Civil Law - Review Petition - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Section 114 - Respondent sought review of order directing transfer of funds to Petitioner-Company account for refunding shareholders - Respondent argued that unclaimed funds held for over seven years must be transferred to Investor Education and Protection Fund under Section 125(2)(h) of the Companies Act 2013 - Petitioner contended that funds arose from share capital reduction scheme and not from application money for allotment of securities - Court observed that Section 125(2)(h) applies specifically to application money for allotment of securities and not to capital reduction refunds - Held - No error apparent on the face of the record warranting review - Review petition dismissed - [Paras 1-9].

Company Law - Investor Education and Protection Fund - Companies Act 2013 - Section 125(2)(h) - Scope of provision - Court clarified that the provision pertaining to transfer of unclaimed refund amounts to the Fund applies to application money received for allotment of securities - Funds arising from capital reduction pursuant to Court-sanctioned schemes do not fall under the ambit of this section - Held - Respondent failed to demonstrate applicability of Section 125(2)(h) to the subject funds - [Paras 6-8].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No error apparent on the face of the record found.

Civil Law - Civil Procedure - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 151 - Inherent powers - Trial court permitted defendants to introduce evidence of alleged fraud in a partition suit after remand from Division Bench - Division Bench had restricted the remand specifically to the determination of shares based on findings of issue Nos. 3 and 4 which had attained finality - High Court held that inherent powers under Section 151 cannot be used to circumvent the doctrine of finality or to conduct a de novo trial of issues already adjudicated - Trial court erred in allowing reopening of evidence - Held - Impugned order set aside and trial court directed to proceed with passing a preliminary decree as per remand directions - [Paras 3-33].

Civil Law - Partition Suit - Evidence Act 1872 - Section 136 - Admissibility and Waiver - Defendants sought to challenge a death certificate marked as Exhibit 2 during trial without any objection - High Court ruled that failure to object to the mode of proof or admissibility at the evidence stage prevents a party from subsequently challenging the document as fraudulent to reopen proceedings - Held - Challenge to admitted evidence at a post-remand stage is impermissible - [Paras 28-31].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Doctrine of Finality - Principles of remand - Where an appellate court remands a matter for a limited purpose - Trial court is bound to strictly comply with the specific directions of the remand order - Trial court cannot entertain applications that effectively seek to reopen issues that were not subject to the remand or were settled in earlier proceedings - Held - Proceedings post-remand must remain within the scope defined by the Appellate Court - [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Impugned order dated October 11, 2023, set aside - Trial Court directed to act in strict compliance with the order passed in F.A.T. 346 of 2019.

Civil Law - Matrimonial - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-a) - Cruelty - Appellant-husband sought divorce alleging wife frequently quarreled with parents- misbehaved- demanded separate residence and misappropriated maintenance funds- Trial Court dismissed the petition finding allegations unproved and amounting to mere ordinary wear and tear of marital life- High Court affirmed the dismissal holding that the appellant failed to prove specific acts of cruelty and that the alleged discord did not rise to the level of grave and weighty conduct required to render cohabitation impossible- Held - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 33-48].

Civil Law - Matrimonial - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-b) - Desertion - Statutory requirement of two years - Appellant pleaded that respondent left the matrimonial home on 01.07.2020 while filing the divorce petition on 04.12.2020- High Court held that the claim of desertion is legally unsustainable as the statutory period of two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition was not completed- Held - Ground of desertion not satisfied - [Paras 57-64].

Civil Law - Matrimonial - Hindu Marriage Act 1955 - Section 13(1)(i-b) - Animus Deserendi - Explained as the intention to permanently bring cohabitation to an end- High Court held that desertion is a continuing offence which requires both the factum of separation and the intention to desert for the full statutory period of two years prior to filing the petition- Held - In absence of the statutory period the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion is not maintainable - [Paras 50-61].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - Judgment and decree of the Family Court affirmed - No order as to costs.

Writ Law - Tender Process - Constitution of India - Article 14 and 226 - Cancellation of tender - Petitioner challenged cancellation order citing lack of reasons and arbitrary conduct - Court examined original records finding that tender process was tainted by erroneous inclusion of an ineligible bidder in technical qualification list - Held - Although cancellation order was cryptic for mentioning only unforeseen circumstances, the court cannot ignore substantive justification found in records regarding technical ineligibility of petitioner and prevention of fraud - Action of Authority is not mala fide or discriminatory - Petition dismissed - [Paras 20-29, 31, 34].

Civil Law - Tender Evaluation - Essential Conditions - Work Experience - Petitioner failed to meet essential criteria for internal development works including sewerage and drainage systems - Court held that essential conditions of tender are binding and cannot be relaxed - Judicial review cannot be used to equate dissimilar construction works such as road widening with specialized township infrastructure - Held - Rejection of technical bid is justified - [Paras 26-29, 33].

Writ Law - Administrative Law - Show Cause Notice - Judicial Review - Scope of interference - Petitioner challenged show-cause notice for forfeiture of earnest money - Court observed that show-cause notices are generally not subject to judicial review unless issued without jurisdiction or with pre-determined bias - Held - No such ground established - Petitioner directed to respond to the notice before the competent authority - [Para 30, 32].

Administrative Law - Decision Making Process - Reasoned Order - Doctrine of Mohinder Singh Gill - State authorities must provide reasons in administrative orders - While the impugned cancellation order failed to provide specific reasons, the court upon production of original records found sufficient administrative justification to avoid interference - Held - Lack of reasoning in initial order cured by substantive merits evidenced in the record - [Para 24, 28].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs – Liberty granted to the Authority to proceed with the show-cause notice in accordance with law.

Industrial Law - Domestic Enquiry - Industrial Disputes Act 1947 - Section 2A(2) - Validity of enquiry as preliminary issue - Petitioner challenged termination based on domestic enquiry without specifically seeking a declaration of the enquiry's invalidity - Tribunal initially allowed reinstatement without framing an issue regarding the domestic enquiry - Upon review under Rule 27 of West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules 1958 the Tribunal held that omitting to examine the validity of the domestic enquiry constituted a procedural error - High Court upheld the review order observing that the domestic enquiry is the foundation of the termination and must be adjudicated upon - Held - Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in allowing the review to correct the procedural defect - [Paras 1-31].

Industrial Law - Review of Award - West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules 1958 - Rule 27 - Error apparent on the face of the record - Industrial Tribunal failing to frame or decide a preliminary issue regarding the validity of a domestic enquiry which formed the basis of the worker's dismissal - Whether such failure amounts to a procedural error warranting review - Held - Yes - The failure to address the validity of the foundation of the termination is an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the exercise of review powers - [Paras 24-29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - The order of the Industrial Tribunal allowing the review application is affirmed - [Directions: Parties to proceed with the adjudication of the domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue].

Civil Law - Matrimonial Property - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 101 - Burden of proof - Claim for return of gold ornaments and money - Appellant alleged entrustment of 52 sovereigns of gold and cash totaling 29 lakhs - Respondent denied the claim and produced photographic evidence contradicting the appellant's version of gold possession at marriage - Appellant failed to produce documentary evidence or examine witnesses to substantiate the alleged entrustment or financial transactions - Court held that mere ipse dixit of the claimant is insufficient to establish entrustment in the absence of corroborative evidence or proof of financial capacity - Held - Trial Court correctly dismissed the petition - [Paras 1-10].

Civil Law - Divorce - Indian Divorce Act 1869 - Section 10 - Cruelty - Dissolution of marriage - Husband sought divorce alleging physical and mental cruelty including assault with a knife and denial of marital life - Wife denied allegations - Trial Court found husband's evidence consistent and credible - Appellate Court observed parties living separately for over a decade without genuine efforts for restitution of conjugal rights - Ratio Decidendi - Prolonged separation coupled with strained matrimonial relations and lack of intent to resume cohabitation constitutes mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage - Held - Decree of divorce upheld - [Paras 11-18].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Impugned judgments and decrees of the Family Court affirmed.

Civil Law - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 - Section 23 - Cancellation of Settlement Deed - Respondent No.4 filed application to cancel settlement deed executed in favour of his son - Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal allowed cancellation despite the deed lacking an express condition requiring the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor - Petitioners challenged this as exceeding jurisdiction - High Court held that for Section 23(1) to be invoked the document must contain an express condition for provision of basic amenities and physical needs and failure to provide the same - Mere reservation of life interest does not satisfy this requirement - Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to cancel the deed - Order set aside - [Paras 9-13-20].

Civil Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Locus Standi of Transferee - Respondent contended writ petition is not maintainable as the senior citizen had transferred property to a third party after the Tribunal order and that the right to claim maintenance is personal and not heritable - Held - Transferee of a settlement deed is a necessary party and an aggrieved person entitled to challenge orders affecting property rights under Article 226 - Denial of such challenge would violate constitutional right to property under Article 300A - [Paras 15-17-18].

Civil Law - Jurisdiction - Section 23(1) - Jurisdictional Fact - The existence of a specific condition in the settlement deed obligating the transferee to provide basic amenities and physical needs is a jurisdictional fact - In absence of such an express condition the Tribunal cannot assume jurisdiction to declare a transfer void - Held - Tribunal acted without jurisdiction - [Paras 9-12-13].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned Orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal set aside – Application for cancellation of the Settlement Deed dismissed.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Scope of enquiry - Revisionist sought rejection of plaint alleging lack of cause of action and bar of res judicata - Trial Court dismissed the application holding that plaint must be read as a whole and that issues of res judicata and title are matters for trial - High Court held that the scope of Order VII Rule 11 is confined to plaint averments and accompanying documents - Held - Court cannot look into the written statement or external records to determine the existence of a cause of action at the threshold - Order affirmed - [Paras 10-14].

Civil Law - Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 - Preliminary determination - Plea of res judicata requires examination of pleadings and issues in former suits - Such material not part of the plaint - Held - Res judicata is a mixed question of fact and law that cannot be adjudicated upon under Order VII Rule 11 without trial - [Para 15].

Civil Law - Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Particulars vs Material Facts - Revisionist argued lack of details regarding agents and nature of obstruction - Held - Plaint only needs to plead material facts constituting the cause of action and not the evidence to prove them - Absence of particulars does not warrant rejection of the plaint - [Para 13].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed - Order of the Trial Court affirmed - Parties granted liberty to agitate all contentions during the trial of the suit.

Criminal Law - Bail - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Section 483 - Petitioner seeking bail in a case involving charges of human trafficking and sexual assault under POCSO and Immoral Traffic Prevention Act - Petitioner arrested and remanded to judicial custody - Prosecution contended that petitioner is a French national and high flight risk - Court noted period of incarceration and directed release on stringent conditions including surrender of passport to prevent absconding - Held - Bail granted subject to daily reporting and non-interference with witnesses - [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Law - Bail - Conditions - Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS - Discretion of Court - Imposition of stringent conditions on foreign national accused - Court directed reporting daily before respondent police and surrender of passport - Held - Breach of conditions entitles Trial Court to invoke powers as per P.K. Shaji vs State of Kerala - [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Petition allowed - Petitioner released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties and subject to specific conditions including daily reporting and prohibition from leaving India.