Lease Agreement – COVID-19 – Force Majeure Clause – Appeal Dismissed – Rent partially waived for lockdown period – Liquidated damages and penal rent claims rejected due to lack of actual loss – Amendment to Section 10 of Specific Relief Act held inapplicable to pre-2018 contracts [Paras 26-27, 44-46, 60-68].

Force Majeure – Lease Interpretation – Clause 12 invoked during COVID-19 – Pandemic held to be covered under “Act of God” and “Embargo” – Court upheld that the conditions in Clause 12 were illustrative, not exhaustive – Held: Lockdown restrictions justified non-payment of rent for April and May 2020 [Paras 26-27, 46-48].

Penalty Clauses – Clauses 14.2 and 7.2 – Claim for six months’ additional rent and double rent rejected – Held: No breach committed by lessee, and liquidated damages require proof of actual loss under Sections 73 & 74 of Contract Act – Contractual amount is upper limit; reasonable compensation necessary – Penal rent not awarded [Paras 39-46, 54-58].

Specific Relief – Retrospective Application – Amended Section 10 of Specific Relief Act not applicable to contracts executed before 01.10.2018 – Held: Court’s discretion in granting relief retained under pre-amendment law – SC decisions in Katta Sujatha Reddy and Daivasigamani relied upon [Paras 60-71].

Equitable Apportionment – Shared Burden of Pandemic – Court awarded 50% rent for April–May 2020 – Justified on ground that both lessor and lessee suffered economic hardship – Held: Equitable solution in absence of rent waiver agreement [Paras 52-53].

Summary Judgment – Maintainability – Application under Order XIII-A filed by appellant – Appellant estopped from arguing that suit required trial – Court justified in granting limited relief and rejecting exaggerated claims without trial [Para 74].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Force majeure clause rightly applied – No penal or double rent awarded – Rent granted at 50% for April–May 2020 and full rent from June 2020 to December 2020 – Interest and GST arrears also awarded – Decree of Single Judge upheld in entirety [Paras 51, 73, 75-76].

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Non-user – Section 12(1)(d), M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 – Decree of eviction affirmed – Shop found unused for over six months immediately preceding the suit – Electricity meter card and bills reflecting negligible/zero consumption coupled with witnesses’ testimony established non-use – Tenant failed to produce contemporaneous business records to show actual use – Held: Findings of First Appellate Court neither illegal nor perverse – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 20–29].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Interference with first appellate findings – Limited to substantial question of law – Where appreciation of evidence by First Appellate Court is plausible and supported by record, High Court will not reappreciate facts – No perversity shown – No interference warranted – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–5, 20, 28–29].

Burden of Proof – Non-user ground – Initial onus on landlord to show non-use – Discharged through documentary and oral evidence – Onus then shifts to tenant to prove reasonable cause or actual use – Absence of invoices, licences, or electricity consumption showing business activity during relevant period is fatal to tenant’s defence – Adverse inference sustained [Paras 21, 23–27].

Electricity Consumption as Corroborative Evidence – Meter reading card noting “shop closed/no consumption” and bills showing only 10–11 units per month – Held indicative of no commercial activity – Supported by witness admissions and tenant’s own cross-examination acknowledging only average billing and lack of licence for “mawa” business – Non-user established [Paras 23–25].

Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Earlier High Court remand and allowance set aside by Supreme Court – Direction to decide on existing record – High Court proceeds accordingly and evaluates only the materials already on record – No scope to re-open proof of additional documents [Paras 3–5].

Precedents – Applicability – Nilesh Laxmichand v. Shantaben (2019) 6 SCC 542 and Vora Rahimbhai (1985) 4 SCC 551 – Principles reiterated – Continuous non-use without reasonable cause for six months before suit is sufficient ground – Documentary proof of actual use expected from tenant – Applied to uphold eviction [Paras 18, 26–28].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – First Appellate Court’s decree for eviction under Section 12(1)(d) confirmed – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 28–30].

Criminal Complaint – Sections 156(3) and 202 Cr.P.C – Magistrate’s Discretion – Allegations of assault/intimidation arising from civil road dispute – Magistrate opted to hold enquiry under Section 202 instead of police investigation under Section 156(3) – Held: Magistrate’s discretion proper; no inevitable requirement for police investigation; Article 227 jurisdiction limited to cases of manifest miscarriage of justice – Petition dismissed [Paras 2-9, 12].

Civil Dispute – Criminal Allegations – Complaint disclosed four separate incidents (2022–2023) of assault, intimidation, and outraging of modesty – Court observed root cause was civil dispute over right of way; multiplicity of alleged crimes justified Magistrate’s cautious approach to proceed with enquiry rather than police referral [Paras 2-7].

Recovery/Investigation – Alleged use of rod and dagger years earlier – Court held police recovery/custodial interrogation not feasible or necessary; no ground to mandate investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Para 9].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Scope – Citing Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2009) and Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala (2019), Court reiterated Article 227 power is supervisory, not appellate; interference only in cases of patent illegality or manifest injustice – Not meant to substitute Magistrate’s discretion [Paras 10-11].

Decision – Magistrate’s decision to proceed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. upheld; no exceptional ground for interference under Article 227 – Petition dismissed with appreciation for assistance of Amicus Curiae [Para 12].

Second Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Non-consideration of additional evidence despite High Court’s earlier direction – First appellate judgment set aside and matter remanded – Appeal allowed [Paras 18-22].

Maintainability of Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC confined to substantial questions of law – High Court cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings of lower Courts are perverse or contrary to law – Applied settled principles [Paras 15-16].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Apex Court in Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012) 8 SCC 148 clarified that such application should be decided at final hearing stage if required for pronouncing judgment – In present case, dismissal of I.A.No.68/2016 prematurely by first appellate court was unsustainable [Paras 18].

Non-Compliance with Earlier High Court Order – Composite High Court in C.R.P.No.3017/2016 had restored I.A.No.68/2016 and directed disposal along with A.S.No.20/2013 – First appellate Court erred in deciding appeal alone ignoring I.A. – Such non-compliance vitiated judgment [Paras 18-20].

Consent of Parties – Both appellants and respondents conceded that remand to first appellate Court is proper with time-bound direction – No further oral evidence necessary; only disposal of appeal along with pending I.A. required [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2018 in A.S.No.20/2013 set aside – Matter remanded to XV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nuzvid to decide A.S.No.20/2013 along with I.A.No.68/2016 on merits within two months – No order as to costs [Paras 21-22].

Commercial tenancy – Section 12A CCA – Urgent interim relief & prior exemption order – O.VII R.11 refusal and interim injunction upheld – Petition dismissed [Paras 2–6, 7–8].

Commercial Courts Act, s.12A – Urgency & exemption – Where plaintiff sought urgent interim relief and the trial court had already granted a specific exemption from pre-institution mediation (order dated 07.09.2024), non-invocation of PIM did not abrogate s.12A – Exemption order, never challenged, attained finality; may be relied upon while rejecting O.VII R.11 plea [Paras 2, 4, 6].

Pleadings – Rejection of plaint under O.VII R.11 – Assessment confined to averments in the plaint; defence pleas (e.g., alleged fit-out extension/payment till July 2024) irrelevant at R.11 stage – Trial court correct in refusing to traverse defence material while deciding R.11 [Para 7].

Interim Injunction – Restraining creation of third-party interests – In a possession/arrears suit, evidence of substantial arrears (~₹60 lakh across floors), non-payment despite O.XV-A/O.XXXIX R.10 orders, and ongoing execution (bailiff appointed for mezzanine; ground floor execution continuing) establish a real, not illusory, urgency and justify ad-interim restraint to prevent alienation/defeat of decree [Paras 4–5].

Section 12A CCA – “Real urgency” – Seeking interim injunction coupled with facts indicating imminent risk (arrears, execution steps, apprehended alienation) constitutes genuine urgency; s.12A exemption properly invoked and cannot be re-litigated via O.VII R.11 once exemption order stands unassailed [Paras 3–6].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – No infirmity – Concurrent findings on urgency, finality of exemption order, and proper R.11 approach disclose no perversity; Art. 227 petition dismissed with upholding of impugned interlocutory orders [Para 8].

Decision: Held – Trial court order upheld; application under O.VII R.11 rightly dismissed in view of prior, unchallenged s.12A exemption and the limited R.11 inquiry; interim injunction restraining creation of third-party interests justified on facts – Petition and pending applications dismissed [Paras 6–8].

Bail – MPID Act Offence – ₹377 crore fraud – Bail Rejected – Applicant, a Director of A.S. Agri & Aqua LLP, allegedly induced gullible investors with promises of doubled returns and crores of rupees per year – Investigation revealed siphoning of deposits, seizure of incriminating records, and similar antecedents – Court held gravity of offence, scale of fraud, and applicant’s role outweigh bail considerations – Bail application dismissed [Paras 18–22].

Arrest Grounds – Section 50 CrPC and Article 22(1) – Compliance sufficient if grounds conveyed – Applicant argued violation for want of written arrest grounds – Held: Since arrest was prior to SC ruling in Pankaj Bansal (03.10.2023), requirement of written grounds not mandatory – Communication through remand report and diary entries adequate – No demonstrable prejudice shown – Argument rejected [Paras 13–17].

Parity – Bail to Co-accused – Principle not Applicable – Applicant sought bail citing co-accused released by Trial Court – State has challenged their bail orders – Court held scale of fraud and applicant’s antecedents make parity inapplicable – Rejection sustained [Para 20].

MPID Act – Objective – Protection of Depositors – Court observed the scheme was not a genuine business venture but a unilateral promise of fixed returns – Precisely the mischief MPID Act intends to prevent – Bail denied in larger public interest [Paras 19, 21].

Decision – Bail Application No. 4116/2024 rejected – No case for exercise of discretion under Section 439 CrPC – Applicant to remain in custody pending trial [Para 22].

Service Law - Probationary Service – Article 311(2) – Non-stigmatic termination during probation upheld – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 25-34].

Issues for Determination – Validity of initiation of disciplinary proceedings by competent authority – Compliance with principles of natural justice – Whether termination order is stigmatic/punitive attracting Article 311(2) – Court framed three core questions and proceeded on settled law governing probationers [Para 21].

Probationer’s Status & Article 311 – Distinction between confirmed employee and probationer – Judicial review narrower for probationers – Article 311 protections invoked only if termination is punitive/stigmatic – Employer may assess suitability during probation and terminate without full-scale inquiry if order is innocuous – Followed Rajasthan High Court v Ved Priya; T.C.M. Pillai; Jaswant Singh – Applied “foundation vs motive” test [Paras 25-29].

Nature of Termination Order – Language of termination letter recorded lack of “absolute integrity and devotion to duty” as employer’s dissatisfaction during probation – No specific imputation/findings of misconduct forming the foundation – Held: not stigmatic; merely articulates what is implicit in probationary termination – Pavanendra Narayan Verma principle reiterated [Paras 31-32].

Natural Justice & Enquiry Fairness – Petitioner was served charge-sheet, replied, and initially participated – No material to substantiate inability to attend for want of TA/DA – Two committees (Internal Complaint & Internal Finance) conducted fact-finding; Enquiry Officer’s report placed before authority – For probationary assessment, “less formal” process with adequate opportunity suffices – No mala fides or serious procedural breach found [Paras 15-16, 22, 32].

Competency of Authorities – Petitioner’s challenge to AGM(HR)/CGM(Tech) competence under Schedule of Delegation rejected in effect—respondents showed delegation permitting AGM-level signatures for specified grades; in any event, outcome turned on non-stigmatic probationary termination rather than imposition of a major penalty [Paras 17-18, 23, 32].

Relief & Alternate Remedy – Plea for quashing charge-sheet/termination and reinstatement declined – Court found proceedings aimed at suitability assessment; writ not entertained on asserted technicalities in absence of prejudice or punitive foundation [Paras 30, 32-33].

Decision – Both writ petitions WPA 7478 of 2018 and WPA 25707 of 2017 dismissed – No illegality or impropriety in termination dated 08/12/2017; urgent certified copy direction issued [Paras 34-35].

Judicial Service Recruitment – Clause 8.4 prescribing minimum 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate upheld – Administrative instructions can supplement Rules when silent – Petition dismissed [Paras 12-20].

Scope of Rules – Rules of 2007 for Punjab & Haryana provide for written test (750 marks) and viva voce (250 marks) but are silent on qualifying marks – Notifications added Clause 8.4 requiring 40% in each paper and 50% aggregate – Held: not inconsistent but supplemental to statutory scheme [Paras 10-12].

Power of High Court – Following K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 395 – High Court can prescribe benchmarks in absence of express prohibition – Ensures selection of best available talent for judiciary [Paras 13, 18].

Supreme Court Precedent – Applied Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. Punjab & Haryana High Court, (2024) 7 SCC 103 – When Rules silent, administrative instructions permissible to fill gaps – Minimum marks criteria legally sustainable [Paras 14, 17-18].

Estoppel – Petitioner had earlier challenged identical notifications in W.P. (C) 501/2024 before Supreme Court—dismissed on 18.10.2024 without liberty—thus barred from reagitating same cause [Paras 15-16].

Decision – No arbitrariness in Clause 8.4—petition dismissed—miscellaneous applications also disposed [Paras 19-21].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal – Applicant Panchayat challenged Appellate Court decree of 2018 only after execution proceedings were initiated in 2023 – Applicant originally exonerated by Trial Court – Appellate Court imposed monetary liability despite no appeal by plaintiff – Held: Applicant failed to offer sufficient cause for long delay – Knowledge of decree established – Delay not bona fide – Gross negligence and indolent conduct disentitles applicant from discretionary relief under Section 5 of the Limitation Act [Paras 4, 9, 14–20, 32.1–33]

Civil Procedure – Merger of Decree – Though Trial Court dismissed suit against defendant no. 1, Appellate Court held otherwise – Decree of Appellate Court prevails – Defendant No.1 cannot avoid liability on ground of original exoneration once appellate decree imposed payment obligations – Failure to appeal in time makes decree binding [Paras 16–17]

Execution – Attachment of Property – Execution application initiated due to non-compliance with money decree – Order of attachment passed against immovable property of defendant no. 1 – Stay granted conditionally by High Court in writ petition – Subsequent delay application in appeal not a valid explanation [Paras 8, 18]

Delay – State Instrumentality – No Separate Standard – Delay by Panchayat not treated more leniently – Court reiterated that State authorities must act diligently – Lethargy, negligence, or bureaucratic delay cannot be treated as sufficient cause – State machinery must fix accountability to prevent delay [Paras 12.2, 25–26, 30]

Discretionary Power – Not Absolute – High Court reiterated that condonation of delay is a discretionary power – Cannot be invoked in absence of bona fide explanation – Length of delay, conduct of parties, and public interest must be weighed – Absence of due diligence fatal even if applicant claims good case on merits [Paras 22–23, 27–29]

Precedents Cited – Supreme Court decisions including Sheo Raj Singh, Binod Pathak, Ramkumar Choudhary, Rajneesh Kumar, Basawaraj, and Shivamma examined – Held: None support condonation in facts of present case – Explanation found insufficient, fabricated, or vague – Court must not substitute merits for diligence [Paras 21–24, 27–32]

Decision: Application dismissed – Delay of 1357 days in filing Second Appeal not condoned – Registry directed to refuse registration of appeal – Rs. 10,000 cost deposited by applicant to be disbursed to plaintiff through RTGS/NEFT [Paras 33–35]