Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Fraud and Misappropriation: Petitioners accused of fraudulently securing a loan amounting to Rs.30,00,000/- using documents without the knowledge or consent of the defacto complainant’s husband – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail – Court emphasized necessity of custodial interrogation for thorough investigation – Bail denied considering gravity of allegations and potential impact on investigation [Paras 1-19].

Burden of Proof and Custodial Interrogation: Petitioners contended their innocence and improper framing of charges under Section 409 IPC – Court noted ongoing investigation and necessity for custodial interrogation to uncover material information – Pre-arrest bail considered inappropriate at this stage [Paras 6-16].

Grant of Anticipatory Bail – Exceptional Circumstances: Court reiterated that anticipatory bail should only be granted in exceptional circumstances where misuse of liberty is unlikely – Emphasized potential threats to witnesses and importance of detailed investigation [Paras 8-15].

Decision: Criminal petition dismissed – No relief of anticipatory bail granted – Court allowed for investigation to proceed without pre-arrest bail protections potentially hindering interrogation [Paras 17-19].

Acquisition of Land – Public Interest and Compensation – Notification under Section 3(1) of the PMP Act issued for laying a petroleum pipeline. Landowners’ objections raised regarding the use of horticultural land and public interest considerations. Competent Authority failed to address objections adequately. High Court directed a reassessment of objections and compensation based on current market value [Paras 1-18].

Procedure for Objections – Necessity of Objective Consideration – Competent Authority’s duty to consider objections objectively and pass reasoned orders. Failure to do so renders the order unsustainable. High Court emphasized the importance of transparency and adherence to statutory requirements in land acquisition processes [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Review and Equitable Relief – High Court acknowledged the national importance of the pipeline project but balanced it with the rights of landowners. Directed prompt reconsideration of objections by the Competent Authority while ensuring project continuation without significant delays [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Writ appeal allowed. Judgment and order dated 09.05.2024, modified to direct the Competent Authority to reconsider objections and pass speaking orders promptly. Appellants entitled to compensation based on current market value of the land. No order as to costs [Paras 18-19].

Revenue Law – Mutation and Partition – Petitioner challenged the orders directing Patwari to propose partition and restore status quo ante regarding mutation – High Court quashed orders of Tahsildar and Additional Collector, Narmadapuram for exceeding jurisdiction and acting contrary to a compromise decree – Directed reopening of original mutation file and proper adjudication per High Court’s directions [Paras 1-33].

Judicial Conduct – Extraneous Considerations – Allegations against revenue officers of acting on extraneous considerations – High Court found prima facie evidence of misconduct – Ordered disciplinary actions and training for the officers involved [Paras 34-38, 54-55].

Administrative Law – Direct Communication with Court – Criticism of Collector, Narmadapuram for writing a letter directly to the Court seeking exemption from appearance – High Court condemned act and directed Chief Secretary to take appropriate action [Paras 39-47].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Orders by Tahsildar and Additional Collector set aside – Directed reopening of original mutation case for fresh decision per court’s guidelines.

Disciplinary actions ordered against revenue officers for misconduct.

Collector, Narmadapuram reprimanded for inappropriate direct communication with Court.

Costs of Rs. 25,000/- imposed on respondents No.1 to 4.

Interim Bail – Medical Grounds – Petitioner, suffering from multiple ailments including post-bariatric surgery complications, sought interim bail citing inability of jail to provide necessary dietary and medical care – Medical reports indicated necessity of specialized diet and treatment not feasible in jail – Respondent argued petitioner previously misused bail and jail authorities capable of providing care – Court noted failure to meet dietary needs and continuous health deterioration – Interim bail granted for six weeks with strict conditions [Paras 1-22].

Bail Conditions – Imposed conditions included furnishing a personal bond, regular court appearances, providing a working contact number, surrendering passport, and restrictions on influencing witnesses or leaving the country – Emphasized balance between petitioner’s health rights and ensuring no interference in investigation [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Interim Bail Granted – Held – Petitioner to be released on interim bail for six weeks with specific conditions to ensure compliance and non-interference with ongoing investigation [Para 22-24].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Narcotic Possession – Respondent acquitted of possessing 900 grams of charas by trial court – High Court dismisses State’s appeal due to lack of compelling evidence and procedural flaws in the investigation – Critical emphasis on the reliability of witness testimonies and adherence to legal procedures – Significant inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, including failure to produce key documents and discrepancies in police records and testimonies [Paras 1-27].

Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction in Acquittal Appeals – Appellate court’s non-interference with acquittal unless there is clear evidence of misreading or omission of material facts – Double presumption of innocence upheld – High Court reiterates necessity for strong, compelling reasons to overturn an acquittal, citing precedents from the Supreme Court of India [Paras 6-10].

Witness Credibility and Procedural Flaws – Examination of testimonies reveals contradictions – Police witnesses provided unclear and inconsistent accounts regarding the recovery and handling of the seized contraband – Absence of crucial evidence such as the personal search memo and accurate documentation raised doubts about the prosecution’s case – Court highlights procedural deficiencies including the improper recording of police reports and unexplained delays [Paras 11-22].

Chain of Custody and Evidence Handling – Prosecution’s failure to maintain a clear and documented chain of custody for the seized charas – Inconsistencies in the handling and sealing of evidence noted – Discrepancies in testimonies about the transport and storage of evidence contributed to doubts about the integrity of the evidence presented [Paras 15-20].

Failure to Produce Independent Witnesses – Prosecution’s inability to produce independent witnesses to corroborate the police version of events – Sole reliance on police witnesses found inadequate in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Court critical of the absence of corroborative evidence and the reliance on testimonies that lacked credibility [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed – High Court concurs with the trial court’s judgment, finding it just, legal, and proper – State’s appeal found lacking in merit due to insufficient evidence and significant procedural errors [Paras 23-27].

Octroi Duty – Valuation Methodology – Petitioner challenges the levy of octroi based on MRP less ad hoc deductions as per Rule 2(7)(b) of Octroi Rules, 1965 – Argument that determination should be based on invoice value under Rule 2(7)(a) – Court finds Petitioner's protest against levy from 2001 and subsequent Small Causes Court appeals favoring Petitioner’s contentions – However, Petitioner's failure to protest from 1995 to 2001 without any reservation weakens the claim for retrospective relief – Relief sought for refund considered unjust enrichment due to burden likely passed to consumers – Petition dismissed but leaves open issues of law for future determinations [Paras 1-42].

Unjust Enrichment – Equity Considerations – Constitutional Bench precedents cited against refund of taxes or duties passed on to consumers – Principle applied to deny refund to Petitioner despite possible misapplication of valuation rules – Court emphasizes that equity prevents recovery of such refunds when it leads to unjust enrichment of the claimant [Paras 32-39].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Issues of law regarding valuation under clauses (a) or (b) of Rule 2(7) kept open for case-by-case determination – Interim relief vacated due to GST subsumption of octroi – No order as to costs [Paras 40-42].

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Appellants challenged the rejection of their applications for default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. – Contention that the Additional Sessions Judge lacked jurisdiction to grant extension for filing charge-sheet – High Court dismissed appeals, holding that the Order dated 2^nd September 2018, which extended time for filing charge-sheet, was upheld by the Supreme Court, rendering the applications for default bail infructuous – Emphasized that judicial impropriety would result from re-evaluating the Supreme Court’s decision [Paras 1-21].

Jurisdiction – Competence of Additional Sessions Judge – Examined the competence of the Additional Sessions Judge in granting extensions and handling remand – Held that with the restoration of the Order dated 2^nd September 2018 by the Supreme Court, the applications for default bail became infructuous [Paras 1-21].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Validity of the Order dated 2^nd September 2018 upheld by the Supreme Court – Appellants not entitled to default bail – Applications at Exhibits 48 and 49 declared infructuous [Para 21].

Eviction and Recovery of Possession – Rent Arrears – Plaintiff sought a decree for eviction and recovery of vacant possession of the suit premises, along with arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 5,48,903/- from November 2018 till September 2021. Additionally, a decree for Rs. 14,40,000/- and mesne profit at Rs. 300/- per sq. ft. per month from October 1, 2021, until the handover of vacant possession, was sought. The Court allowed the application for a final judgment and decree, subject to conditions [Paras 1-33].

Notice of Termination – Validity – The notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, addressed only to defendant no.1, was contested for not being served to the firm or defendant no.2. The Court held that the notice to a partner (defendant no.1) operates as notice to the firm under Section 24 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The objections to the notice were deemed waived due to no immediate objection from the defendants upon receipt [Paras 27-33].

Procedural Issues in Suits by and Against Firms – The Court discussed the procedural requirements under Order XXX of the CPC for suing and being sued in the firm’s name. The suit filed against defendant no.1 individually, despite the firm being a partnership, was upheld due to the specific circumstances and prior knowledge of the plaintiff [Paras 30-31].

Conditions for Leave to Defend – The Court outlined the conditions under which the defendants could proceed with the suit, emphasizing the requirement to secure Rs. 11,00,000/- with the Registrar within four weeks. Failure to comply would result in eviction [Paras 32-33].

Decision:

Application (G.A. No. 1 of 2023) disposed of. Defendants permitted to proceed with the suit subject to securing the specified amount within the stipulated period, failing which they must vacate the premises.

Arbitration – Non-Signatory Bound by Arbitration Clause – Appellant, a purchaser of property from vendors bound by an arbitration agreement, contended that it was not bound by the arbitration clause as it was not a signatory. The court held that a non-signatory, claiming through or under a party to the arbitration agreement, is bound by the arbitration clause. The court applied the principle established in the Cox and Kings case, interpreting Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [Paras 1-18].

Lis Pendens – Application to Arbitration Proceedings – The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Thus, any transfer of property during such proceedings is subject to the outcome of the arbitration [Paras 19-24].

Interim Measures – Arbitration and Conciliation Act – The court modified the interim restraint order to remain in force for 45 days from the date of receipt of notice from the Arbitral Tribunal or until any interim measures are passed by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier [Paras 25-38].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Held – The interim measure dated 15.04.2024, in A.A.No.15002/2024 before V Additional District Judge Bengaluru Rural, shall remain in force for 45 days from the date of receipt of notice issued by the Arbitral Tribunal on the parties to the proceeding before the Arbitral Tribunal or till any interim measures/orders passed by the Arbitral Tribunal on an application by either of the parties, whichever is earlier. All contentions on merit, including whether the arbitration clause is binding on the appellant, are kept open to be decided by the Tribunal.