed to exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226. [Para 11-12]

Exercise of Inherent Powers – Discussion on Section 482 of the CrPC, wherein the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The appellants sought the exercise of these inherent powers to quash the criminal case against them. [Para 13-14]

Prayers and Nomenclature – The Supreme Court’s precedent in Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others highlighted, indicating that the nomenclature under which a case is filed is irrelevant, and what is pertinent are the prayers made by the petitioners. [Para 16, 24]

Precedents on Appeal Maintainability – Examination of various precedents concerning the maintainability of an appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, distinguishing between the exercise of original jurisdiction and inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 17-23]

Dismissal on Grounds of Maintainability – The appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of maintainability without delving into the merits of the case, aligning with the precedent set in Abubacker Kunju v. Thulasidas, that no appeal would lie against an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 23, 25]

Miscellaneous Appeal – Motor Vehicles Act – Appeal filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favor of injured claimant. [Para 1]

Parties – Respondent No.1 is the injured claimant; Respondent No.2, the driver of the offending bus, not a necessary party. [Para 2]

Issues – Claims Tribunal framed three key issues: 1) Whether injuries were due to rash and negligent driving; 2) Entitlement to compensation; 3) Quantum of relief. [Para 4(b)]

Negligent Driving – Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus driver, supported by driver’s own admission in a prior criminal case. [Para 8]

Compensation – Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,47,000 as total compensation under various heads including medical expenditure, pain and suffering, and permanent disability. [Para 4(d)]

Permanent Disability – Tribunal granted Rs.1,00,000 for permanent disability despite no certificate from a Medical Board; appellant’s objection overruled given strong medical evidence. [Para 10-12]

Rate of Interest – Claims Tribunal awarded 9% interest per annum; appellant failed to show why this rate was excessive. [Para 14]

Decision – Appeal dismissed; Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation and interest upheld. [Para 15]

Civil Appeal – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Summary Suits – Appeal against Trial Court's judgment and decree awarding ₹16 lakhs to the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the CPC – Issue surrounding the service of summons and validity of loan transaction – Trial Court's decree upheld. [Para 1, 8, 13]

Loan Agreement – Financial Transaction – Respondent-plaintiff claimed loan of ₹16 lakhs given to appellant-defendant – Appellant disputes nature of transaction, attributing it to a financial committee both parties participated in – Trial Court decreed in favor of respondent due to unchallenged claims. [Para 2, 5, 6]

Summons – Service and Address Verification – Central issue being whether summons were duly served on appellant-defendant – Trial Court and High Court affirm proper service based on documents showing defendant resided at the address where summons were delivered – Unrebutted evidence weighed against appellant's claims of not residing at the mentioned address. [Para 10-13]

Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the CPC – Maintainability – Appellant's application initially under Order IX Rule 13 – Re-characterized by Trial Court under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the CPC due to relevancy – Application dismissed based on merits and proper service of summons. [Para 6, 7]

Alternative Dispute Resolution – Failed Settlement Attempt – Defendant's expressed interest in settling the matter – No progress made in the settlement, leading to adjudication on merits. [Para 8]

Burden of Proof – Balance of Probabilities – Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the truth of his claims concerning separate residence and nature of the financial transaction – Multiple documents and lack of rebuttal weighed against appellant. [Para 12, 13]

Consistency in Address – Memo of Parties – Appellant’s address mentioned consistently in legal documents including the memo of parties in the appeal – Undermines appellant's claim of not residing at the given address where summons were served. [Para 13]

Appeal to High Court – Appeal under Rule 3 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order 2014 and Section 100 CPC against orders from District Council Court regarding an eviction suit concerning a property known as ‘Sweety Studio’ in Shillong. The appeal, initially a Second Appeal, is treated as a Civil Revision Application upon appellant’s request. [Para 1-6]

Maintenance of Status Quo and Restraint Order – Issuance and review of status quo order by the Trial Court, leading to a restraint order against the respondent preventing entry and business operation in the premises until final hearing on injunction. [Para 2-4]

Examination of Impugned Order – Examination of impugned order dated 20.05.2022 by the Lower Appellate Court, with the High Court noting that the main eviction suit was kept in abeyance while miscellaneous proceedings were pursued aggressively. [Para 7-8]

Directions for Restoration of Electricity and Expedited Disposal – Upholding of electricity restoration to the premises, allowing respondent’s business operations during pendency of eviction suit. Direction to the Trial Court for expedited disposal of the main eviction suit, disregarding unrelated findings from the impugned order. [Para 9-9(iii)]

Final Disposal and No Order as to Costs – Final disposal of the Revision Application with no order as to costs, and instructions for immediate transmission of lower court records back. [Para 10-12]

Service Law - Out of Turn Promotion - Discriminatory Denial: Petitioner sought 'Out of Turn Promotion' to the rank of Head Constable based on exemplary service, akin to a colleague who was promoted. Initial denial attributed to a pending criminal case against the petitioner, which was later quashed. Discriminatory denial of promotion, despite parity in service merits with Constable Joginder Singh, observed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 13, 14, 15, 17]

Judicial Precedence - Parity and Discrimination: References to past judgments where 'Out of Turn Promotion' or similar benefits were granted, showcasing courts intervening to rectify discriminatory practices in line with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 12]

Criminal Proceedings - Impact on Promotion: The judgment emphasizes that criminal proceedings against the petitioner initially impeded promotion prospects. However, post-quashing, no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner to deny 'Out of Turn Promotion.' The quashing of proceedings was acknowledged as rendering a person acquitted for all intents and purposes, negating adverse implications on promotion eligibility. [Para 14, 17]

Competent Authority - Reasonable and Fair Consideration: The judgment highlights the mandate of the Competent Authority to act reasonably, fairly, and in the public interest while considering promotion cases. It also underscores the requirement for such considerations to withstand the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14, with the Tribunal/Courts poised for intervention in instances of discernible discrimination. [Para 17]

Decision - Tribunal's Directive - Upheld: The judgment upholds the Tribunal's directive to grant 'Out of Turn Promotion' to the petitioner from the date of filing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as opposed to the date when Constable Joginder Singh was promoted. The court directed implementation within four weeks, dismissing both writ petitions by the petitioner and respondents. [Para 17]

Contempt of Court - Serious allegations of misconduct against a judge, government officials, and institutions - Frivolous and vexatious litigation - Judgment dismissing the writ petitions and imposing costs - Contemnor's vilification of the court, government authorities, and the judiciary - Contempt proceedings initiated. [Para 1-5]

Abuse of Legal Process - Frivolous Litigation - Need to address frivolous litigation and its impact on the judicial system - Imposition of costs as a deterrent against filing unfounded litigation - Balancing the right to access the court with deterring abusive litigation - Court's resolute stance against frivolous litigation. [Para 5-8]

Contempt of Court – Derogatory allegations and disrespectful language used by the Contemnor against the learned Single Bench and the judiciary – Contemnor found guilty of contempt – Sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed – Default in payment of fine to result in an additional 7 days of imprisonment – Contemnor has no remorse for his actions and stands by his allegations. [Para 13-17]

Arrest and Custody – Contemnor directed to be taken into custody immediately by HC Vinod (Naib Court) and handed over to Tihar Jail, Delhi – Arrest and committal warrants to be prepared by the Registry – Contemnor granted permission to go to his hotel to check out before being taken to Tihar Jail. [Para 18-20]