Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition for quashing criminal proceedings arising out of contractual disputes concerning commission payments in marketing agreements – Allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust under Sections 406, 418, and 420 IPC – Held that disputes were essentially of a civil nature and did not constitute criminal offenses – All criminal proceedings against the petitioners quashed due to absence of criminal intent and for being a misuse of judicial process [Para 1-31].

Contracts and Criminal Liability – Analysis – Held that mere non-payment or dispute over commission rates in business agreements does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust – Intent to defraud not established – Emphasized the distinction between civil disputes and criminal liability [Para 20-31].

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Court quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing that criminal courts should not be used for settling commercial disputes – Found proceedings to be an abuse of process, not fitting the criteria of criminal prosecution under relevant sections of IPC [Para 32-33].

Attempt to Murder – Reduction of Sentence – Appellant convicted under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder the complainant by assaulting with an axe – Conviction under Sections 504 and 506-II IPC also imposed – Court finds lack of intention to kill; injury caused not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature – Conviction under Section 307 reduced to Section 326 IPC – Sentence reduced to 3 years RI with fine – Conviction under Sections 504 and 506-II IPC set aside [Paras 1-36].

Interested Witnesses – Credibility – Testimonies of related witnesses scrutinized – Court holds testimonies reliable despite minor contradictions – Affirms principle that related witness testimonies hold probative value if corroborated by evidence [Paras 13-17].

Independent Witnesses – Absence – Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal – Incident occurred in agricultural field, natural absence of independent witnesses – Prosecution case supported by medical evidence and injured’s testimony upheld [Paras 19-22].

Decision:

Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC set aside and replaced with conviction under Section 326 IPC – Appellant sentenced to 3 years RI with a fine of Rs.10,000/- – Conviction under Sections 504 and 506-II IPC set aside – Appellant to be released after serving the sentence and paying the fine – Fine amount, if already paid, to be adjusted and Rs.10,000/- to be compensated to the injured [Paras 36-40].

Corporate Law – Transfer of Winding-Up Proceedings –  Application for transfer of winding-up petition to NCLT under Section 434(1)© of the Companies Act, 2013 – Official Liquidator had taken possession of the company’s registered office but had not invited any claims from creditors or workers – Supreme Court precedents (A. Navinchandra Steels, Kaledonia Jute & Fibres, and Action Ispat) emphasize discretion of Company Court to transfer proceedings to NCLT as long as no irreversible actions have been taken in the winding-up process – Bombay High Court exercises discretion to transfer petition to NCLT for efficient resolution under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. [Paras 1-14]

Transfer of Proceedings – Discretionary Power of Court - Held – Court may transfer winding-up proceedings to NCLT unless irreversible steps have been taken – Irreversibility determined by whether assets have been sold or significant actions preclude setting the process back – Present case does not reach such stage – Transfer ordered subject to deposit of Rs. 3 lakhs towards liquidation costs. [Para 8-11]

Decision: Company Petition No. 317 of 2012 transferred to NCLT, Mumbai, subject to Applicant depositing Rs. 3 lakhs with Official Liquidator for liquidation costs – Admission order dated 28^th September 2017 recalled/revoked – NCLT to treat the petition as an application for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under IBC, 2016. [Para 10-13

Industrial Law – Wrongful Termination – Compliance with ID Act – The case involved the State of Punjab's challenge to the Industrial Tribunal's award, which found the termination of Kamaljit, a work-woman, to be in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal had ordered her reinstatement with 50% back-wages from the date of the demand notice, citing non-compliance with Section 25-F of the ID Act [Paras 1-2].

Nature of Employment – Classification as Industry – The petitioners argued that the Forest Department was not an 'Industry' under the ID Act. The Tribunal, however, referred to precedents establishing the Forest Department as an 'Industry' and rejected this contention. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on precedents like Divisional Forest Officer vs. Jagdish and others, 2003(4) RSJ 264 [Para 4].

Inconsistent Testimony and Employment Records – The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the management's witness statements regarding Kamaljit's employment duration, ultimately determining that she was employed from October 1998 to December 2000. This inconsistency supported the Tribunal's finding of wrongful termination [Paras 5-16].

Modification of Award – Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Citing similar cases where compensation was awarded instead of reinstatement, the court modified the Tribunal’s order. Kamaljit was awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹3.50 lakhs, considering she had attained superannuation and had rendered over two years of service before termination [Paras 6-8].

Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with a modification of the Tribunal's award. Kamaljit was awarded ₹3.50 lakhs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement, to be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be applicable.
 

Family Law - Divorce - Appeal against Family Court’s judgment dismissing divorce petition based on alleged cruelty by the wife - Family Court found no sufficient evidence of cruelty or dowry harassment by respondent; however, High Court reverses decision, citing mental cruelty due to false criminal accusations and prolonged legal battle - Held, marriage irretrievably broken, decree of divorce granted on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. [Paras 1-29]

Evidence and Testimony - Lack of corroborative evidence from the respondent on allegations of dowry harassment against the appellant and his family - High Court notes previous acquittal of appellant in related criminal proceedings, undermining credibility of respondent’s allegations - Held, false criminal charges against spouse can constitute mental cruelty justifying divorce. [Paras 20-22]

Maintenance and Financial Support - Discussion on maintenance payments - Appellant’s obligations towards maintenance addressed, with direct deductions from his pension - Execution proceedings for arrears in maintenance are acknowledged but left to be resolved in pending execution proceedings. [Paras 10-11, 27]

Decision: Judgment of Family Court reversed – Decree of divorce granted on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Appeal disposed of with all pending applications. [Para 32]

Externment Order – Bihar Control of Crimes Act, 1981 – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner challenged the externment order dated 22.10.2023 – Contended that notice period was less than 24 hours – High Court found violation of natural justice due to impractical notice period – Highlighted that the petitioner could not be classified as an anti-social element as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act – Externment order deemed null and void [Paras 1-28].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – Writ petition filed despite the availability of alternative remedy under Section 6 of the Act – High Court held writ petition maintainable as the petitioner’s liberty was at stake and principles of natural justice were violated – Reference to precedents including Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1978 SC 851, and others [Paras 6-8].

Definition of Anti-Social Element – Application of Section 2(d) – Evaluated whether the petitioner met criteria under Section 2(d) – Court concluded petitioner did not habitually commit offences as required – Relied on Vijay Narain Singh v. State of Bihar (1984) 3 SCC 14 for interpretation of "habitually" [Paras 9-25].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Externment order dated 22.10.2023 against the petitioner set aside – Directed authorities to comply with principles of natural justice in future proceedings – Emphasized need for reasonable opportunity to respond to notices [Paras 28-29].
 

Recognition of Bar Associations – Administrative Discretion – The petitioner challenged the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh's refusal to recognize a separate Bar Association – The court noted the resolutions of the State Bar Council allowing only one recognized Bar Association at any given place where the High Court is located – Emphasized the intent to avoid multiplicity of associations for better administration and welfare schemes [Paras 1-7, 38-41].

Welfare and Administrative Consistency – The petitioner's claim was based on the need for separate recognition to access welfare benefits – The court observed that all members of the petitioner association were already members of the existing recognized associations, ensuring no deprivation of benefits – Highlighted the administrative convenience and unity in having a single recognized association per place [Paras 8-14].

Judicial Review and Procedural Propriety – The court applied the principles of judicial review, finding no illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the State Bar Council's decision – Referenced the doctrines of Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality – Found that the decision was within the discretion of the Bar Council and did not warrant interference [Paras 53-57].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed – The court upheld the State Bar Council's decision not to grant separate recognition to the petitioner association – Emphasized the importance of a single recognized Bar Association for effective administration and welfare of advocates [Para 60].

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Allotment of Premises in High Court Campus – Challenge to Allotment Procedure – High Court's Decision on Lack of Transparency and Legal Entity Recognition – Examination of Procedural Compliance and Discretionary Power

Public Interest Litigation – Maintainability – Writ Petition filed by Advocate challenging allotment of premises to unrecognized Bar Association – High Court held petition maintainable as PIL – Found absence of transparent and objective criteria in allotment process – Consideration of discrimination and violation of Article 14 [Paras 1, 113].

Administrative Discretion – Allotment of Public Property – Chief Justice's Prerogative – Examination of Discretionary Power in Absence of Policy or Procedure – High Court held lack of transparency and fairness in allotment to Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association – Cancellation of Allotment – Requirement of adherence to principles of justice and equity in administrative decisions [Paras 13, 63, 83, 107, 112].

Recognition of Bar Associations – Legal Entity Status under Advocates Act, 1961 – High Court upheld State Bar Council's decision to deny recognition to Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association – No entitlement to claim facilities without recognition – Affirmation of the principle 'One Bar One Vote' – Implications on legal status and entitlements of Bar Associations [Paras 2, 6, 11, 61, 112].

Judicial Review – Examination of Administrative Decisions – Application of Wednesbury Test – High Court found absence of objective criteria, transparency, and fairness in decision-making process – Emphasized the need for rules and procedures in allotment of public property to ensure non-arbitrariness and equality [Paras 66, 92, 106, 111].

Decision – Revocation of Allotment – Held – Allotment of space to Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association was arbitrary, lacked transparency and violated principles of natural justice – Allotment cancelled and premises directed to be made available to recognized Bar Associations in compliance with established procedures and equitable principles [Paras 112-114].

Minority at Time of Sale Deed – Proof of Identity – The primary issue in both appeals was whether the plaintiff, Rattan Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur, was a minor when she executed the sale deeds. The plaintiff argued that she was a minor based on her birth certificate showing her date of birth as 15.09.1968, which she claimed was issued under the name Rattan Kaur. The First Appellate Court, however, found that the plaintiff failed to prove she was known by the name Rattan Kaur and that she was indeed a minor at the time of the sale deeds [Paras 1-12].

Discrepancies in Name and Evidence – The First Appellate Court determined that the plaintiff's claim was unsubstantiated as her name in school and revenue records was listed as Paramjit Kaur, not Rattan Kaur. The court also noted that her mother and brothers, who could have corroborated her claim, were not examined as witnesses, and the testimonies of the plaintiff and her sister were deemed unreliable [Paras 10-11].

Appellate Review – No Illegality in Findings – Upon review, the High Court upheld the findings of the First Appellate Court, emphasizing that the lower court's judgment was based on a proper appreciation of the evidence. The High Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, noting the absence of any substantial evidence to support the plaintiff's claims [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Both appeals were dismissed due to lack of merit. The judgments of the lower courts were upheld, confirming that the plaintiff failed to prove she was known as Rattan Kaur and that she was a minor at the time of the sale deeds.