Debt Recovery – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners challenge the order of the Recovery Officer executing a recovery certificate for Rs. 12,66,31,700/- issued by DRT, Jabalpur – Petitioners argue lack of opportunity to file objections on first appearance, violating principles of natural justice – Court examines jurisdiction and procedural compliance of the Recovery Officer [Paras 1-22].

Alternative Remedy – Writ Jurisdiction – Despite the availability of alternative remedy under Section 30 of RDB Act, petitioners seek writ jurisdiction on grounds of procedural irregularity and jurisdictional errors – Full Bench and Supreme Court precedents on exercising writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies discussed – Court emphasizes specific pleadings and evidence required to challenge jurisdiction [Paras 9-20].

Judicial Precedents – Applicability and Distinction – Various precedents considered for the applicability of writ jurisdiction despite alternative remedies – Court differentiates facts of cited cases, emphasizing need for specific pleading on jurisdictional errors and procedural violations [Paras 19-20].

Decision:

Petition Dismissed – Court finds no violation of principles of natural justice or jurisdictional error by the Recovery Officer – Petitioners directed to pursue alternative remedy under Section 30 of RDB Act – Order of Recovery Officer upheld, execution proceedings to continue [Paras 21-23].

Constitutional Law – Protection of Life and Liberty – Live-in Relationship – The petitioners, Harpreet Kaur and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking protection of their life and liberty, as they feared harm from relatives unhappy with their live-in relationship. The court acknowledged the petitioners' right to protection irrespective of societal views on their relationship​​.

Protection for Live-in Couples – Judicial Precedents – The court referred to several precedents where protection was granted to couples in live-in relationships, including Pardeep Singh v. State of Haryana, Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab, and Amandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab, noting that individuals in such relationships are entitled to equal protection under the law​​.

Assessment of Threat Perception – The court directed respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation dated 01.05.2024, assess the threat perception, and take appropriate action in accordance with the law. The decision emphasized that protection should be provided based on the perceived threat to life and liberty​​.

Legal Right to Choose Partner – The judgment reaffirmed that every adult has the right to live with a partner of their choice, and protection of life and liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that the legality of the relationship is not a primary concern when addressing threats to life and liberty​​.

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions to respondent No.2 to consider the petitioners' representation and take appropriate action based on the threat perception. The court also clarified that this order does not prevent the State or any aggrieved person from initiating appropriate legal proceedings against the petitioners if warranted by their actions​​.

Execution of Order – Mortgage Deed – Section 83 TP Act – Petition for quashing order rejecting objection against execution of mortgage deed – High Court upheld execution order, emphasizing that absence of decree does not bar execution – Order dated 30.06.1987 considered executable despite procedural technicalities – Execution to proceed in favor of respondents [Paras 1-23].

Ministerial vs. Judicial Orders – Nature of Orders Under Section 83 TP Act – Contention that order was ministerial and not executable rejected – High Court clarified that orders passed in miscellaneous cases, if leading to rights determination, are executable – Distinction between ministerial and judicial functions discussed [Paras 5-7, 8, 13].

Limitation and Doctrine of Merger – Applicability in Execution Proceedings – Argument of execution barred by limitation and non-applicability of merger doctrine dismissed – High Court found execution within limitation period and previous judgments affirmed execution's legality [Paras 9-12, 17-18].

Justice-Oriented Approach – Interpretation of Procedural Laws – Emphasized on substantial justice over procedural technicalities – Referenced precedents highlighting liberal interpretation to prevent miscarriage of justice – Court upheld procedural flexibility for justice's sake [Paras 10-12, 13-15].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Objection against execution rejected, execution to proceed as ordered by lower court – Emphasized prompt execution to avoid undue delays and uphold legal rights of decree-holders [Paras 19-20].
 

Arbitration Law – Dispute resolution in commercial infrastructure projects – Appeals filed by NHAI challenging the arbitral decision favoring GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Ltd, which was awarded a contract for highway development and claims subsequent financial adjustments due to “Change in Law” events affecting project costs and revenues – Claims include adverse impacts from legal and policy changes in sand mining and state bifurcation altering traffic patterns and financial forecasts – Tribunal and Single Judge findings focus on interpretation of “Change in Law” under the contract, the financial implications, and whether such changes necessitated adjustments to contracted payments and liabilities [Paras 41, 82-91].

Financial and Contractual Assessments – NHAI disputed the reductions in traffic and revenue claimed by GMR as not substantiated appropriately under the concession agreement – Tribunal and court evaluated the financial model and reports provided during the bid and project execution phases, highlighting reliance on traffic studies for financial projections – Both tribunal and court findings emphasized the role of the concession agreement in guiding the resolution of these financial discrepancies through a reevaluation of the financial impacts considering the actual project data [Paras 53, 86, 93].

Judicial Review – The High Court upheld the tribunal’s award, emphasizing the limited scope of intervention in arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Court found no reason to deviate from tribunal findings that were based on substantial evidence and agreement terms, particularly regarding the impacts classified as “Change in Law” [Paras 77, 101-102].

Decision – Upholding of Arbitral Award and Jurisdictional Affirmation under Section 34 – High Court confirms the correctness of the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the “Change in Law” provisions within the Concession Agreement – Validates the need for re-assessment of compensation claims by an independent arbitrator rather than the appellant, who is a party to the dispute – Acknowledges the comprehensive evaluation of legal and contractual terms by both the arbitral tribunal and the learned Single Judge – Appeals and related applications dismissed, with orders for the independent arbitrator to reassess the respondent’s financial claims. [Paras 103-104]

Eviction Proceedings – Non-Service of Summons Contested – Petitioner challenges eviction under Section 14(1)€ of the Delhi Rent Control Act, asserting improper service of summons – Respondent asserts summons were served through multiple modes including registered post and publication – High Court finds no infirmity in the service process – Service deemed proper despite petitioner’s non-appearance to contest; eviction upheld. [Paras 1-10]

Service of Summons – Methods and Efficacy – Summons served via postman, publication, and affixation after petitioner avoided service – Court finds process server’s and postman’s reports credible despite petitioner’s allegations of collusion with the respondent – Substituted service via affixation and newspaper publication validated by trial record. [Paras 5-7, 9]

Legal Proceedings – Conduct of Parties – Petitioner’s non-participation in eviction proceedings despite known pending legal actions criticized – High Court dismisses argument for service in presence of civil court, citing lack of authority to accept service on petitioner’s behalf – Statutory requirements of the Delhi Rent Control Act for serving summons strictly adhered to by the respondent. [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Eviction order upheld – High Court confirms proper service of summons, rejecting allegations of improper service and collusion – Petitioner’s failure to contest eviction proceedings after summons duly served leads to dismissal of revision petition. [Para 10]

Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners sought quashing of the charge-sheet, cognizance order, and ongoing proceedings – Allegation of dismantling boundary marks and issuing threats – Contention that the dispute was civil in nature and the criminal proceedings were initiated as a form of harassment – Impugned cognizance order issued on a printed proforma without judicial application of mind – Order quashed, Magistrate directed to reconsider in accordance with law [Paras 1-23].
Cognizance – Requirement of Judicial Application of Mind – Court held that the cognizance/summoning order must reflect judicial application of mind and not be issued mechanically on a printed proforma – Emphasized that the Magistrate must apply mind to the material on record before taking cognizance [Paras 9-14, 18-20].
Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exercise of Inherent Powers – Reiterated the principles governing the exercise of inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice – Found the mechanical issuance of cognizance order without judicial application of mind as an abuse of process [Paras 16-17, 21].
Decision – Application Partly Allowed – Held – Impugned cognizance and summoning order dated 25.07.2022 set aside – Magistrate directed to pass a fresh order on the charge-sheet after due consideration – No opinion expressed on the merits of the case [Paras 23-24].
 

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Quashing of Proceedings – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 306 IPC – Allegation that applicants abetted suicide by threatening and harassing the deceased – Suicide note indicating mental distress caused by false allegations and threats – Court examines evidence to determine if prima facie case of abetment is made out – Held, sufficient material exists for prosecution under Section 306 IPC – Application dismissed. [Paras 1-31]

Abetment of Suicide – Analysis of Evidence – Held, abetment involves mental process of instigating or aiding in the commission of suicide – Continuous harassment and threats to falsely implicate in serious offences like rape can amount to abetment – Evidence suggests applicants created an environment leading to the deceased’s suicide – Court relies on precedent to support findings. [Paras 20-30]

Decision – Quashing Application Dismissed – Court finds sufficient evidence to proceed with prosecution under Section 306 IPC – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed – Observations on necessity of clear mens rea and direct or indirect acts of instigation. [Paras 30-31]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order – Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Allegations of substandard fertilizer against dealer and others – Samples taken from sealed and properly stored fertilizer bags – Held dealer not liable for substandard fertilizer as responsibility lies with manufacturer – Complaint and summoning order quashed. [Paras 1-10]

Liability of Dealer vs. Manufacturer in Fertilizer Quality Control – Analysis – Held – Dealer and associated petitioners not responsible for substandard fertilizer contained in sealed bags – Liability, if any, attributed solely to manufacturer – Precedents from Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirming dealer’s non-liability in similar circumstances. [Para 9]

Decision – Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order – Court quashes Complaint Case No. 14 dated 22.03.2018 and summoning order dated 07.04.2018, along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioners, on grounds that responsibility for substandard fertilizer lies with the manufacturer, not the dealer or associated parties. [Para 10]

Civil Procedure – Appeal and Delay Condonation – Article 227 – Order 41 Rule 3A CPC – Non-joinder of Necessary Party - Appeal Process – Challenge against the appellate court's order overruling objections related to the maintainability of an appeal filed without a condonation of delay application – High Court upheld appellate court's decision to grant leave for appeal despite procedural objections raised by the petitioner – Court found substantial issues regarding whether the trial court's order was justifiable based on the material presented and existing legal precedents [Paras 1-6, 24-45].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Petitioner's failure to include a necessary party in the initial suit resulted in procedural and substantive complications – The petitioner filed a caveat against the excluded party, contradicting his own argument of non-necessity – Court emphasized the importance of including all affected parties to avoid procedural defects and ensure just adjudication [Paras 3-5, 25-28, 45].

Legal Analysis – Application of Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC - Condonation of Delay – Court ruled that in the given circumstances, the requirement for a delay condonation application was not applicable as the respondent learned of the trial court’s order through a caveat and acted promptly – Deficiency in filing delay condonation application can be a curable defect, which was not relevant in this case as the appeal was filed within the limitation period from the date of knowledge [Paras 18-20, 38-43].

Suppression of Material Facts – High Court found that the petitioner suppressed material facts and misled the trial court by excluding a necessary party, thereby obtaining an interim order through misrepresentation – Such conduct was deemed as playing fraud with the court, warranting dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs [Paras 29-32, 50-52].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The writ petition was dismissed in limine for lacking merit and being based on suppressed facts and misrepresentation – Costs imposed on the petitioner for attempting to mislead the court and abusing the judicial process – Emphasized the need for clean hands and full disclosure in seeking equitable reliefs [Paras 52-53].