Criminal Law - Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act – Unauthorized Construction – Tenant’s Liability – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners were convicted under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 by the Learned Municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta, for allegedly constructing an unauthorized two-storied building at 14/5, B.T. Road, Kolkata – Conviction upheld by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bench – II, City Sessions Court – Petitioners contended that they were tenants, not builders of the alleged unauthorized structure – Held: No credible evidence established that the petitioners constructed the unauthorized building – Prosecution failed to prove the specific time, date, or year of construction – Absence of a sanctioned plan alone does not establish culpability without proof of actual construction – Revision allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 21-29].

Burden of Proof – Standard in Criminal Trials – Unauthorized Construction Cases – Prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were responsible for the unauthorized construction – Evidence merely suggesting occupancy or trespassing insufficient – Report filed by Kolkata Municipal Corporation engineers in WPA No. 22957/2023 stated that the building was over twenty years old with no recent construction – Held: Prosecution’s failure to prove that petitioners constructed the structure warranted acquittal – Conviction set aside [Paras 24-28].

Judicial Interference – Appellate & Revisional Courts – Conviction without Cogent Evidence – Trial Court concluded that the building was unsafe based on accused’s failure to prove its stability – High Court held such inference unsustainable – Mere possession of a property does not establish liability for unauthorized construction unless proven – Lower courts’ reliance on assumptions rather than direct evidence unjustified – Conviction quashed [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Lower court orders reversed [Paras 29-30].

Eviction under Rent Control Act – Bona fide Need – Alternative Accommodation – Tenant’s Contention Rejected – The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming a bona fide requirement to start a hardware business – The tenant contended that the landlord possessed other vacant premises suitable for the said business – The Rent Control Court initially dismissed the eviction petition, but the Appellate Authority reversed this decision and ordered eviction – The High Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s order, ruling that the landlord, being the best judge of his needs, cannot be compelled to alter the structure of existing vacant rooms to accommodate his business – Held: Mere existence of alternative vacant premises does not negate the landlord’s bona fide need for eviction [Paras 7-9].

Tenant’s Burden to Prove Suitability of Alternative Premises – Court’s Limited Scope of Inquiry – The tenant argued that the landlord had obtained possession of three rooms, which could be combined to accommodate the proposed hardware business – The Court held that unless such alternative accommodation completely eclipses the landlord’s need, it cannot bar eviction – Further, the burden of proving the suitability of an alternative premises for the landlord’s requirement lies upon the tenant, not the landlord – Held: The tenant failed to establish that the alternative premises were viable for the landlord’s business [Paras 10-12].

Final Order – Eviction Upheld with Conditional Relief – The High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision petition but granted a four-month period to vacate the premises, subject to compliance with conditions, including filing an affidavit of unconditional undertaking and clearing any arrears of rent – Non-compliance would lead to immediate execution of the eviction order [Paras 13-14].
 

Land Use Conversion – School to Nursing Home – Statutory Breach – Conversion Set Aside – Court held that the impugned layout plan dated 25.10.2021 violated the procedure under Section 79(3) of the HSVP Act and 
Sections 4 & 5 of the 1963 Act – No public objections were invited – Authorities acted ultra vires – Layout plan quashed [Paras 6–9, 14–17]. 
Natural Justice – Absence of Public Notice – Fatal to Layout Change – Court emphasized the mandatory requirement of prior publication and opportunity for objections before amending layout or development plans – Conversion without this process deemed illegal and arbitrary [Paras 7–8, 14]. 
Promissory Estoppel – Deviation from Original Layout – Held Arbitrary – Petitioners were allottees relying on educational land use – Reversing that without process violated legitimate expectations – Change deemed unjustified in absence of public interest [Paras 3, 6, 9]. 
Healthcare Justification – Urban Demand Not Sufficient – No Override of Legal Process – State's reasoning of increasing healthcare density held insufficient to bypass due process – Administrative efficiency cannot trump legal mandates [Paras 9, 16–17]. 
 Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned revised layout plan dated 25.10.2021 quashed – State restrained from acting upon it or conducting e-auction of converted sites – Directed to follow statutory procedure before any future changes [Paras 18–20]. 
 

Passports Act – Renewal of Passport – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner, an Indian citizen residing in the USA, sought renewal of his passport bearing No. M5407876, which was due to expire on 08.09.2025 – Renewal was denied by the Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru (Respondent No.2) due to pending criminal proceedings under Sections 354A, 354D, 504, and 420 IPC – Held: Mere pendency of a criminal complaint under investigation does not attract the bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 – The embargo applies only when cognizance has been taken by the Court – Reliance placed on Sharath Chandrasekhar v. Union of India (WP No. 18066/2023, decided on 14.02.2024) – Writ of Mandamus issued directing respondents to consider the reissuance of the passport if all other conditions are satisfied [Paras 3-5].

Legal Precedent – Applicability of Prior Rulings – Karnataka High Court had previously held that the refusal of a passport renewal is not justified solely on the ground of a pending investigation – Official Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and Notification dated 25.08.1993 considered – Held: Unless cognizance of the offence has been taken by a competent Court, the denial of passport renewal is not legally tenable [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to process the reissuance of the petitioner’s passport, subject to all other conditions being met – Compliance to be ensured within one week from the receipt of the Court’s order [Paras 5].
 

Specific Performance – Government Land – Transfer Restrictions – Petitioner, a defendant in a suit for specific performance, sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Contended that the suit property is government land under the West Bengal Government Land (Regulation of Transfer) Act, 1993, requiring prior permission for transfer – The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that a decree for specific performance may still be granted subject to obtaining necessary approvals – Held: The suit property’s status as government land and statutory restrictions on its transfer necessitate judicial scrutiny – Order rejecting the application set aside – Petitioner permitted to amend the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to include all grounds and documents supporting the claim – Trial Court directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law [Paras 2-7].

Remand for Reconsideration – Supreme Court’s Directions – The High Court had earlier rejected the suit, which was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court – Plaintiff permitted to file additional documents to establish maintainability – However, parties expanded the scope of remand by introducing multiple documents and raising new issues – Held: The Trial Court must allow both parties to present evidence regarding the maintainability of the suit – Opportunity granted to amend pleadings and objections accordingly [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Order rejecting Order VII Rule 11 CPC application set aside – Petitioner allowed to amend application within two weeks – Trial Court directed to decide maintainability issue expeditiously after permitting objections from the plaintiff – No order as to costs [Para 9].
 

Arbitration – Modification of Arbitral Award – Jurisdiction of Court under Section 34 – Modification Set Aside – The appellants challenged the order of the District Judge modifying claim Nos. 3, 4, and 5 of an arbitral award – The High Court held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court is not empowered to modify an arbitral award, and can only set it aside on specified grounds such as fraud, bias, or violation of natural justice – Relying on precedent including National Highways Authority of India v. M. Hakeem and Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the Court ruled that modifying an award would exceed the court’s jurisdiction – Held: The District Judge had acted beyond jurisdiction in modifying the arbitral award, and the modification was therefore set aside [Paras 4-8].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order of District Judge Modifying the Award Set Aside – The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 31.03.2016 in A.S.No.39/2008, and dismissed the Arbitration Suit [Para 9].
 

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony – Appellants, a mother and son, were convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly murdering the deceased over a property dispute – The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the deceased’s son (PW2), who claimed to be an eyewitness – Held: PW2’s testimony was inconsistent, unnatural, and contradicted by other evidence – Discrepancies in the timeline of events and the conduct of PW2 raised serious doubts about his credibility – Conviction based solely on an unreliable eyewitness is unsustainable [Paras 14-17].

Criminal Procedure – Delay in FIR Registration – Effect on Investigation – FIR registered at 10:30 PM despite police reaching the crime scene at 7:30 PM – Statement given at the scene was suppressed, and a fresh FIR was recorded later – Held: The unexplained delay in FIR registration and suppression of initial statements taint the prosecution’s case – Deliberate manipulation of records raises doubts on the entire investigation, leading to acquittal [Paras 15-16].

Evidence Law – Recovery of Weapon – Admissibility – Prosecution relied on the recovery of MO2 (chopper) based on the confession of the first accused – Independent witness (PW3) stated that the weapon was handed over by a third party, not the accused – Held: Recovery evidence is inadmissible as it does not establish a clear link between the accused and the offence – Recovery cannot form the basis of conviction in absence of other reliable evidence [Paras 18].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – Conviction in criminal cases must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt – Any serious doubt in the prosecution's case must lead to acquittal – Held: Inconsistencies in witness statements, procedural irregularities in the investigation, and lack of substantive evidence create a reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt – Benefit of doubt granted, leading to acquittal [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 21].
 

Statutory Bail – Cancellation – Submission of Chargesheet After Court Hours – Legal Validity of Bail – Appellants were granted statutory bail as the chargesheet was not filed within 90 days from their arrest – Chargesheet was filed at the end of the 90th day but after court hours – The NIA Court later cancelled bail without an application for cancellation – Held: The statutory bail granted cannot be questioned as the chargesheet was filed after the official court hours on the 90th day – Statutory bail, once granted, cannot be arbitrarily revoked unless conditions for cancellation are met – Reliance placed on State through CBI v. T Gangi Reddy (2023) 4 SCC 253 [Paras 9-10].

Bail Cancellation – Addition of Graver Offences – Absence of Misuse of Bail – The NIA, upon taking over the investigation, added charges under the SC/ST Act and Explosive Substances Act – The appellants were not informed about the addition of graver charges – No allegations of bail conditions being violated – Held: Mere addition of graver charges does not automatically justify bail cancellation – No evidence of tampering with witnesses or non-cooperation with the investigation – Default bail cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that a chargesheet has later been filed – Reliance placed on Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 17 SCC 326 [Paras 16-18].

Jurisdiction of NIA Court – Concurrent Powers of Special Court – Improper Exercise of Jurisdiction – The Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta acted as an appellate forum over the Special Court, Tamluk, despite both courts having concurrent jurisdiction – Held: The NIA Court erred in reassessing the validity of statutory bail granted by a coordinate court – Absence of a prosecution plea for bail cancellation further weakens the NIA Court’s reasoning – Non-application of judicial mind evident in the order [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Restored – The High Court set aside the order dated 21.08.2024 cancelling the appellants' bail – Appellants directed to furnish fresh bail bonds of ₹50,000/- each with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each, subject to conditions – Appellants to report weekly to Moyna Police Station and not leave the jurisdiction except for court proceedings – Any violation of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 19-20].
 

Company Law – Liquidation – Possession of Leased Premises – Official Liquidator Cannot Retain Premises Unnecessarily – Applicants, as landlords, sought possession of flats leased to Surendra Engineering Corporation Ltd., a company in liquidation – Official Liquidator claimed necessity for storage of company records – High Court held: Monthly tenancy does not form part of company’s assets—Official Liquidator’s need was not genuine—Possession directed to be handed over to landlords [Paras 16-24].

Jurisdiction of Company Court – Power to Order Eviction – Section 446 of Companies Act – Company Court has wide powers under Section 446 to determine whether premises are required for liquidation – High Court relied on Modella Woollens Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna v. Official Liquidator, holding that retention of unnecessary premises increases liability and must be avoided [Paras 13-17].

Liquidator’s Duties – Justification for Retaining Property – Court Can Examine Need – Liquidator claimed premises were needed for storing records but failed to specify space requirements or attempt alternative arrangements – High Court held: Mere assertion of necessity does not justify retention—Records were never stored in the premises—Official Liquidator’s possession unjustified [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Application allowed – Official Liquidator directed to return possession of Flats 4 and 5 at Jaitirath Mansion, Mumbai, to applicants within four weeks – Liberty granted to applicants to pursue claims regarding other flats separately [Paras 27-29].