Civil Law - Partition of Property – Appeal against the trial court’s decree for partition of properties managed by the eldest brother under familial agreement - First defendant managed the properties on behalf of his brothers, with deeds in his name - Claims of prior partition by defendants not substantiated by documentary evidence or credible witness testimony - Trial court’s decision to decree partition affirmed. [Paras 13-21]

Burden of Proof – Defendants failed to substantiate the claim of prior partition which allegedly excluded certain properties from the current suit - Lack of documentary evidence such as revenue records or credible witness accounts to support defendants' claims of earlier partition - Plaintiffs’ unchallenged testimony and factual background led to the confirmation of joint family property status. [Paras 15, 17]

Non-joinder of Parties – Contention regarding non-joinder of necessary parties dismissed - Defendants failed to prove that their relatives were put in possession under an unregistered sale agreement claimed by them - Trial court’s decision not to implead additional parties upheld due to the failure of defendants to prove the genuineness of the transaction. [Paras 19, 20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed, confirming the trial court’s judgment dated 03.08.2000 for partition of the plaint A schedule properties, with each party bearing their own costs.

Anticipatory Bail – UAPA Provisions – Application of Section 43D(4) UAPA – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. contending lack of prima facie evidence – High Court upheld rejection of anticipatory bail by NIA Special Judge – Emphasized statutory bar under Section 43D(4) UAPA precluding anticipatory bail – Detailed examination of evidence including seizure list, digital data, and witness statements substantiating prima facie case of conspiracy and unlawful activities against the accused – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Investigation and Evidence – Relevance of Seizure List and Digital Data – Raid revealed documents and digital data indicating plans to disrupt public order and establish Pan-Islamic rule – Appellants implicated based on statements of co-accused and materials recovered – High Court affirmed sufficiency of prima facie evidence against appellants – Considered necessity of custodial interrogation for thorough investigation [Paras 2.1-7.16].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 43D(4) UAPA – Precludes anticipatory bail for offences under UAPA – High Court analyzed legislative intent and legal precedents underscoring non-applicability of Section 438 Cr.P.C. in UAPA cases – Referenced decisions reinforcing stringent bail conditions under anti-terrorism laws [Paras 7.8-7.10].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Held – Anticipatory bail applications under UAPA not maintainable – High Court emphasized importance of thorough investigation and custodial interrogation in cases involving national security and terrorism – Rejected contentions challenging evidentiary basis of accusations [Paras 7.12-9].
 

Defamation and Proceedings – Revision against orders of lower courts in defamation proceedings initiated by Dr. Barnali Chattopadhyay against Dr. Sima Banerjee for alleged defamatory remarks made during a televised interview – Analyzed whether statements made fall within exceptions provided under Section 499 IPC, and whether there is intent to harm reputation as required under Section 500 IPC – High Court finds lacking in intent and applicability under specified exceptions; quashing of proceedings ordered [Paras 1-36].

Political Influence and Academic Disputes – Accusations involve complex backdrop of political influence and disputes over college administration roles, leading to legal contests impacting reputations of involved parties – High Court observes misuse of defamation laws in context of internal college politics and disputes [Paras 4-12].

Legal Assessment and Precedents – Reliance on previous judgments regarding scrutiny required at magistrate level in defamation cases, importance of safeguarding reputational rights without stifling free speech – References to Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India (2016) and its interpretation of Sections 499 and 500 IPC [Paras 23-29].

Application of Exceptions in Defamation – High Court concludes remarks fall within the ninth exception of Section 499 IPC (statements made for protection of interest in good faith) – No intent to harm established; proceedings against petitioner not justified [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Quashing of FIR and Proceedings – FIR and consequent legal proceedings against Dr. Sima Banerjee under Sections 499/500 IPC quashed by High Court, citing absence of necessary ingredients for defamation and application of relevant exceptions under IPC [Para 34-35].

Procedural Violation in Show-Cause Notice – Appellant contested the show-cause notice issued by the WBGST Authorities on the grounds of procedural violations and denial of credit without verification from the supplier’s end – High Court found the show-cause notice and subsequent order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the appellant as procedurally flawed and lacking jurisdiction– Held: Show-cause notice and subsequent orders set aside, authorities directed to first proceed against the supplier and only then consider penalizing the appellant under exceptional circumstances. Allowed.[Para 3-9]

Motor Vehicle Accident – Compensation Awarded for Death – Appeal against Tribunal’s decision by both insurer and claimants – Accident involving motorcycle and truck, leading to motorcyclist’s death - Tribunal held truck driver solely liable, awarded Rs. 20,71,630 compensation plus interest - Insurance company appealed, alleging contributory negligence and error in income assessment - Claimants appealed for higher compensation considering future prospects and actual general damages - High Court upholds truck driver’s sole liability, recalculates compensation including future prospects, adjusts for personal living expenses, and corrects income assessment error - Final compensation set at Rs. 26,04,908, with directions for balance payment with interest from date of original claim till final payment [Paras 3-16]

Criminal Procedure – Transfer of Investigation – Allegations of improper handling of a severe assault case – Petitioner’s son was attacked and sustained severe head injuries; initial charges under Section 307 IPC only; no charges under Section 326 IPC for grievous hurt by dangerous weapons – Justice Sengupta ordered the transfer of the case to the Anti Rowdy Section of Kolkata Police for proper investigation – Highlights police negligence in recording victim’s statement and seizing crucial evidence, leading to the decision for a more capable investigation body – Case transfer aims at thorough and unbiased investigation [Paras 1-15].

Evidence Handling and Police Conduct – Criticism of police action – No initial statement under Section 164 of the Code from the victim or the witness who transported him to the hospital – Victim’s blood-stained clothing discarded from a vehicle, not seized for evidence – Court questions why no action was taken against those who disposed of evidence under Section 201 IPC – Indicates systemic lapses and possible influence, necessitating transfer to ensure fair proceedings [Paras 8-14].

Decision: Transfer of Investigation Ordered – Due to serious procedural flaws and inadequate initial investigation, the investigation is transferred to the Anti Rowdy Section, Kolkata Police, to be monitored by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) – Directed for expeditious and lawful conclusion [Para 15].

Labour Law - Contract Law – Payment for completed work – Institute issued completion certificate confirming work done satisfactorily, yet withheld final payments, leading contractors to seek judicial remedy – Initial writ petitions allowed, directing institute to release payments with interest – Appeals challenge these directions on grounds including the validity of financial obligations and procedural lapses. [Paras 1-7]

Institute’s Authority – Questions raised regarding the financial authority of the chairman and the oversight by NIT, Durgapur during the mentorship period – Disputes related to payment approvals and procedural compliance with financial rules highlighted – Significant reliance placed on a CAG report indicating procedural lapses and questioning expenditure legitimacy. [Paras 9, 19-25]

Judicial Review – Writ Court’s jurisdiction to entertain disputes of contractual nature involving entities amenable to Article 226 – Supreme Court precedents discussed, emphasizing when contractual disputes may fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction, especially if actions of public bodies are arbitrary or capricious – Examination of whether matters lie entirely within the private realm and if serious genuine disputes exist over financial liabilities. [Paras 14-37]

Limitation and Laches – Consideration of reasonable time for filing writ petitions paralleled with the Limitation Act for analogous civil suits – Delay in approaching the court held against the principles of prompt pursuit of judicial remedies – Writ petition filed seven years after last bill submission deemed unreasonable, influencing decision to deny relief under Article 226. [Paras 34-36]

Decision – Appeals allowed, reversing the decision of the Single Judge – Writ petitions dismissed as non-maintainable on grounds of maintainability, delay, and disputed contractual and financial issues – Parties left to seek remedies in appropriate forums, ensuring observations in judgment do not prejudice future proceedings. [Paras 38-41]

Criminal Law – Theft and Housebreaking – Delay in FIR registration – Impact on Prosecution Case – The petitioner filed a revision petition against the acquittal of respondents by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot. The High Court emphasized the critical impact of the delay in FIR registration, which remained unexplained and was deemed fatal to the prosecution’s case. The FIR was registered two days after the alleged theft and naming of the accused, which was found suspicious [Paras 1-13].

Evidentiary Deficiencies – Role of Panchayat – Witness Discrepancies – The court noted significant discrepancies in the statements of the petitioner and other key witnesses, including the Sarpanch and police officials involved in the recovery process. The Panchayat's role and the involvement of the factional rivalry within the village were scrutinized, affecting the credibility of the prosecution's evidence [Paras 10-12].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Proving Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of stolen items beyond a reasonable doubt. Key witnesses, including HC Jagsir Singh who conducted the recoveries, were not examined, leading to significant gaps in the prosecution's case [Para 12].

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed due to the unexplained delay in the FIR, discrepancies in witness statements, and the lack of concrete evidence regarding the recovery of stolen property. The court upheld the acquittal of the respondents.

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Applicant accused in connection with Delhi riots involving murder and multiple felonies – Bail sought under Section 439 CrPC after being implicated in the murder and riots as part of a violent mob based on eyewitness and police testimonies – Charges under multiple sections of IPC including murder, rioting, and destruction of property – Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC used for prosecution, with discrepancies in identification and roles ascribed to the applicant in court testimonies – Prosecution relied on presence and general accusation in mob for invoking Section 149 IPC, but primary public witnesses did not confirm applicant’s specific role in violent acts [Paras 1-20]

Evidence and Trial – Contradictions in witness statements concerning the applicant’s direct involvement – Senior counsel for applicant highlights discrepancies and no direct identification in key testimonies – Prosecution stressed on collective liability under Section 149 IPC, but lacks specific evidence against the applicant directly linking him to the murder or commanding role in riots [Paras 11-20]

Court Analysis – Acknowledgment of grave nature of accusations but consideration of the quality and relevance of evidence against the specific role of applicant – References made to precedents on bail considerations and principles, stressing not to delve deep into evidence credibility at bail stage – Discussion on legal standards and judicial discretion in bail matters, emphasizing nature and seriousness of offence, likelihood of fleeing, community ties, and impact on society [Paras 21-34]

Decision – Bail granted based on cumulative discrepancies in witness identification, the non-specific role of the applicant provided in testimonies, and substantial period already spent in custody – Bail conditions set including surety, regular court appearances, and restrictions on interactions with witnesses and co-accused – Observations made without prejudice to the merits of the main trial [Paras 35-40]