Civil Law – Return of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 10 CPC – Dismissal Set Aside – Trial Court dismissed suit despite holding it lacked jurisdiction, which was upheld in first appeal – Held: When a court concludes it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter, it must return the plaint without deciding other issues – Dismissal was erroneous and legally impermissible – Suit to be tried de novo by competent court if re-presented [Paras 6–9].

Jurisdiction – Distinction between Trial and Appellate Stage – Uniform Rule Applies – The Court held that whether the issue of jurisdiction is raised at trial or appeal, the correct course upon finding lack of jurisdiction is return of plaint, not dismissal – Held: Court must not enter into merits once jurisdiction is declined [Para 6].

Interpretation of Precedent – Mst. Ananti v. Channu No Longer Good Law – Full Bench decision in Mst. Ananti (AIR 1930 All 193) overruled in light of Supreme Court judgments in Athmanathaswami (AIR 1965 SC 338) and EXL Careers (2020) 12 SCC 667 – Held: Return of plaint is mandatory where jurisdiction is lacking, irrespective of trial stage reached [Paras 4–6].

Procedure – Fresh Suit in Competent Court – De Novo Trial Permitted – Where plaint is returned due to lack of jurisdiction, it can be presented to the appropriate forum – Plaintiff entitled to benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Trial to proceed afresh [Para 6].

Decision – Second Appeal Allowed – Trial Court and Appellate Court judgments set aside – Direction issued to return the plaint – Liberty granted to appellants to present plaint before competent forum [Paras 6–9].

Criminal Law - Section 138 NI Act - Dishonour of Cheque – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Conviction Upheld – Accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheque – Presumption of legal liability under Sections 118 and 139 arose – Accused failed to rebut the presumption by credible defence – Held: Courts below rightly convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act [Paras 6, 7, 18, 23, 25, 30].

Security Cheque Defence – Inconsistent Defence – Not Substantiated – Accused claimed cheque was taken by complainant as security – Defence found contradictory and unsupported by evidence – No account statement or documentation produced – Held: No plausible explanation given for holding blank cheques – Defence rightly rejected by courts below [Paras 5, 24-25].

Service of Notice – Presumption under General Clauses Act – Valid Service Established – Legal notice was sent to correct address – Accused failed to rebut statutory presumption of service – No payment made after receipt of court summons – Held: Notice deemed served under Section 27 of General Clauses Act – C.C. Alavi Haji principle applied [Paras 33-35].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference Permissible – No Perversity Shown – Held: Revisional court not to reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or result in miscarriage of justice – Findings of conviction supported by evidence – No error of law or jurisdiction found – Revision dismissed [Paras 13-17].

Sentence and Compensation – Not Excessive – Compensation Justified – Accused sentenced to 2 months’ simple imprisonment and ₹1,60,000 as compensation for dishonoured cheque of ₹90,000 – Held: Sentence not excessive given the deterrent object of the NI Act and 10-year delay in realisation – Compensation rightly awarded [Paras 37-40].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – No merit in contention regarding limitation, lack of notice or absence of liability – Trial and appellate courts rightly convicted and sentenced the accused – No interference warranted [Paras 36, 42].

Criminal Writ - Maintainability under Article 227 – Challenge to Orders in Criminal Proceedings – Petition Held Maintainable – Objection to maintainability overruled as Article 227 permits interference in exceptional circumstances involving miscarriage of justice, even when alternate remedy under Section 482 CrPC exists – Petition entertained as interim relief had already been granted [Paras 15-19].

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings – Simultaneous Proceedings Permissible – Criminal Trial Permitted to Continue – Pendency of civil suit for cancellation of will deed and mutation does not bar criminal prosecution where prima facie ingredients of offence under IPC are made out – Held: Mere pendency of civil proceedings not a ground to quash criminal case [Paras 20-24].

Discharge under Section 239 CrPC – Grounds for Discharge Absent – Charges Not Groundless – Petitioners failed to show that the charges were groundless as per standard laid down by Supreme Court – Material placed by prosecution sufficient to proceed to trial – Discharge rightly refused by Trial Court and upheld in Revision [Paras 28-31, 36].

Forgery and Misrepresentation – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – Allegations of Manipulating Family Register and Executing Forged Will – Petitioners claimed as wife and daughter of deceased despite contradictory records and absence of adoption/marriage proof – Held: Enough prima facie material to proceed under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC [Paras 25, 32-35].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Orders of Trial Court and Revisional Court upheld – No legal or procedural error found warranting interference – Criminal proceedings to continue [Paras 37-38].

PIL - Constitutional Validity – Section 193(9) BNSS and Default Bail under Section 187(3) – Provision Upheld – Challenge rejected to Section 193(9) BNSS, 2023 as arbitrary and violative of Article 21 – Held: Provision allows further investigation post charge-sheet with court permission; safeguards including 90-day limit and judicial oversight provided – No violation of right to default bail or personal liberty found [Paras 11-16].

Right to Personal Liberty – Article 21 and Detention – No Infringement – Power of further investigation under BNSS not unfettered – Requires court permission and limited by 90-day timeline, extendable only by court – Hence, does not defeat the statutory safeguard of default bail under Section 187(3) [Paras 13-16].

Interpretation of Statutes – Presumption of Constitutionality – Possibility of Misuse Not a Ground – Mere apprehension of potential abuse of lawful provision not sufficient to declare it unconstitutional – Courts must interpret law, not legislate – Appropriate remedy lies with Legislature in case of misuse – Challenge dismissed [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No merit found in challenge to Sections 193(9) and 187(3) of BNSS, 2023 – Court upheld constitutionality of impugned provisions and dismissed PIL [Paras 21-22].

Civil Writ –  Environmental Law - Quarry Operations – Challenge to Stop Memo and Licensing – Section 233A Kerala Panchayat Raj Act – Stop Memo Set Aside – Deemed Licence Upheld – The petitioners approached the Court seeking to stop quarry operations conducted by the 3rd respondent alleging nuisance, environmental degradation, damage to property, and road destruction – The Panchayat had issued a stop memo under Section 233A(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act – The quarry owner challenged the memo, asserting full compliance with legal permissions including environmental clearance, pollution control consent, and mining lease – The Court held that the Panchayat had not followed the preconditions under Section 233A before issuing the stop memo, particularly failing to issue abatement directions or secure expert reports – Hence, the stop memo was quashed – However, the Panchayat was given liberty to act afresh after receiving expert inputs – Separately, challenges to quarry licence and environmental clearance were rejected, as statutory remedies existed – Deemed licence under Section 10 of the 1999 Act upheld – Petitions partly allowed and partly dismissed [Paras 19–29, 33–35, 38–39].

Environmental Nuisance – Quarry Operations – Legality of Stop Memo under Section 233A – Stop Memo Set Aside – Petitioners alleged quarry operation caused noise, cracks in buildings, water contamination and road damage – Panchayat issued stop memo under Section 233A without first issuing direction to abate nuisance or obtaining expert opinion – Held: Action premature and not compliant with Section 233A(3); stop memo unsustainable – However, Panchayat free to act after obtaining expert reports – Ext.P10 set aside [Paras 22–24, 30–33].

Quarry Licensing – Single Window Clearance – Deemed Grant and Procedural Fairness – Licence Upheld – Challenge to licence issued under deemed grant provisions under Section 10 of 1999 Act dismissed – Petitioner’s claim of denial of hearing rejected; hearing conducted via video conferencing – Panchayat’s objection regarding expired licence not sustained due to interim court directions – Held: No violation of procedure; licence valid [Paras 26–28, 36–37].

Jurisdiction – Panchayat Powers Under Section 233A – Pre-requisite for Action – Secretary Must First Issue Abatement Direction – Panchayat acted without issuing abatement directions under Section 233A(1), nor proved impracticability of nuisance abatement – Held: Powers under Section 233A(3) cannot be exercised unless preconditions met – Panchayat to revisit decision after expert inputs and hearing quarry owner [Paras 22–24, 30–33].

Public Road Damage – Responsibility for Maintenance – Quarry Impact on Infrastructure – Petitioners’ grievance regarding road damage due to quarry vehicles noted – Held: Road to be maintained by Panchayat; if quarry activity caused damage, Panchayat may recover cost from quarry operator – Petitioners may also approach District Collector if road conditions are inadequate for heavy traffic [Paras 25].

Environmental Clearance and Mining Lease – Availability of Statutory Appeal – Writ Dismissed – Challenge to Environmental Clearance and mining lease rejected – Held: Proper statutory appeal remedy available – No grounds to interfere under Article 226 – Petition dismissed with liberty to pursue appeal [Paras 29].

Civil Writ - Securitisation Application – Rejection on Technical Grounds – Signatures of All Applicants – Rejection Held Illegal – Securitisation Application under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act was dismissed by DRT solely on the ground that not all applicants had signed the petition or affidavit and that all borrowers were not impleaded – Held: Once the petition was entertained in 2020 and kept pending for five years with interim orders, it could not be dismissed later on hyper-technical procedural grounds – Procedural rules must subserve the ends of justice [Paras 2-4, 10-12].

Maintainability of Writ – Alternative Remedy under SARFAESI Act – Exceptions to Rule – Held: Though remedy before DRAT exists, High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where order passed is in defiance of fundamental principles of judicial procedure – Present case falls within exception as per Supreme Court’s ruling in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank [Paras 6-7, 13].

Procedural Law – Not a Tyrant – Application of Sathyanath v. Sarojmani – Held: Rules of procedure are meant to advance cause of justice – Non-signing of affidavit by all borrowers not fatal when all parties had executed vakalatnama and were duly represented – DRT ought to have decided matter on merits [Paras 5, 11].

Decision – DRT Order Quashed – Matter Remitted – Held: Impugned order dated 12.08.2025 passed by DRT rejecting Securitisation Application is set aside – Matter remanded for decision on merits within two months [Paras 14-15].

Family Law - Marriage – Validity of Hindu Marriage – Section 7 of the HMA – Appeal dismissed – Husband sought declaration that marriage was void on ground that Saptapadi was not performed – Held: Section 7(1) allows solemnisation of marriage as per customary rites of either party, without mandating Saptapadi in all cases – Sub-section (2) applies only if Saptapadi forms part of customary rites – Thus, absence of Saptapadi does not by itself invalidate marriage [Paras 8-9].

Burden of Proof – Non-performance of Saptapadi – Appellant failed to discharge burden – Husband, despite alleging non-performance, did not examine priest, relatives, or witnesses – Mere non-production of marriage album by wife does not shift burden – Presumption of validity of marriage operates in law – Hence, plea of invalidity rejected [Paras 7, 10, 13].

Presumption of Marriage and Legitimacy – Evidence Act, Sections 50 and 114 – Strong presumption arises when parties cohabit as husband and wife and child is born – Such presumption cannot be lightly rebutted – Reliance placed on Ningu Vithu Bamane v. Sadashiv Ningu Bamane, 1986 SCC OnLine Bom 30, affirming presumption of marriage and legitimacy of children – Appellant failed to adduce strong and conclusive evidence to rebut presumption [Paras 10-11].

Decision – The Family Court’s dismissal of husband’s suit upheld – Appeal dismissed – Presumption of valid marriage stands, and no ground to declare marriage void [Paras 14].

Regular Bail – Allegations under BNS and POCSO – Bail Granted – Petitioners sought regular bail in connection with FIR alleging harassment of two minor girls aged 13 and 14 under Sections 126(2), 78(1), 79, 352 BNS and Section 12 of POCSO Act – Charge-sheet filed and investigation completed – Petitioners in custody for over four months with no prior criminal record – Held: Seriousness of allegations alone not sufficient to deny bail pre-trial – Bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure victim safety and fair trial [Paras 3, 6, 15-18].

Concurrent Jurisdiction – Section 439 CrPC – High Court's Power to Entertain Bail Petition – Argument that bail lies before High Court only upon change in circumstances after Sessions Court rejection held to be incorrect – Held: High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is original and concurrent with Sessions Court – No bar on moving High Court after bail refusal by Sessions Court on same facts – Reliance placed on Devi Das Raghu Nath Naik v. State [Paras 13-14].

Victim Safety and Bail Conditions – Risk Mitigated by Stringent Terms – Petitioners directed not to contact victims or visit their village – Surrender of passports and mandatory disclosure of mobile and social media accounts ordered – Conditions imposed to ensure petitioners do not intimidate witnesses or abscond – Held: Such protective measures justify release despite seriousness of offence [Paras 16-18].

Final Decision – Bail Allowed – Petitioners ordered to be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds of ₹1,00,000 with one surety each – Held: Continued detention not justified in absence of antecedents and in light of completed investigation – Violation of bail terms would entitle prosecution to seek cancellation [Paras 18-20].

Service Law – Promotion – Clause 3(a) Army Order – FIR Does Not Constitute Prosecution – Promotion Withheld Illegally – Petitioner promoted as JCO via order dated 25.05.2022 – Promotion not implemented citing pending FIR and Clause 3(a) of Army Order – Held: Mere registration of FIR without charge-sheet or cognizance by court does not amount to prosecution – Withholding promotion on this basis is illegal – Directions issued to treat petitioner as JCO with all consequential benefits [Paras 1–14].

Applicability of Sealed Cover Procedure – Supreme Court Precedent in K.V. Jankiraman – Clarified – Promotion can be withheld only after issuance of charge-sheet or memo in criminal/disciplinary proceedings – FIR not sufficient ground to trigger Clause 3(a) of Army Order – Tribunal’s contrary view held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 8–13].

Decision – Tribunal Order Dated 14.12.2023 Set Aside – Petitioner to be Treated as Promoted – Promotion to JCO w.e.f. 25.05.2022 restored with consequential salary and service benefits – Compliance within 8 weeks [Paras 13–16].