Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dismissal under Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Accused Never Appeared – Magistrate dismissed complaints on 29.09.2014 and recorded acquittal despite accused not appearing from 2012 onwards – Continuous issuance of summons and warrants – Held: Section 256 Cr.P.C. contemplates acquittal when case is fixed for appearance/hearing and accused is before Court – Acquittal of an accused who never faced trial is patently illegal and contrary to scheme of summons trial [Paras 52-54].

Section 256 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Object – Provision intended to protect accused from harassment when complainant defaults despite accused’s presence – Magistrate must consider whether complainant’s personal attendance was essential and whether adjournment justified – In present case, matter was not at hearing stage and accused never appeared – Invocation of Section 256 improper – Order dated 29.09.2014 illegal [Paras 46-49, 54].

Revision vs Appeal – Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. vis-à-vis Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. – Contention that remedy lay in appeal against acquittal rejected – Held: Where so-called acquittal is passed without trial and without evidence at post-cognizance stage, such order is grossly erroneous and amenable to revisional correction – Revisional court competent to set aside patently illegal order – No bar under Section 401(4) attracted in peculiar facts [Paras 56-57].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Sessions Court empowered to examine correctness, legality and propriety of order – Revisional interference justified where Magistrate exercised discretion arbitrarily and contrary to statutory scheme – Restoration of complaint by revisional court upheld [Paras 56-57].

Summons Trial – Scheme under Sections 251–255 Cr.P.C. – Presence of accused is foundational for framing substance of accusation and proceeding with evidence – Without accused’s appearance, trial cannot commence – Consequently, acquittal under Section 256 without accused facing trial unsustainable [Paras 50-53].

Section 204(4) Cr.P.C. – Dismissal for Non-payment of Process Fee – Record showed complainant continuously took steps for issuance of summons and warrants – Complaints not dismissed for default in process fee – Hence Section 204(4) not attracted [Paras 37-41].

Summoning Order – Challenge – Argument that cheque issued by company and company not impleaded – Complaint disclosed personal transaction and issuance of cheques by accused – No material to show cheques drawn on company account – Section 141 NI Act not attracted – Summoning order dated 25.02.2012 valid [Paras 31-32, 62].

Section 401(2) Cr.P.C. – Opportunity of Hearing – Allegation that accused not heard in revision – Record and conduct showed continuous evasion of process – No prejudice demonstrated warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 31, 56].

Expeditious Trial – Section 138 NI Act – Complaints pending since 2012 – Accused repeatedly avoided summons, bailable and non-bailable warrants – In light of Supreme Court directions in In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 NI Act, trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Para 63].

Decision: All applications filed by accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Cumulative cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed payable to complainant within stipulated time – Application filed by complainant allowed – Trial Court directed to expedite disposal of all connected complaints in accordance with law and Supreme Court guidelines [Para 63].

Contempt – Breach of Undertaking – Liquidator – Petitioner alleged wilful disobedience of statement recorded in order dated 09.04.2025 whereby Liquidator undertook not to take further steps in e-auction process – Prima facie material indicated undue haste in obtaining stakeholder approval and declaring successful bidder – However, Court refrained from recording findings in view of subsequent developments and corrective course adopted [Paras 8–11, 15].

Liquidation – Sale as Going Concern – Stakeholders’ Consultation Committee – Highest bidder at e-auction dated 08.04.2025 declared at Rs.28.27 Crores – Petitioner later offered Rs.54 Crores for same assets – Court approved course to maximize value of liquidation estate and recorded Liquidator’s undertaking to move NCLAT for setting aside earlier auction and conduct re-auction with reserve price of Rs.54 Crores [Paras 12–17].

Maximization of Value – Paramount Consideration – Process Information Document empowered Liquidator to annul bid process and restart auction without assigning reasons – Fresh higher offer in interest of stakeholders and public sector banks – Court emphasized that regulatory oversight lies with NCLAT and that re-auction subserves object of IBC [Paras 16–18].

Jurisdictional Deference – NCLAT – Court held that it is for NCLAT to pass consequential orders regarding setting aside auction and conduct of re-auction – Earlier conduct of Liquidator not to preclude corrective steps or NCLAT’s adjudication – Contempt Court limited itself to recording statements and facilitating value maximization [Paras 18–20].

Intervenor Applications – Objections by Highest Bidder – Applications seeking recall of order dated 21.01.2026 dismissed – Order merely recorded undertaking of Liquidator to approach NCLAT – Objections to be adjudicated by NCLAT in pending appeal [Paras 19–20].

Bank Draft – Safeguards – Petitioner furnished bank draft of Rs.54 Crores – Utilization subject to NCLAT orders – Provision made for deposit in interest-bearing FDR or return with undertaking if required – Ensuring transparency pending re-auction proceedings [Para 21].

Decision: Contempt petition disposed of in terms of recorded statements – Liquidator permitted to move NCLAT for setting aside earlier auction and seeking re-auction with enhanced reserve price – Applications dismissed – Further action subject to orders of NCLAT.

Writ Jurisdiction – Hiring of Hotel for Protected Persons – Non-Payment of Verified Dues – Hotel hired by Divisional Commissioner and later by Deputy Commissioner for accommodation of protected political persons and security forces – Bills raised for boarding and lodging – Government constituted Bill Verification Committee which drastically reduced claim and released nominal amount – Held: Where hiring and occupation are admitted and premises remained under control of protectees and security forces, respondents cannot dispute liability at belated stage – Committee proceedings vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice – Petition allowed [Paras 21-23, 28-33].

Pleadings – Specific Denial – Admission by Non-Traverse – First Claim Period – Respondents failed to specifically deny hiring of petitioner Hotel for period w.e.f. 18.11.2020 to 05.10.2021 – In terms of Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC, absence of specific denial amounts to admission – Admission is substantive evidence and need not be proved in view of Section 58 Evidence Act – Held: Petitioner entitled to relief for first claim period [Paras 23-25].

Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admission – Court empowered to pass appropriate order where admission of fact is evident from pleadings or circumstances – Reliance placed on Charanjit Lal Mehra v. Kamal Saroj Mahajan, (2005) 11 SCC 279 – Held: Admitted hiring and occupation justify grant of relief [Para 24].

Contractual / Pecuniary Claim – Maintainability in Writ – Though writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked for disputed contractual claims, where material facts regarding hiring, occupation and State control over premises are admitted and denial is arbitrary, writ court can intervene to prevent unjust withholding of legitimate dues [Paras 16-18, 28-32].

Bill Verification Committee – Distinction from Fact-Finding Committee – Principles of Natural Justice – Committee constituted months after de-hiring to verify bills – No opportunity afforded to petitioner to participate or justify claim – No indication of verification of petitioner’s occupancy records – Rejection/reduction of claim on ground of inflation without hearing violates audi alteram partem – Held: Ex parte report unsustainable and liable to be quashed [Paras 30-32].

Occupation and Control of Premises – Effect – Hotel premises guarded round the clock by security forces – Two rooms under continuous occupation of security personnel – Keys remained with protectees – Petitioner had no control or liberty to commercially exploit premises otherwise – Held: Respondents cannot later contend that rooms were not in actual occupation or deny liability after benefiting from exclusive reservation of accommodation [Paras 28-29, 32].

Delay in Constitution of Committee – Afterthought – Premises de-hired on 01.06.2022 – Committee constituted on 05.11.2022 and report submitted on 02.02.2023 – Held: Belated verification without associating petitioner and without examining whether accommodation was reserved exclusively for State protectees renders report arbitrary [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 05.11.2022 constituting Bill Verification Committee and ex parte report dated 10.02.2023 quashed – Respondents directed to liquidate petitioner’s claims within eight weeks – In default, interest @ 6% per annum payable.

Education Law – Medical PG Admission – NEET PG 2021 – Forfeiture of Fee – Respondents (Doctors) secured seats in initial allotments but surrendered them to participate in the Mop-Up round – They were required to pay/deposit 10% of the annual tuition fee (Rs. 1,57,500/-) as an "Exit Fee" per Clause 10-1.18 of the Prospectus (Ext. P1) – Single Judge directed refund/adjustment of said amount – Held: The respondents exited from seats allotted in the second phase or retained seats until the completion of the second phase with full knowledge of the Prospectus conditions. Clause 10-1.18 of the Prospectus explicitly provides that exit from seats already allotted is permitted only on forfeiture of 10% of the total annual fee. This condition is intended to prevent unnecessary exits that result in medical seats remaining vacant due to non-availability of candidates in subsequent rounds. [Paras 10, 15]

Administrative Law – Binding Nature of Prospectus – Challenge to Clauses – Respondents sought refund without challenging the validity of the forfeiture clause (Clause 10-1.18) in the Prospectus – Held: The guidelines in the Prospectus govern the admission process and are binding on the candidates. Since the respondents surrendered their seats to take a "calculated risk" for the Mop-Up round with full knowledge of the consequences, they are liable to forfeit the prescribed amount. In the absence of a specific challenge to the legality of the Prospectus clause, the Court cannot direct a refund that contravenes the stated admission guidelines. The learned Single Judge failed to consider these aspects in the proper perspective. [Paras 7, 8, 15, 16]

Ratio Decidendi – In professional course admissions, forfeiture clauses in the Prospectus regarding exit fees are valid and enforceable to ensure seat discipline and prevent the wastage of specialized medical seats. Candidates who voluntarily surrender allotted seats to participate in subsequent counselling rounds must abide by the financial penalties prescribed in the governing Prospectus if they choose to exit after the cutoff phases. [Paras 12-16]

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No.16607 of 2023 is set aside, and the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Constitution of India – Freedom of Expression and Democratic Protest – Use of Loudspeakers – Trade Union sought permission to conduct mobile awareness campaign using two autorickshaws fitted with loudspeakers – Police rejected application citing presence of educational institutions, hospitals, no-honking zones and senior citizens – Court held that awareness campaign is a facet of democratic process and cannot be unreasonably restricted – Blanket rejection without considering imposition of reasonable conditions amounts to arbitrariness – Impugned endorsement set aside [Paras 1–4].

Administrative Law – Reasonableness – Exercise of Discretion by Police Authorities – While regulating use of loudspeakers falls within police powers, authority must consider whether concerns can be addressed by imposing conditions rather than outright denial – Noted that similar permissions were granted in other sub-divisions subject to safeguards – Failure to examine comparable circumstances rendered decision unreasonable [Paras 2–4].

Public Order and Noise Regulation – Conditional Permission – Court balanced competing interests by directing permission subject to safeguards including non-obstruction of traffic, avoidance of educational institutions and hospitals, compliance with noise pollution norms, prohibition on defamatory content, use of box loudspeakers (not DJs), and restriction beyond 10 PM – Held: Reasonable regulation permissible but not total prohibition [Para 3, Order].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Respondent No.2 directed to permit use of two autorickshaws with loudspeakers on 12.02.2026 subject to specified conditions – Liberty reserved to petitioners to produce certified copy for immediate compliance.

Criminal Law – Murder vs Culpable Homicide – Sudden Fight Between Brothers – Altercation over Construction of House – Trial Court convicted appellants under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment – Evidence of sole eye witness (wife of deceased) showed initial scuffle between brothers – Accused were initially unarmed and later brought sword and baluwa – No prior enmity except dispute over house construction – No evidence of premeditation – Accused did not flee and were arrested at spot – Held: Ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC satisfied – Act committed in heat of passion upon sudden quarrel without premeditation and without undue advantage – Conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC – Sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 45–60, 64–66].

Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Applicability – For attracting Exception 4, prosecution must show absence of premeditation, sudden fight, heat of passion, and no undue advantage – Court relied upon Arumugam v State, Surain Singh v State of Punjab and Pulicherla Nagaraju v State of A.P. – Mere fact that deadly weapon used does not ipso facto attract Section 302 if surrounding circumstances indicate sudden quarrel and lack of prior intention – Each case to be tested on facts to ascertain intention [Paras 38–41, 50–56].

Evidence – Sole Eye Witness – Related Witness – Testimony of wife of deceased found consistent regarding scuffle preceding assault – Medical evidence corroborated sharp-cut injuries on vital parts – However, background facts established sudden quarrel between close family members – Absence of documentary proof of partition and immediate escalation supported theory of sudden fight [Paras 48–56].

Section 324 IPC – Assault on Informant – Injury report proved simple injury on left arm of informant – Conviction of appellant Somra Oraon under Section 324 IPC upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 23, 63].

Sentence – Period Undergone – Appellants in custody for more than twelve years – Considering modification of conviction to Section 304 Part I IPC, sentence reduced to period already undergone – Direction for release forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 64–65].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Conviction under Section 324 IPC affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

Matrimonial Law – Remand – Scope and Compliance – High Court earlier remanded matter directing Family Court to permit additional evidence on financial capacity of husband and determine permanent alimony – Family Court restored earlier dismissal without quantifying alimony on ground that parties had not mutually agreed – Held: Clear misreading of remand order – Determination of alimony was mandatory irrespective of mutual consent – Restoration order set aside and matter remitted for fresh adjudication in terms of remand directions [Paras 2–5].

Permanent Alimony – Judicial Duty to Quantify – Remand order required Family Court to independently assess financial strength and determine quantum – Failure to exercise jurisdiction vested by remand amounts to non-compliance – Cryptic restoration order unsustainable in law [Para 5].

Maintenance – Interim Relief During Pendency – Prolonged pendency of matrimonial litigation for over thirteen years – Wife found to be impecunious and without financial support – Relying on Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, Court reiterated that object of maintenance is to prevent vagrancy and destitution and to ensure dignified survival – Husband directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month from January 2026 till disposal of proceedings [Paras 7–9].

Social Justice – Obligation of Husband – Maintenance proceedings are measure of social justice – Husband cannot take subterfuges to deny sustenance to wife – Even able-bodied husband obliged to provide financial support pending adjudication [Para 7].

Expeditious Disposal – Family Court directed to dispose of remanded proceeding within three months considering long pendency – Parties directed to appear before Family Court on specified date [Paras 6, 10–11].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Order dated 20.04.2023 restoring earlier judgment set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court, Cuttack to decide afresh in terms of remand order dated 28.06.2022 – Interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month directed to be paid by husband to wife till disposal – Registry directed to communicate order forthwith.

Local Governance – Special Grade Town Panchayat – Applicability of Statute – Karumandisellipalayam being a Special Grade Town Panchayat is governed by the District Municipalities Act and Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and not by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 – Arguments based on Panchayats Act held misconceived – Statutory framework under Urban Local Bodies Act applicable [Paras 41–46].

Burial Ground – Long Standing Usage – Revenue Classification as Cart Track – Evidence including 2000 Panchayat Resolution, Government Grant, Cash Book, Road/Street Ledger and Collector’s Report establish existence of burial ground at least from year 2000 and usage for over 70 years – Mere classification in ‘A’ register as cart track does not efface factual and customary use as burial ground – Court holds burial ground exists in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 [Paras 50–54].

Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 – Section 172 – Registration and Licensing of Burial Grounds – Obligation of owner or person in control to register existing burial grounds – Council empowered to regulate and notify – Absence of notification prohibiting burial elsewhere renders plea for total prohibition untenable – Subjective satisfaction of Council required for ban under Section 172(3) [Paras 56–58].

Reclassification – Pending Resolution – Town Panchayat Resolution dated 14.10.2025 seeking measurement and reclassification as burial ground – Matter under consideration by Revenue Authorities – Court declines to interfere at this stage and rejects mandamus to prevent reclassification – Ongoing statutory process not to be interdicted [Para 60].

Right to Dignity – Dead Persons – Disturbance of Graves – Collector’s report reveals levelling of graves and disturbance of burial sites – Held: Right to dignity under Article 21 extends to dead – Temporal sanctity of grave violated – Authorities ought to have initiated criminal proceedings under BNSS/Section 297 IPC – State reminded of constitutional and statutory duty [Paras 62–65].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Access to Burial Grounds – Denial or destruction of burial sites of Scheduled Caste community amounts to violation of Article 17 and may attract penal consequences under SC/ST Act – District Collector empowered and obligated to act – Failure to protect burial rights deprecated [Para 66].

Municipal Duty – Constitutional Mandate – Article 243W read with XII Schedule mandates Town Panchayat to provide and maintain burial and cremation grounds – Section 172(4) obligates provision and maintenance within municipal limits – Local body directed to secure and maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage [Paras 61, 67].

Decision:

W.P.No.37501 of 2025 disposed of with directions –

(i) District Collector to ensure segregation and proper fencing of burial/cremation area in S.Nos.621/3 & 628/8 –

(ii) Town Panchayat to maintain burial ground free from encroachment and garbage –

(iii) Revenue authorities to act on resolution dated 14.10.2025 and exclude burial area from classification as cart track –

(iv) Collector to initiate action against persons responsible for levelling graves –

W.P.Nos.36402 of 2025 and 44377 of 2025 dismissed – No costs.

Educational Institutions – De-affiliation – “Civil Death” – De-affiliation termed as extreme measure having far-reaching consequences on students and staff – Such action must strictly comply with procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice – Court emphasized proportionality in administrative action [Paras 43–44].

SOP for De-affiliation – Timelines – Inordinate Delay – Show cause notice issued on 01.10.2022 – De-affiliation order passed only on 20.09.2024 – SOP contemplated conclusion of process within approximately 95 days – Respondent failed to adhere to prescribed timelines, causing prejudice to petitioner – Delay relevant in moulding relief [Paras 31–33, 38–39].

Portal Blocking – De facto De-affiliation – Respondent blocked admission portal from Academic Session 2023–2024 onwards – Petitioner prevented from admitting students for three consecutive academic sessions – Though formal order passed later, practical debarment commenced earlier – Such preceding period liable to be counted towards de-affiliation penalty [Paras 35–41].

Doctrine of Proportionality – Minimum Three-Year Debarment – Affiliation Norms-2018 provided minimum three-year de-affiliation – Impugned order silent on duration – Court held that counting period from Academic Session 2023–2024 results in completion of three-year debarment – Further continuation of penalty would be disproportionate [Paras 41–42].

Withdrawal of Complaint – Positive Inspection Report – Complaint withdrawn by complainant’s wife – Joint inspection report dated 05.07.2023 found infrastructure satisfactory and recommended continuation – Despite this, SSDEC recommended de-affiliation – Though Court refrained from adjudicating legality of decision, these factors weighed in granting equitable relief [Paras 37, 44].

Judicial Review – Moulding of Relief – Without entering into merits of penal action, Court exercised writ jurisdiction to balance equities and held that de-affiliation till date of judgment meets ends of justice – Direction issued to restore affiliation from Academic Session 2026–27 [Paras 44–45].

Decision: Writ petition partly allowed – De-affiliation period treated as completed – Respondent directed to restore affiliation from Academic Session 2026–27 and reopen portal for fresh admissions – Pending applications disposed of.