Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Violation of Baby Food Control Order – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted for possessing excess tins of Amul Spray and non-compliance with baby food retail license requirements—Held: Prosecution failed to establish from which shop the recovery was made—No production of seized goods or clear seizure location—Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–3, 11–16].

Procedural Safeguards – Invalid Search and Seizure – Non-compliance with Para 17(c) and 17(e) of Control Order – Raid conducted without recording “reason to believe” as mandated—Held: Entire search and seizure vitiated due to violation of statutory procedure—Material irregularity undermines trial’s validity [Paras 7, 14].

Evidentiary Lapses – Independent Witnesses Unreliable – Seizure Not Proven – Independent witnesses (PW3 and PW4) could not confirm seizure origin—Articles not produced in court—Simultaneous raid in another shop (“Kundu Brothers”) blurred item origin—Held: Evidence insufficient; benefit of doubt must go to appellant [Paras 12–16].

Mens Rea – Absence of Accused at Time of Raid – Accused was not present during raid; shop managed by employee—No evidence to prove appellant displayed stock board or acted with culpable intent—Held: Mens rea not established; prosecution failed to link accused to alleged violation [Paras 13–14].

Conflict of Interest – Same Officer as Complainant, Investigator and Seizure Officer – PW6 performed multiple roles including complaint, seizure, and charge-sheet—Held: Raises apprehension of bias and possibility of false implication—Undermines fairness of investigation [Paras 6, 15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act set aside – Accused released from bail bond – Copy to be transmitted to Trial Court [Paras 17–20].

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].

Civil Law – Matrimonial - Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Belated Application – Delay Tactics Found – Amendment Set Aside – Respondent sought to amend his written statement after ten years of divorce proceedings to include a counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights – Amendment was filed after conclusion of evidence and final hearing was scheduled – Held: Application was filed to delay proceedings; respondent failed to explain delay or establish due diligence – Family Court erred in allowing amendment despite High Court’s prior direction to conclude proceedings expeditiously – Amendment order set aside [Paras 6–13, 15–18].

Counter-Claim – Order VIII Rule 6A CPC – Permissible Timing – Must Be Filed Before Delivery of Defence – Amendment After Trial Impermissible – Counter-claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights filed after ten years and post-closure of evidence – Held: Such belated introduction of counter-claim not maintainable as per Rule 6A; counter-claim cannot be permitted when case is at final hearing stage [Paras 9, 14].

Due Diligence – Condition Precedent for Late Amendments – Not Satisfied – Amendment Rejected – High Court reiterated that 'due diligence' under Order VI Rule 17 proviso is not a mere formality – Respondent failed to explain delay despite full knowledge of facts since suit inception – Cited: J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, (2012) 2 SCC 300 [Paras 12–13].

Doctrine of Abuse of Process – Amendment Used as Delay Tactic – Proceedings Already Delayed 10 Years – Court Intervened to Prevent Misuse – Respondent repeatedly filed applications to delay adjudication – After closure of evidence and direction by High Court to expedite, filing of amendment held to be mala fide – Court directed day-to-day hearing to prevent further delay [Paras 5, 13, 17, 19].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Belated Counter-Claim Barred – Claim Must Be Timely and Bona Fide – Respondent’s claim for conjugal rights could and should have been raised earlier – Introducing at final stage amounts to change in nature of proceedings – Not permitted [Paras 7, 16].

Decision – Amendment Order Set Aside – Trial Directed to Conclude Within Two Months – Family Court order allowing amendment dated 20.02.2025 quashed – Family Court directed to proceed on day-to-day basis and conclude trial within two months, without adjournments on strike or other grounds [Paras 18–19].

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 Law - Bail – Sections 302, 201, 365, 34 of the IPC Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SCST Act - Prolonged Custody – No Witness Examined – Bail Granted – Appellant arrested in October 2023 in murder case involving Section 302 IPC and SC/ST Act – Challan presented, but no prosecution witness examined after over 1 year and 7 months – Held: In absence of progress in trial and no direct evidence against appellant, continued custody not justified – Regular bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 1, 2, 5, 6]

Criminal Procedure – Allegations Based on Supplementary Statement – Evidentiary Value – Appellant implicated based on complainant’s supplementary statement and call details showing contact with co-accused – CCTV footage shows only co-accused with deceased – Held: Mere call exchange between co-villagers insufficient to establish guilt – Presence not corroborated by visual evidence – Bail justified pending trial [Paras 2, 4, 5]

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Mandated – Directions Issued – Appellant directed to comply with detailed bail conditions, including appearing before trial court, not influencing witnesses, and reporting to local SHO monthly – Held: Non-compliance will result in cancellation of bail and liberty to prosecution to move appropriate application [Paras 6, 7]

Decision – Bail Allowed – Order of Sessions Court Dismissing Bail Set Aside – Bail Granted with Strict Conditions – Matter to Proceed Before Trial Court Without Delay [Paras 6, 7]

Matrimonial Law - Compromise in Matrimonial Dispute – Allegation of Lack of Informed Consent – Fresh Opportunity Granted – Wife opposed recording of compromise agreement reached before counsellor, alleging she was unaware of its full terms and was denied legal advice—Family Court dismissed her objection—Held: No evidence was adduced by wife to support her claim, but since neither party acted on the compromise, Court granted opportunity to substantiate claims—Orders and judgment set aside, matter remanded [Paras 2–5, 7–11].

Maintenance and Return of Property – Claims Not Properly Raised in Pleadings – Settlement Unclear – Wife originally claimed maintenance, gold ornaments (12 sovereigns), ₹20,000 patrimony, and household articles—However, these were not included in the relief clause—Terms of compromise mentioned only ₹60,000 and return of ornaments—Held: Ambiguity in settlement terms justifies retrial to clarify intentions [Paras 6, 9–10].

Procedural Fairness – No Evidence Adduced – Still Opportunity Allowed – Despite wife failing to seek examination or adduce proof, High Court considered fairness and potential injustice—Remanded matter to Family Court for fresh evidence and proper adjudication of compromise validity [Paras 8–11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders on I.A. Nos. 2159 and 2258 of 2013 and judgment in O.P. No. 78 of 2012 set aside – Family Court to reconsider applications afresh – Parties to appear on 11.06.2025 [Para 11].

Pre-emption – Section 8 WBLR Act – Short Deposit of Consideration – Application Not Maintainable – Petitioners filed application to pre-empt land transferred by three sale deeds, but deposited only half of the total consideration—Held: As per statutory mandate and binding precedent, entire consideration with 10% must be deposited at the time of application—Failure to comply renders application invalid—Pre-emption claim dismissed [Paras 21–23, 25–30].

Multiple Deeds – Single Application – Partial Pre-emption Not Permissible – Petitioners sought pre-emption over three separate sale deeds but selectively deposited amount for one—Held: Attempt to pre-empt one of multiple sales in a composite application not legally permissible—Cannot approbate and reprobate within same proceeding [Paras 11, 13, 29–30].

Precedents – Barasat Eye Hospital and Abdul Matin Mallick – Binding on All Courts – Court followed Barasat Eye Hospital v. Kaustabh Mondal, (2019) 19 SCC 676 and Abdul Matin Mallick v. Subrata Bhattacharjee, (2022) 7 SCC 147—Held: Time and complete deposit are sacrosanct under Section 8—Delay or shortfall cannot be condoned [Paras 16–19, 30].

Procedural Lapse – Trial and Appellate Court Ignored Statutory Deposit Requirement – Both courts below focused on co-sharer and adjoining land owner claims—Failed to examine essential prerequisite of full deposit at filing—Held: Entire pre-emption proceeding vitiated by foundational procedural error [Paras 21, 31].

Equity and Discretion – No Relief Without Statutory Compliance – Petitioners argued equity and partial compliance—Court held that non-observance of explicit statutory preconditions defeats claim—Equitable discretion cannot override law [Paras 27–28].

Decision – Revision dismissed – Pre-emption application held not maintainable – Petitioners entitled to refund of deposit with interest, if any – No costs awarded – Connected applications also disposed [Paras 32–34].

Family Law – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Delay Tactics in Divorce Suit – Belated Amendment to Add Restitution Claim – Rejected – Respondent sought to amend written statement after 10 years of divorce proceedings to include counterclaim for restitution of conjugal rights—Court held: Application filed after evidence was closed and date fixed for final hearing—No explanation for delay—Amendment rejected as mala fide and intended to delay proceedings [Paras 7, 13–14, 16–18].

Civil Procedure – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Due Diligence Not Established – Citing Supreme Court’s rulings in M. Revanna v. Anjanamma and J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, Court held: Due diligence requirement not met—Amendment at final stage without justification is impermissible—Nature of case would materially change if allowed [Paras 8, 12–13].

Family Court Conduct – Ignored High Court Directions – Amendment Despite Time-Barred Status – Family Court had been directed by High Court to conclude trial within four months—Despite this, allowed amendment after closure of evidence—Court held: Improper exercise of discretion and disregard of binding direction [Paras 6, 15].

Counterclaim – Order VIII Rule 6A CPC – Must Precede Defence Filing – Respondent attempted to invoke counterclaim after trial stage—Court held: Such claim must be filed before defence submission—Application post-trial cannot be entertained under Order VIII Rule 6A [Paras 9–10, 14].

Precedents – Distinction from Nitaben Dinesh Patel Case – Respondent cited Nitaben Dinesh Patel v. Dinesh Dahyabhai Patel—Court distinguished facts: In that case, facts prompting amendment arose during cross-examination—Here, no new fact emerged; amendment known since inception—Held inapplicable [Para 16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Family Court’s order dated 20.02.2025 allowing amendment set aside – Divorce proceedings to proceed without delay – Family Court directed to conclude trial within two months on day-to-day basis [Paras 18–19].

Civil Law – Recovery – Contract  - Supply of Paddy – Breach of Milling Obligation – Agreement Not Proved – Appeal Dismissed - Plaintiff Markfed claimed recovery due to delay and deficiency in return of milled rice – Receipts of paddy supply (Ex.P6 to Ex.P10) relied upon – However, no formal agreement filed or proved – PW1 admitted agreement was mandatory before supply – Held: In absence of agreement, no contractual breach could be established – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 5–7].

Proof of Documents – Receipts Not Properly Proved – Evidentiary Value Denied - Plaintiff relied on unsigned receipts not verified by witnesses – Defendant's signatures not admitted – Held: Receipts not proved per law, hence inadmissible to support recovery claim [Para 8].

Limitation and Arbitration Clause – Suit Barred – Alternate Remedy Available - Plaintiff admitted arbitration clause existed – Suit also filed after expiry of limitation period (31.08.1996 deadline; suit filed on 24.12.1999) – Held: Suit barred both under limitation and due to existence of arbitration clause [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law - High Court found no error in concurrent findings of courts below – Plea of contract breach not made out without agreement – No reason to interfere under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed [Para 11].