Company Law - Winding Up – Debt Admission in Balance Sheet – Limited to ₹64.30 Lakh – Petition filed under Sections 433(e), 434(1)(a) alleging failure of respondent company to repay total dues of ₹21.55 crores—Court held only ₹64.30 lakh admitted in balance sheet was an undisputed liability—Directed respondent to pay with 11% interest—No case for winding up made solely on this basis [Paras 48–55].

Debt Assignment – Claim Based on IDBI Loan Transfer – Held Unenforceable – Petitioner claimed right to recover under a deed of assignment from IDBI Bank—Court found the underlying debt had already been extinguished via One-Time Settlement (OTS) prior to assignment—Held: No subsisting actionable claim remained—Claim under assignment rejected as disputed and barred [Paras 51–54].

Charge Creation – No Right Without Live Debt – Registered Charge Not Sufficient – Though charge of ₹2.24 crore was registered with ROC, Court held that charge without subsisting debt conferred no rights—Assignment of extinguished debt did not validate secured charge [Para 54].

Notice Requirement – No Valid Service of Statutory Demand – Petition Deficient – Winding up petition under Section 434(1)(a) found non-maintainable due to failure to serve demand notice at registered office—Newspaper publication deemed insufficient without such service—Held: Essential condition for presumption of inability to pay not met [Paras 38, 55].

Just and Equitable Ground – Not Established – Revival Efforts and Asset Value Noted – Petition under Section 433(f) dismissed as no threat to commercial interest shown—Company had valuable assets, willingness to clear Provident Fund and other dues—No material to conclude winding up necessary for commercial justice [Paras 56–58].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Respondent directed to:

Pay ₹64.30 lakh with 11% interest from date of advance till realization within two months;

Clear Provident Fund dues within four weeks;

Settle other outstanding liabilities [Para 59].

Company Law – Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC Club Governance – Use of Facilities by Overage Dependents – Appeal Dismissed – Appellants, overage dependents termed “Green Card Holders,” sought interim protection against termination of access to Delhi Gymkhana Club—Held: AoA of the Club does not create enforceable rights for dependents post age 21—Privileges granted by prior committees were ultra vires and void ab initio—Discretion rightly exercised by Single Judge refusing injunction [Paras 1–10, 40–61].

Articles of Association – No Provision for Green Card Holders – Customary Practices Cannot Override AoA – Court held that Green Card Holder category was a discretionary practice without legal sanction under AoA—Use of facilities post-21 permitted without full membership was unauthorized—Customs and bye-laws cannot contradict AoA—Only formal amendments can alter membership rights [Paras 13–18, 41–45, 53–58].

Specific Relief Act – No Enforceable Contractual Right – Privilege is Determinable – Appellants’ claim of contractual rights rejected—Privileges were revocable and not specifically enforceable under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act—Green Card use held to be discretionary, non-binding, and terminable without civil remedy [Paras 60–67].

Corporate Oversight – NCLT/NCLAT Directions Binding – Suspension of Facilities Valid – Based on findings of Naidu Committee and directions from NCLT/NCLAT, club management acted to regularize membership process—Court found action corrective, not arbitrary—No hearing required as appellants lacked vested rights—Public interest, equity, and governance justified termination [Paras 9–10, 12–15, 48–52, 68–69].

Judicial Review – Scope in Interlocutory Appeals – No Interference When Discretion Properly Exercised – Relying on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India, Court held appellate interference with interim orders limited to cases of arbitrariness or perversity—Discretion of Single Judge upheld as reasonable and judicious—Appeal dismissed [Paras 72–75].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Interim relief rightly denied – Appellants not entitled to continued use of club facilities – No costs awarded [Para 75].

Arbitration Law  – Maintainability of Writ under Article 226 – Exception to Rule of Execution – Petitioners sought writ of mandamus for enforcement of arbitral award of ₹61.54 crores related to municipal waste management project—Though execution petition was pending, Court held: Extraordinary delay and non-payment for over 12 years despite decree justified writ jurisdiction—Refused to dismiss petition on ground of alternative remedy [Paras 22–27].

Public Interest – State’s Delay in Compliance – Capricious Conduct Attracts Judicial Intervention – Respondents repeatedly avoided compliance with final arbitral award—Despite failed settlements, no payment made—Court held: Such conduct undermines public trust and warrants constitutional remedy—Government’s defence of ongoing talks rejected as dilatory [Paras 14–18, 25–27].

Partial Relief – Interim Payment Directed – Parallel Remedies Not Barred – While recognizing pendency of execution and appeal, Court directed payment of ₹15 crores before 31.07.2025 as partial enforcement—Held: Preventing miscarriage of justice requires interim relief; balance of amount to be pursued through other legal forums [Paras 28–30].

Contempt of Court – Interim Order Compliance Secured – Petition Closed – Contempt petition filed alleging disobedience of prior interim direction—Court held: As direction to record Government’s stand was ultimately complied with and final relief granted, contempt petition need not proceed further—Closed without punitive orders [Paras 12, 31].

Decision – Writ Petition partly allowed – Government directed to pay ₹15 crores by 31.07.2025 – Petitioners to pursue remainder through execution and appellate remedies – Contempt Petition closed – No costs awarded [Paras 30–31].

Mining Law – Illegal Quarrying – Government's Revision Order Upheld – Petitioner challenged G.O. (D) No. 102 which reinstated original penalty of ₹32.29 crores for unauthorized quarrying—Court found the revised order legal and justified—Held: Earlier reduction of penalty by Commissioner was fraudulent, unconscionable, and caused loss to exchequer—Impugned G.O. correctly passed under Rule 40 of TNMMC Rules [Paras 5.4–5.5, 11.1–11.6, 13(a)].

Environmental Governance – Article 48A and Rule 41 Violated – Court castigated Commissioner’s order for allowing continued quarrying despite massive violations—Observed that revised mining plan and permissions were granted in shocking disregard of law—Held: Action amounted to collusion with polluters and environmental betrayal [Paras 9–10.2].

Prosecution – Criminal Action Ordered for Illegal Mining – Court noted illegal extraction of 5,96,687 cbms of minerals without permits—Directed Sub-Collector to file criminal complaint against quarry operator under Section 21 of MMDR Act—Observed offence punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years and penalty up to 15 times seigniorage fee [Paras 6–7.3, 13(b)].

Compensation – Mandatory Full Recovery of Mineral Value – Referring to Common Cause v. Union of India, Court ruled that 100% value of minerals must be recovered—Discretion in reducing penalty barred by law—Commissioner’s order levying only ₹2.48 crores termed a “fraud on the government” [Paras 7.1–7.3, 11.5].

Natural Justice – No Violation in Revisional Proceedings – Petitioner alleged denial of hearing before passing G.O.—Court found personal hearing was given and submissions recorded—Held: Procedural fairness met; fraud vitiates any equitable claim [Paras 11.2–11.3, 11.6].

Public Accountability – Vigilance Inquiry Ordered – Court found prima facie evidence of systemic collusion and deep-rooted conspiracy among officials—Directed initiation of vigilance probe and prosecution of responsible officers [Paras 12, 13(g)].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – G.O.(D) No. 102 dated 29.10.2024 upheld – Criminal prosecution ordered – ₹32.29 crores penalty to be recovered – Vigilance inquiry to be conducted – No costs [Para 13].

Criminal Procedure – Section 156(3) and 200 CrPC – Allegation of False Implication – Complaint Dismissed – Petitioner sought registration of FIR against police officers alleging false implication under Delhi Excise Act—Cited CCTV footage and illegal detention—Magistrate held complaint premature as trial under Excise Act was ongoing—High Court affirmed dismissal—Held: No prima facie evidence of illegal detention; complaint rightly rejected [Paras 6–7, 24–27].

Police Conduct – Bar Under Section 140 Delhi Police Act – Acting in Discharge of Duty – Police action under color of duty protected under Section 140—Court held legal bar on prosecution unless permission obtained—Petitioner failed to demonstrate mala fide or excess of authority—Complaint not maintainable [Paras 7, 23].

Evidentiary Assessment – CCTV Footage and DVR Inconclusive – Petitioner relied on CCTV showing presence with police at 12:50 PM to negate implication at 4:30 PM—Court noted presence shown was in relation to a different FIR—Allegation of manipulation unsupported; DVR sent for CFSL analysis—Pending trials to determine facts [Paras 6, 16–18, 24].

Procedural Law – Petition Under Section 378(4) and 482 CrPC – Maintainability Questioned – Objection raised that remedy against Section 156(3) order lies in revision—Court declined to dismiss on technicality as Section 200 complaint was also decided—Considered petition on merits and upheld trial court findings [Para 23].

Decision – Leave to appeal declined – Dismissal of complaint and application under Sections 200 and 156(3) CrPC upheld – No directions for registration of FIR – Petition disposed of [Paras 27–28].

Civil Law – Recovery - Matrimonial Property – Return of Gold Ornaments – Evidence from Marriage Register and Photos – Decree Enhanced – Wife claimed 60 sovereigns of gold ornaments were given at time of marriage—Marriage register and photos supported her version—Respondents alleged only 25 sovereigns, part of which was pledged—Court found 60 sovereigns proved—Deducted 10 sovereigns for daily use—Ordered return of 50 sovereigns to wife [Paras 6–13].

Misappropriation – Admission by Suggestion in Cross-Examination – Suggestion made during cross-examination that gold was sold for medical needs of father-in-law—Held: Such suggestion confirms appropriation—Respondents held liable for return of gold ornaments [Para 12].

Documentary Evidence – Marriage Register (Ext.A5/X1) and Photographs (Ext.A3 series) – Accepted – Entry in SNDP marriage register and photos indicating gold worn during marriage accepted as genuine—Attempt to discredit register failed—Held reliable proof of entrustment [Paras 6–9].

Money Claims – Lack of Independent Proof – ₹75,000 Claim Dismissed – Claim for ₹75,000 allegedly given before marriage was based only on wife’s oral assertion—Father, who allegedly paid the amount, not examined—Held: No corroboration; rightly rejected by Family Court [Para 14].

Satisfaction of Decree – Decree for 25 Sovereigns and ₹47,000 Already Complied – Respondents submitted part of decree already satisfied during pendency—Held: Can be raised before execution court if further recovery sought [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Decree modified – Wife entitled to recover 50 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹47,000 with 6% interest from date of petition till realization from 1st respondent – No costs awarded [Final Para].

Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC – Conviction Based on Related Witnesses – Reversed – Appellant convicted for stabbing a minor girl to death along with co-accused—Trial court relied on testimonies of victim’s mother and relatives—Held: Testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3 riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and uncorroborated claims—Independent witnesses not examined—Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 63–71, 73–75].

Identification – Presence of Light Disputed – Alleged eye-witness claimed identification under inverter light—Other testimony and site plan did not mention source of light—Held: Identification doubtful—Site plan omitted key locations—Raises suspicion over prosecution version [Paras 36–37, 53].

Recovery – Knife Not Forensically Tested – Recovery of knife allegedly at accused’s instance not supported by forensic report—No blood found—Held: Absence of forensic confirmation of weapon weakens prosecution case—Recovery held to be doubtful [Paras 50–51, 54–55].

Delay in Naming Accused – Witnesses Unreliable – FIR initially against unknown persons—Victim’s mother allegedly unconscious for 2 days—Names disclosed only after delay—Doctor did not produce admission register—Held: Delay and motive to falsely implicate not ruled out—Testimony of witnesses unreliable [Paras 9–10, 23, 35, 43–46].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death Confirmed – Circumstantial Link Fails – Autopsy confirmed fatal stab wounds—But lack of independent corroboration, no motive proved, and chain of evidence broken—Held: Medical findings alone insufficient without credible link to accused [Paras 7–8, 48–49].

Decision – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/4 Arms Act – Appellant to be released unless required in other cases [Para 76].

Service Law – Non-disclosure of Criminal Case – Minor Offence – Appointment Restored – The appellant-State challenged the order directing appointment of a Scheduled Caste candidate on the ground of alleged suppression of a pending criminal case in the verification form – Held: The criminal case pertained to minor offences arising from a boundary wall dispute and was not pursued vigorously – The candidate voluntarily disclosed the case before appointment and explained the omission as bona fide, believing it to be of civil nature – Suppression not material [Paras 1, 7–9].

Recruitment Process – Applicability of Avtar Singh Guidelines – Suppression Must Be Material – Court held that only deliberate and material suppression affecting the trustworthiness of the candidate can be a valid ground for denial of employment – A holistic and contextual approach must be adopted especially for rural, underprivileged candidates – Held: Para 38.4.1 of Avtar Singh applied; suppression was not deliberate or significant [Paras 5–6].

Rural Socio-legal Awareness – Consideration of Background – Court acknowledged that the respondent was from a rural Scheduled Caste background and may not have distinguished between civil and criminal cases – Emphasized need for empathetic evaluation of candidate conduct where ignorance, not malice, is the cause of omission – Held: View of Single Judge affirming appointment not interfered with [Para 8].

Employer Discretion – Not Absolute – Affidavit Disclosed Pending Case – Appellant failed to consider voluntary disclosure of criminal case through affidavit submitted prior to final appointment – No mala fides shown – Employer's discretion to deny appointment must be exercised fairly, not arbitrarily – Held: State’s refusal unjustified in facts [Paras 1, 8].

Special Appeal – Judicial Review – Finding of Learned Single Judge Upheld – Court found no legal error in the judgment under appeal – Dismissal of Special Appeal affirmed as just and proper – Held: Appeal dismissed; direction to appoint the respondent stands [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Law – Addition of Charge – Section 216 CrPC – Scope and Preconditions – Trial court allowed addition of Section 306 IPC charge against petitioner after examining prosecution witnesses under Section 216 CrPC – Held: While the court has exclusive power to alter or add charges, such power must be exercised only where materials on record disclose ingredients of the offence sought to be added – No evidence on record to show instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding to attract Section 306 – Order unsustainable [Paras 1–8].

Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Active Role – No Instigation or Intentional Aid – Prosecution relied on the allegation that a draft divorce agreement delivered by another accused caused mental distress to deceased leading to suicide – Held: No material to show petitioner instigated or aided suicide – Mere harassment or mental distress unaccompanied by active role is insufficient to sustain charge under Section 306 IPC – Precedents reaffirmed [Paras 6–8].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of Section 216 CrPC – Court’s Discretion Paramount – Later Supreme Court ruling permits informant or prosecutor to bring addition of charge to court’s notice – However, addition cannot be automatic – Must be supported by cogent evidence linking accused to new charge – Trial court erred in applying standard [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Addition of Charge Set Aside – Crl.M.C. Allowed – Impugned Order dated 02.05.2014 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kannur set aside – Charge under Section 306 IPC not maintainable against petitioner in absence of evidence establishing abetment [Paras 8, Conclusion].