Land Acquisition – Review of Orders – Possession and Compensation – Review applicants, Union of India and Defence Estate Officer, sought review of orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, directing compensation to Terai Tea Company under the Act of 2013 – Review sought on grounds of not being parties to the original proceedings and adverse effect on their rights due to State Government’s concession – Held, Terai Tea had no right, title, or interest in the subject land as possession was taken by the Defence Estate in 1972 – Renewal of lease by State Government in 1976 was invalid as Terai Tea was not in possession – Orders under review recalled [Paras 1-50]. 

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Non-party Review Applicants – Supreme Court precedents allow review by non-parties if adversely affected – Error in the original orders recognized, as State Government’s concession was beyond its delegation authority – Principles of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC applied, allowing review due to mistake of fact and law [Paras 35-51]. 

Decision: Review allowed – Orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, recalled – State Government’s direction to initiate proceedings under the Act of 2013 set aside – Review application and connected applications disposed of without costs [Paras 50-51]. 

Divorce by Mutual Consent – Right to Sue – Appellants’ Claim: Issue regarding whether the right to sue for divorce by mutual consent survives to the legal heirs of the deceased husband when he dies before the second motion is moved. The Family Court’s decision denying the legal heirs’ request to continue the proceedings and directing the return of money paid under the mutual consent agreement was challenged [Paras 1-13]. 

Section 13-B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act – Requirement of Second Motion – Legal Interpretation: Section 13-B(2) mandates a second motion by both parties within a specific timeframe for the court to grant a divorce. Absence of this second motion due to the husband’s death rendered the petition infructuous. The court held that the right to seek divorce is a personal right that does not survive to the heirs, thus abating the petition [Paras 14-16]. 

Legal Heirs and Right to Appeal – Scope of Right to Sue: The right to seek divorce being a personal right does not survive to the legal heirs of the deceased. The appeal against the Family Court’s decision was dismissed, and the divorce petition was declared infructuous. Additionally, the court directed the respondent to redeposit the sum received as part of the mutual consent terms [Paras 17-24]. 

Decision:  Appeal Dismissed – Petition Abated: The court upheld the Family Court’s decision that the divorce petition became infructuous upon the husband’s death before the second motion under Section 13-B(2) was moved. The right to sue did not survive to the legal heirs. The court also affirmed the Family Court’s order directing the respondent to redeposit the sum received as part of the mutual consent terms [Paras 1-24]. 

Service Law – Termination – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Petitioner, an Anganwadi Worker, terminated without enquiry due to ACB case pendency – Court held termination illegal post-acquittal in criminal case, emphasizing principle of “innocent until proven guilty” – Mere pendency of criminal proceedings insufficient for termination without due enquiry [Paras 1-18]. 

Disciplinary Action – Principles of Natural Justice – Termination without issuing show cause notice or conducting enquiry violated natural justice – Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages and service benefits – Highlighted need for fair disciplinary proceedings [Paras 13-18]. 

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned termination proceedings set aside – Petitioner to be reinstated with 50% back wages and all service benefits to be computed and paid within four weeks [Paras 17-18]. 

Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Petition for quashing FIR for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. Petitioner accused of harassing and blackmailing the deceased, leading to his suicide. Suicide note recovered implicating the petitioner. Held, mere demand for repayment of a loan does not amount to abetment, but combined with harassment, blackmail, and threats, it can compel a person to commit suicide [Paras 1-28].

Legal Principles – Quashing FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court emphasized the parameters for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings. Held, FIR and accompanying material must disclose a cognizable offence. Truthfulness or sufficiency of evidence not to be assessed at this stage [Paras 10-29].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner directed to appear before the Trial Court. Observations made confined to the disposal of the petition without bearing on the merits of the case [Paras 30-32].

Land Acquisition – Review of Orders – Possession and Compensation – Review applicants, Union of India and Defence Estate Officer, sought review of orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, directing compensation to Terai Tea Company under the Act of 2013 – Review sought on grounds of not being parties to the original proceedings and adverse effect on their rights due to State Government’s concession – Held, Terai Tea had no right, title, or interest in the subject land as possession was taken by the Defence Estate in 1972 – Renewal of lease by State Government in 1976 was invalid as Terai Tea was not in possession – Orders under review recalled [Paras 1-50].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on the Face of Record – Non-party Review Applicants – Supreme Court precedents allow review by non-parties if adversely affected – Error in the original orders recognized, as State Government’s concession was beyond its delegation authority – Principles of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC applied, allowing review due to mistake of fact and law [Paras 35-51].

Decision: Review allowed – Orders dated November 21, 2016, and December 6, 2016, recalled – State Government’s direction to initiate proceedings under the Act of 2013 set aside – Review application and connected applications disposed of without costs [Paras 50-51].

Industrial Law – Misappropriation of Funds – Disciplinary Proceedings – Evidence – Appeal against the setting aside of the compulsory retirement of a bank employee – Allegations of misappropriation of funds by the cashier – Inquiry conducted by the bank found the allegations proved – Industrial Tribunal found the inquiry to be defective and set aside the punishment – High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, noting the absence of examination of complainants and reliance on unverified letters [Paras 1-14].

Preliminary Inquiry – Defective Inquiry – Tribunal found the domestic inquiry to be unfair and improper – Management failed to adduce additional evidence before the Tribunal – Principle that Tribunal must first consider validity of domestic inquiry and then allow management to present evidence if inquiry is found defective – In this case, Tribunal’s order was upheld due to lack of proper challenge to preliminary findings [Paras 6-13].

Burden of Proof – Tribunal’s reliance on evidence led during domestic inquiry despite declaring it defective – Emphasis on management’s duty to substantiate claims with valid evidence when preliminary inquiry is found defective – High Court reiterated the need for due process in disciplinary proceedings [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s order of reinstatement with 50% back wages affirmed – Bank’s negligence in challenging the preliminary order noted as critical in the decision [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 145 Cr.P.C. – Opportunity of Hearing – Proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated without proper notice and opportunity to the petitioners – Orders passed in violation of principles of natural justice – Proceedings quashed [Paras 1-14].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 146 Cr.P.C. – Attachment of Property – Emergency – Magistrate’s power to attach property in case of emergency – Necessary conditions and due process not followed – No emergency situation justifying attachment – Orders quashed [Paras 9-11].

Property Law – Auction Sale – Title Vesting – Auction sale confirmed and sale certificate issued – Title vested in purchaser – Property possession handed over by Advocate Commissioner – Section 30 of Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 not availed by aggrieved party – Criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. not maintainable [Paras 12-14].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Entire criminal proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 Cr.P.C. quashed – Orders of attachment and appointment of receiver set aside.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Sexual Assault – Appellant convicted for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl – Conviction under Sections 363, 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act by the trial court – High Court partially upholds and partially overturns the conviction – Insufficient evidence for Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 366 IPC – Conviction under Section 363 IPC upheld [Paras 1-34].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Victim’s Statement – Victim declared hostile, denied sexual assault – Medical evidence and recovery of items questioned due to procedural lapses and lack of corroboration – High Court notes the importance of consistency in witness testimony and procedural correctness [Paras 19-24].

Forensic Evidence – DNA and Medical Examination – Issues with sample collection and preservation – Prosecution failed to prove chain of custody for forensic samples – High Court rules that forensic evidence was unreliable due to procedural gaps [Paras 25-29].

Section 363 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Despite victim’s hostile testimony, sufficient evidence to convict under Section 363 IPC – Appellant’s actions constituted kidnapping from lawful guardianship [Para 33].

Section 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act – Convictions Overturned – Lack of evidence to prove intent to marry or sexual intercourse – High Court sets aside these convictions [Para 34].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 363 IPC upheld, sentences under Section 366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act set aside – Appellant to be released as period of sentence already undergone [Paras 34-36].

Interim Injunction – Prima Facie Case and Balance of Convenience: Temporary injunction granted in favour of plaintiffs on the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC. The trial court found that the plaintiffs, having purchased the property and the petrol pump through a registered sale deed, were in possession of the same and the injunction was necessary to prevent interference by the defendant-appellant [Paras 1-10].

Pre-Institution Mediation – Urgent Interim Relief Exception: Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, mandating pre-institution mediation, is not applicable when urgent interim relief is sought. The court held that the urgency of preventing interference in the operation of the petrol pump justified bypassing mediation [Paras 10-12].

Remedy Against Ex-Parte Injunction – Order 39 Rule 4 CPC: The court emphasized that the appropriate remedy for the defendant-appellant against an ex-parte injunction is to file an application under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC to vacate or vary the injunction. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that a statutory remedy was available and had not been exhausted [Paras 11-13].

Decision: First appeal from order dismissed. Defendant-appellant directed to seek relief by applying to the trial court under Order 39, Rule 4 CPC [Para 13].