Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction and Sentence – Criminal Revision – Petitioner issued a cheque to the complainant, which was dishonoured due to “Account Closed” – Contention that the cheque was issued as surety for a debt owed by her husband – No legally enforceable debt directly between petitioner and complainant – Trial and appellate courts found the petitioner guilty – High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, directing the petitioner to pay compensation in lieu of imprisonment. [Paras 1-25]

Issuance of Cheque – Legal Presumption – Section 139 of N.I. Act – Presumption of cheque issued for discharge of debt or liability – Burden on accused to rebut presumption – Petitioner failed to provide credible evidence to support claim that cheque was issued as surety for husband’s debt – Non-reply to statutory notice considered adverse inference. [Para 12-17]

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Revisional court should not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or unreasonable – No manifest error of law or gross injustice found in lower courts’ judgments – High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact. [Para 21-22]

Decision – Modification of Sentence – Conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act upheld – Petitioner directed to pay compensation of Rs.76,000 within one month in lieu of three months’ simple imprisonment – Failure to comply will result in execution of original sentence. [Para 24-25]

Educational Admission – Cancellation due to invalid Non-Creamy Layer Certificate – Challenge under Article 226 – Petitioner’s admission to MBBS course at Respondent No. 4 college, based on Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, cancelled after enquiry revealed misrepresentation by Petitioner’s father regarding marital status and spouse’s income – Enquiry conducted due to writ petition by another MBBS aspirant alleging misuse of OBC reservations – Petitioner continued studies under interim order from this Court [Paras 1-7].

Misrepresentation and False Information – Findings by Enquiry Committee – Petitioner’s father misrepresented marital status and spouse’s income on certificate application, leading to undue benefit under OBC quota – Enquiry confirmed father’s income alone under threshold but combined income with spouse would breach OBC income limit, affecting eligibility – Court upholds cancellation of certificate and consequent admission cancellation [Paras 11-18].

Balance of Convenience – Issuance of Degree – Despite unfair means in obtaining admission, Court permits retention of MBBS degree due to completion under interim orders, highlighting importance of not wasting medical education already imparted – Orders Petitioner to be considered as Open Category student, with directions to pay fee difference and a cost to Respondent No. 4 [Paras 19].

Decision and Relief Granted – The Court upheld the cancellation of the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate and MBBS admission but acknowledged the Petitioner’s completion of the degree under interim orders – Ordered the Petitioner to be treated as an Open Category student, with directions to pay the fee difference and a cost of Rs. 50,000 to the hospital – Recognized the need to maintain the integrity of admissions while balancing the national interest in retaining medical professionals [Paras 18-20].

Criminal Law – Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner (accused No. 3) sought bail in a case involving allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and IPC, including dowry harassment, assault, and abetment of sexual assault by the father-in-law (accused No. 2) – Petitioner argued false implication, delay in filing FIR, and absence of injuries as reasons for bail [Paras 1-4].

Delay in Lodging FIR and Investigation Status – Incident occurred on 4th February and 9th March 2024, but FIR lodged on 15th March 2024 – Court noted no materials produced by prosecution to support allegations against petitioner – Petitioner, a 51-year-old woman, had been in judicial custody since 16th March 2024 [Paras 3, 6].

Conditions for Bail – Petitioner granted bail with conditions to ensure attendance in court, prevent tampering with evidence, and ensure no commission of similar offences – Bail granted on bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount [Paras 5-7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner enlarged on bail with conditions to safeguard against potential flight risk or interference with prosecution witnesses – Directions given to Trial Court for verification of sureties and addresses before accepting the bail bond [Paras 7-7].

Criminal Law - Joinder of Additional Accused - Criminal Law – Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 – High Court’s Dismissal of Appeal Challenging Addition of Accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C – Court upheld Trial Court’s Order Adding Accused Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Plea of Alibi Considered and Rejected – Appellant’s Presence and Involvement Established through Multiple Witness Statements and CCTV Footage Identification – No Illegality or Perversity Found in Trial Court’s Order – Appeal Dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Section 319 Cr.P.C – Application and Scope – Supreme Court Guidelines Reiterated – Power to Add Accused should be Exercised Sparingly and with Higher Degree of Satisfaction – Evidence Before Court Must be Strong and Reliable, Leading to Conviction if Unrebutted – Court Emphasized Proper Scrutiny of Evidence before Adding Accused under Section 319. [Paras 7-11]

Plea of Alibi – Burden of Proof – High Threshold Required to Prove Alibi – Evidence must Exclude Possibility of Presence at Crime Scene – Mere Probable Presence Elsewhere Insufficient – Accused’s Alibi Unsupported by Corroborative Evidence, thus Rejected by Court. [Paras 4, 6, 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal is Dismissed Based on Strong Evidence Against Appellant – Eyewitness Testimony and CCTV Identification Corroborated by Multiple Witness Statements – No Fault in Trial Court’s Decision to Add Appellant as Accused – Trial Court’s Order Affirmed. [Para 15]

Arbitration Law – Arbitral Award – Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appellant challenged arbitral award and Section 34 dismissal – Arbitral award partially allowed claims of claimant based on supplementary agreement – Appellant argued supplementary agreement required state approval, was not granted, and breaches were based on it – Arbitrator’s findings on readiness and willingness, delays, and defaults by both parties upheld – Court found no patent illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-33]

Contract Law – Time of Essence – Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act – Arbitral award addressed whether time was essence of contract – Despite contractual stipulation, extended delivery period indicated time not essence – Supplementary agreement signed with mutual consent – Claimant’s failure to act per supplementary agreement noted – No basis to invalidate arbitrator's findings. [Paras 17-19]

Judicial Review – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Jurisdiction under Section 37 does not extend beyond Section 34 limitations – Court emphasized minimal judicial interference – Arbitrator’s construction of contract and evidence upheld unless patently illegal or perverse – Appeal did not meet threshold for interference. [Paras 26-32]

Decision: Held: Appeal dismissed – No interference with arbitral award or Section 34 order warranted – Findings of arbitral tribunal supported by evidence and contractual terms – No patent error or illegality established. [Para 33]

Procedural Law - Counsel's withdrawal and its effect on party representation - Counsel for the plaintiff withdrew without instructions, Trial Court decided case without notifying appellant - Held improper as per Baljit Singh v. Maya Ram [2006(4) RCR Civil 415] - The appellant should have been notified before proceeding in absence of representation - Case remanded to Trial Court for fresh adjudication - Notice to the parties mandatory when counsel withdraws without instructions. [Paras 5-8]

Jurisprudence on non-requirement of substantial questions of law for appeals elaborated in Pankajakshi (dead) through LRs &Ors. v. Chandrika &Ors. [2016 (6) SCC 157] referenced to clarify procedural requirements in the present context. [Para 9]

Decision - Remand of case to Trial Court - Given procedural improprieties and lack of proper notification to appellant following counsel's withdrawal, judgments and decrees of lower courts set aside - Matter remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with legal norms. [Para 10]

Revision under Article 227 – Challenging the Trial Court’s decision to dismiss the application for appointing a Local Commissioner to ascertain physical status of land – Trial court held that plaintiff-petitioner must prove his case without court’s assistance in gathering evidence – High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating it does not affect the rights of the parties and is thus not revisable [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Discretion – Appointment of Local Commissioner deemed discretionary – High Court reaffirmed that refusal to appoint does not prejudice any party’s rights, citing precedents in Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal and Smt. Raksha Devi v. Madan Lal, establishing non-revisability of such orders [Para 5-6].

Evidence and Proof – Emphasis on petitioner’s responsibility to prove ownership and possession without relying on court-appointed Commissioner’s investigation – High Court dismisses the revision, underscoring the petitioner’s obligation to substantiate claims independently [Para 8].

Property Law – Adverse Possession and Mortgage – Challenge against First Appellate Court’s decision that allowed the appeal of defendant-respondent No.1, reversing the favorable decree to the plaintiff-appellants from the Trial Court regarding ownership by adverse possession and mortgage rights – Supreme Court precedents and Full Bench decisions cited, confirming the mortgagor’s right to redemption remains irrespective of the duration unless extinguished by specific contract terms or court decree – No substantial question of law arises as the appellants failed to produce the original mortgage deed or specify its terms, thus, not substantiating their claim [Paras 1-13].

Mortgage Law – Usufructuary Mortgage – Applicability of Full Bench decisions on indefinite usufructuary mortgages where no redemption period is defined – Redemption rights upheld, emphasizing the principle “once a mortgage, always a mortgage,” thus making it redeemable at any time unless explicitly extinguished [Paras 10-12].

Evidence and Procedure – Rejection of appellants’ application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for additional evidence by citing its irrelevance to the crucial fact in question, i.e., the date or specifics of the alleged mortgage – Judicial discretion exercised in not remanding the case back due to lack of new evidence that could impact the outcome [Para 12].

Decision: Dismissal of the appeal due to the absence of merit and substantial legal questions, confirming the First Appellate Court’s ruling – No further proceedings required.

Property Dispute Among Brothers – Challenge to the rejection of plaint – Petitioner Arun Fotedar challenges the order of the Civil Judge, which dismissed his application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by respondent Dr. Jitender Fotedar concerning the ownership and funding of the construction of family-owned properties – Trial court order upheld by High Court, finding no merit in the petitioner’s arguments – All legal issues to be adjudicated during the trial – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Cause of Action & Limitation – Argument on limitation rejected – Plaintiff claimed cause of action arose upon learning of a transfer deed against his interests, discovered in 2020, well within the limitation period – Suit involves questions of oral promises and contributions acknowledged by defendant No.2 (another brother), creating a continuing cause of action [Para 16].

Value and Stamping of Suit – Suit properly valued and stamped – High Court confirmed that the plaintiff, being in joint possession as co-owner and disputing a transfer deed allegedly executed without his consent, rightly paid fixed court fees under applicable rules [Para 17].