Criminal Law -  Revision against charges - Abetment of Suicide – Ingredients under Section 306 IPC – Charge Maintained – Petitioner challenged the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC, arguing insufficient evidence of instigation – Court held that circumstantial evidence, including the death note and witness statements, created a grave suspicion justifying the framing of charges – Revision dismissed [Paras 8-12].

Mens Rea and Instigation – Legal Threshold Explained – Relying on precedents, Court reiterated that for conviction under Section 306 IPC, instigation requires a clear mens rea to provoke or incite the deceased to commit suicide – Found that petitioner’s alleged actions and omissions, including withdrawal from marriage and relationship dynamics, warranted further trial [Paras 15-18].

Death Note as Evidence – Inference of Circumstances – Court emphasized the relevance of the deceased’s death note, which indicated emotional distress caused by the petitioner’s withdrawal from marriage and alleged interest in another person – Held sufficient to infer possible instigation subject to trial [Paras 11-14].

Correction of Errors in Framing Charges – Direction Issued – Court noted procedural errors in the initial framing of charges by the Assistant Sessions Judge – Directed the trial court to correct and read over the revised charges to the petitioner before proceeding further [Para 19].

Decision: The criminal revision petition was dismissed. Court upheld the framing of charges under Section 306 IPC while directing the trial court to revise the charges and proceed with trial in accordance with law.

Bail - Economic Offences – Serious Nature of Charges – Bail Denied – Petitioner sought bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving siphoning of ₹3,035.52 crores through fraudulent practices, including bogus purchases, round-tripping, and fake transactions – Court held that the gravity of economic offences and the role of the petitioner, as a key beneficiary and participant in fraudulent transactions, militated against grant of bail [Paras 10-13].

Section 45 PMLA – Twin Conditions for Bail – Applied and Not Satisfied – Court reaffirmed the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA requiring satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence if released – Held: Evidence on record prima facie suggested active involvement of the petitioner in laundering proceeds of crime; bail rejected [Para 13].

Role in Money Laundering – Evidence and Statements – Material Implicating Accused – Evidence included forensic audit reports, statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, and documentary proof of siphoning funds via dummy entities and fake invoices – Petitioner was found to have derived substantial financial benefits, including remuneration disproportionate to his qualifications and contributions [Paras 6-12].

Parity with Co-Accused – No Entitlement to Bail Based on Role Comparison – Court noted that co-accused Tarun Kumar’s bail had been denied by the Supreme Court, and the petitioner’s role as a director and active decision-maker in the fraudulent transactions was graver than that of the co-accused who were granted bail on medical grounds [Para 13].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Held: In light of the petitioner’s significant involvement in the crime, quantum of siphoned funds, and failure to satisfy conditions under Section 45 PMLA, the application for bail was rejected – Pending applications disposed of without prejudice to trial merits [Para 13].

Civil Law - Devaswom Lands – Title and Possession – Recovery Decreed – Cochin Devaswom Board sought recovery of property associated with the Ashtamangalam Siva Temple – Defendants contested claiming adverse possession and lack of Devaswom title – Court upheld the plaintiff’s title based on the settlement register and decreed recovery of possession, rejecting claims of adverse possession due to unrebutted evidence [Paras 10-14, 18-20].

Adverse Possession – Evidence Insufficient – Claim Rejected – Defendants failed to establish continuous and uninterrupted possession for statutory periods – Unrebutted evidence supported Devaswom ownership – Claim of adverse possession dismissed [Paras 13, 15].

Additional Evidence in Appellate Stage – Denied – Application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to introduce additional evidence was rejected – Court held that no diligence or valid reason was shown for non-production at trial, and the new evidence did not substantiate any new grounds [Paras 19-23].

Remand to Trial Court – Guidelines for Exercise of Power – Application Rejected – Court held that circumstances for remand under Order XLI Rule 23A CPC were not met as issues were adequately addressed by the Trial Court – Emphasized sparing use of remand power to avoid prolonging litigation unnecessarily [Paras 24-28].

Dismissal of Appeals – No Grounds for Interference – Appeals by defendants dismissed due to lack of sufficient cause to set aside the Trial Court's judgment – No error found in decreeing possession to the plaintiff or in dismissing applications for setting aside ex parte decrees [Paras 29-31].

Decision: All appeals were dismissed. Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment and decrees in favor of the Cochin Devaswom Board. Costs were directed to be borne by the respective parties.
 

Service Law - Jurisdiction of Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) – Section 46 of BSF Act – Trial of Civil Offences – Nullity of Proceedings – The Summary Security Force Court convicted and punished the petitioners for remitting bank drafts disproportionate to their known sources of income under Section 46 of the BSF Act read with Section 13(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Held: Section 46 permits the trial of civil offences but Rule 47 of BSF Rules explicitly restricts SSFC jurisdiction to certain limited offences, such as simple hurt and theft – SSFC lacked jurisdiction to try offences under Section 13(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 24-27].

Failure to Conduct Proper Inquiry – Violation of BSF Act and Rules – Petitioners were not afforded an opportunity to be heard, and no proper inquiry was conducted as required under the BSF Act and Rules – Held: Proceedings and convictions are violative of procedural safeguards and natural justice – Punishments awarded are illegal and unsustainable [Paras 23-26].

Restoration of Service – Nullity of Dismissal Orders – Petitioners’ dismissal from service was declared void due to lack of jurisdiction and procedural violations – Held: Petitioners entitled to reinstatement in service with back wages, subject to further prosecution by the respondents [Para 27].

Judicial Precedent – Applicability of Sumanta Dutta v. Union of India – The Court relied on the judgment in Sumanta Dutta v. Union of India, SWP No. 135/2005, wherein it was held that the SSFC lacked jurisdiction to try civil offences beyond simple hurt and theft – Held: The legal principles enunciated in Sumanta Dutta squarely apply to the present cases [Paras 25-27].

Relief Granted:
The impugned orders passed by the Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) were quashed as being without jurisdiction and a nullity in law.
Petitioners were directed to be reinstated in service.
Payment of back wages shall depend on whether the respondents prosecute the petitioners further; if no prosecution is initiated, petitioners shall be entitled to full back wages from the date of dismissal until reinstatement.
 

Arbitration Law – Review under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Grounds for Review – Application Dismissed - The appellant sought a review of the judgment dismissing its appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging errors on the face of the record, including the enforceability of exorbitant interest rates and misinterpretation of the sanction letters – The court reaffirmed that review is permissible only on limited grounds such as an error apparent on the record – Held: The issues raised were addressed and rejected in the original proceedings; review dismissed [Paras 1–5, 27–35].

Commercial Contract – Interest at 36% per Annum – Validity and Enforceability – Rate Not Unconscionable - The court examined the claim of excessive interest rates under commercial sanction letters – Held: Exorbitant rates in commercial contracts reflect market risks and do not contravene public policy when the parties are sophisticated entities with equal bargaining power – The interest clause was upheld as valid under the terms agreed by the parties [Paras 15–25, 40–50].

Public Policy – Scope in Arbitration – Not Violated by Enforceable Interest Rates - The appellant claimed the arbitral award contravened public policy due to excessive interest – The court reiterated the limited scope of public policy under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that contravention of public policy requires a breach of fundamental principles of Indian law – Held: The interest clause in the sanction letters did not breach fundamental legal principles; award upheld [Paras 51–58].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No error apparent on the face of the record – Original judgment upheld – No costs awarded [Paras 59–65].
 

Service Law - Employment Eligibility – Acquittal and Criminal Record – Rejection of Candidature Overturned - Petitioner’s application for Constable post was rejected citing pending criminal proceedings under Sections 323 and 143 IPC – Petitioner was acquitted before document verification, and the Court held that mere involvement in criminal proceedings without a conviction does not render a candidate unsuitable – Denial of employment for non-heinous charges was unjustified [Paras 1-10, 28-30].

Concealment of Criminal Record – No Evidence of Misrepresentation Found - The FIR against the petitioner was registered after the application date, and the petitioner disclosed it during document verification – Court found no willful concealment or misrepresentation – Misconduct allegation dismissed as unfounded [Paras 12-14].

Nature of Acquittal – Honorability Irrelevant in Employment Decisions - Respondents argued that the petitioner’s acquittal was not “honorable” – Court clarified that the criminal jurisprudence does not differentiate between “honorable” and other types of acquittals – All acquittals restore the presumption of innocence unless set aside in appeal [Paras 18-21].

Principle of Reintegration – Right to Employment for Acquitted Individuals - Rejection of candidacy undermines the reintegration of individuals acquitted of charges into society – Employment denial based on acquitted charges stigmatizes individuals and contravenes constitutional values [Para 22].

Decision: Petition allowed. Rejection order dated 13/12/2021 set aside. Respondents directed to issue the petitioner’s appointment letter within 30 days of receiving a copy of this judgment. Pending applications disposed of [Para 30].
 

Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Uniform Market Value – Land acquired for the construction of a railway line, utilized for a single public purpose – Reference Court enhanced compensation uniformly at ₹25,000 per kanal, irrespective of land classification – Held: Enhancement justified as classification had no relevance due to uniform use of land – Based on the principle in Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 447, where no development deductions were permitted for land acquired for public purposes [Paras 8-9].

Market Value – Evidence and Comparable Sale Instances – Court relied on sale deeds of similar land located in the vicinity to determine fair compensation – Witness testimonies established the proximity of the acquired land to schools, factories, and residential areas, warranting higher compensation – Held: Enhanced compensation reflects the true market value of the acquired land [Paras 11-12].

Precedent – Similar Case Outcome – Binding Nature – Co-ordinate Bench judgment in General Manager, Northern Railway v. Rajneesh Kumar & Others (RFA No. 378 of 2012) affirmed the enhancement of compensation in identical circumstances for land acquired for the Nangal–Talwara Railway Line – Held: Consistency in judicial decisions mandates no interference with the Reference Court’s award [Para 13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court upheld the Reference Court's enhanced compensation of ₹25,000 per kanal – Appeal by Northern Railway dismissed as devoid of merit, with no error found in the award [Paras 10, 14].
 

Contract Law – Tender Process – Discharge of Tender – Eligibility Criteria – Petition under Article 226 challenging discharge of tender by respondent authority – Petitioner alleged fulfillment of eligibility criteria under clause 4.1.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), requiring five years' experience of owning and operating at least five functioning retail outlets of allopathic medicines – Respondent contended that petitioner failed to meet criteria as no single outlet had been continuously operational for five years – Held: Respondent's interpretation of eligibility clause upheld – Authority, as the author of tender, is best positioned to interpret terms – No mala fides or arbitrariness found in decision to discharge tender – Petition dismissed [Paras 6.1–6.5, 6.15–6.16].

Contract Law – "Letter of Intent" (LoI) – Binding Nature – Petitioner claimed LoI dated 05.08.2024 constituted a binding contract – Court held LoI issued under clause 31 of the NIT only indicated pre-acceptance of tender, not notification of award under clause 32 – No performance security furnished nor formal agreement executed as required – Communication from the Chief Medical Officer via personal email found irregular and non-binding – Held: No concluded contract existed – Respondent acted within rights to discharge tender [Paras 6.6–6.13].

Administrative Law – Judicial Review of Tender Decisions – Respondent authority discharged tender upon finding no bidder met eligibility criteria – Authority received multiple complaints and scrutinized documents before rejecting bids – Discretion to cancel tender vested in clause 30 of NIT – Court deferred to authority's decision in absence of arbitrariness, mala fides, or procedural irregularity – Held: Interpretation of tender terms by employer found reasonable and in line with the purpose of ensuring uninterrupted supply of medicines [Paras 6.3–6.5, 6.14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Discharge of tender upheld – No costs.
 

Chamber Allotment – Transparency and Fairness – Lack of Public Notification – Allotment Sustained - Appellant sought re-allotment of Chamber No. 103 on medical grounds, alleging that the allotment process lacked transparency – Court observed that while the chamber’s vacancy was not publicly notified, the allotment was based on seniority, and the appellant’s claim could not supersede that of senior advocates – Held: Allotment to respondents sustained; guidelines must ensure transparency in future [Paras 12–18].

Allotment on Medical Grounds – Validity of Claim – Appellant’s Request Denied - The appellant argued for allotment on medical grounds relating to her and her husband’s health conditions – Court noted that the guidelines did not provide for preferential allotment on such grounds unless the applicant’s health was directly affected – Held: Request for medical grounds not justified under the current guidelines [Paras 19–23].

Legal Right to Specific Allotment – Non-Existence – Appeal Dismissed - The Court reiterated that the appellant did not have a legal right to claim a specific chamber – Held: Chambers must be allotted per established guidelines, and the appellant’s refusal of an alternative chamber on the second floor undermined her request – Appeal dismissed with suggestions for future humanitarian consideration [Paras 24–28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference with the judgment of the Single Judge – Future consideration of appellant’s application on humanitarian grounds suggested if a first-floor chamber becomes vacant [Paras 29–33].