Criminal Appeal – Conviction under sections 363, 366, 376(2)(i)(n) of IPC, and section 6 of the POCSO Act – Appeal against the order of the Special Court – Contentions of the Parties – Evaluation of Evidence – Determination of Age of the Victim – Reliability of Victim’s Evidence – Defense Plea. [Para 1]

POCSO Act – Section 34(2) – Special Court to determine whether a person is a child or not – Statutory mandate to record reasons for such determination – Importance of establishing the minority of the victim child as a condition precedent to proceeding with a case under the POCSO Act. [Para 8]

Evidence – Statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C. – Not substantive evidence – Can be used for corroboration or contradiction – Requirement of confronting the witness with contradictions during cross-examination. [Para 10]

Conviction under section 366 of IPC – Kidnapping or abduction of a woman with intent to compel her to marry against her will or for illicit intercourse – Merger of conviction under section 363 of IPC as a higher offense – No separate sentence required for section 363 of IPC. [Para 11]

Victim’s evidence – Corroborated by family members and circumstantial evidence – Trustworthy and reliable – Conviction justified – Dismissal of the appeal. [Para 11]

Constitutional Law – Right to Education – Amendment to Maharashtra RTE Rules – Petitioners challenge the amendment excluding private unaided schools from admitting children from disadvantaged groups if government/aided schools are within 1 km – Contention that the amendment violates the RTE Act and Article 21-A of the Constitution – High Court examines the legislative intent and statutory obligations under the RTE Act [Paras 1-29].

Statutory Interpretation – Subordinate Legislation – Legitimacy of Amendment Rules – Argument that the amendment overreaches Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act – High Court holds that subordinate legislation must conform to the principal act – Amendment deemed ultra vires as it contradicts mandatory provisions of the RTE Act [Paras 30-35].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Free and Compulsory Education – High Court emphasizes that the amendment impinges upon the fundamental right to education – Provision restricting private school admissions violates Article 21-A and is inconsistent with legislative objectives [Paras 36-40].

Administrative Law – Arbitrary and Unreasonable Provisions – Amendment challenged on grounds of arbitrariness – High Court finds the exclusion of private unaided schools arbitrary and contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Article 15(5) of the Constitution [Paras 41-45].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – The impugned Amendment Rules notified on February 9, 2024, are set aside – High Court directs the State Government to ensure compliance with Section 12(1)© of the RTE Act, including private unaided schools in admission of children from disadvantaged groups [Para 46].

Partition – Preliminary Decree – Will – The appellant challenged the preliminary decree of partition favoring respondents based on a Will – High Court held the Will was duly proved, and the suit property devolved upon the respondents as per the Will – Appeal against the decree dismissed [Paras 1-28].

Will – Requirement of Probate – Delhi – Appellant’s contention that Will was not probated was rejected – High Court confirmed that probate is not mandatory in Delhi – Reliance on the Will for partition upheld [Paras 19-20].

Non-Joinder of Parties – Legal Heirs – The suit for partition was challenged for non-joinder of other legal heirs – High Court held that other legal heirs were neither necessary nor proper parties as they had not laid any claim to the suit property – Suit not affected by non-joinder [Paras 21-23].

Oral Partition – Fresh Decree – Appellant’s claim of an oral partition was dismissed – High Court noted no formal partition by metes and bounds had occurred – Preliminary decree of partition was correctly passed by the learned Single Judge [Paras 24-27].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – No merit in the appeal – Preliminary decree of partition and permanent injunction affirmed – Suit property to be partitioned equally between the appellant and respondents [Paras 28-29].

Commercial Suit – Right to File Written Statement – Application for Review – The appellant's right to file a written statement was closed by the Single Bench due to a delay beyond 120 days as mandated under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC (as amended by the Commercial Courts Act). The appellant argued that the suit was not initially treated as a commercial suit, and the 120-day period should not apply. The court held that until the suit was converted into a commercial suit, the mandatory time limit did not apply, and the right to file a written statement should be preserved [Paras 1-35].

Appeal Maintainability – Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act – The court examined the maintainability of the appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. It found that Section 13 did not bar the appeal because the impugned order was passed before the suit was converted into a commercial suit. The court relied on the judgments in Brahmos Aerospace Pvt. Ltd. v. FIIT JEE Ltd & Anr. and Nirman Consultants Pvt. Ltd v. NNE Ltd. to support its conclusion that orders passed before conversion are appealable under the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 [Paras 20-24].

Judgment – Criteria for Determining Appealability – The court applied the criteria from Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania to determine if the impugned order qualifies as a "judgment" and is therefore appealable. The court concluded that the order affects vital rights of the appellant to defend the suit, qualifying it as a "judgment" under Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 [Paras 25-28].

Discretion Under Section 15(4) of Commercial Courts Act – The court noted that upon the conversion of a suit into a commercial suit, the court has the discretion under Section 15(4) of the Commercial Courts Act to prescribe new timelines for filing the written statement. The appellant's right to file a written statement should have been preserved until such discretion was exercised [Paras 29-34].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The impugned order closing the appellant's right to file a written statement was set aside. The written statement filed by the appellant on April 21, 2016, was directed to be taken on record. The suit was to proceed from that stage [Paras 35-37].

Criminal Bail Application – Abetment of Suicide – Sections 306, 504, and 506 IPC – Applicant involved in a love affair with the deceased – Allegations of threats, abduction, and rape leading to the victim’s suicide – Bail application filed during the pendency of trial.

Elements of Abetment of Suicide – Proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement required – Mere allegations of harassment insufficient for conviction – Mens rea (intention) and active/direct acts leading to suicide must be established. (Para 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of the judgment)

Influence of Western Culture on Youth – Increasing trend of complicated relationships influenced by media – Impacts on mental health and emotional stability – Need for societal awareness and parental guidance. (Para 15 of the judgment)

Expediting Trials – Applicant’s right to a speedy trial – Overcrowding in jails and implications on under-trial prisoners – Directions to conclude the trial within two years. (Para 19 of the judgment)

Bail Granted – Conditions imposed on the applicant – Monitoring of his conduct during the trial – Cancellation of bail in case of breach of conditions. (Para 16, 17, 18 of the judgment)

Recovery of Loan – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Entitlement to Debt Relief

*Recovery Suit – Borrowing and Liability – Suit for recovery of Rs. 40,098.90 filed by Syndicate Bank against Venkata Rama Saw Mills & Timber Depot, and its proprietor Sk. Nayab Rasool, with K. Moodava Kotaiah and N. Anjaneyulu as co-obligants – Execution of demand promissory note and relevant documents by the defendants for a loan – Defendants admitted borrowing and liability, claiming benefits under debt relief laws – Trial court decreed the suit, holding defendants not entitled to such benefits – On appeal, High Court upheld trial court’s judgment, confirming the defendants’ liability and ineligibility for debt relief [Paras 1-14].

*Debt Relief – Eligibility under Act 4 of 1938 – Defendants’ claim of being agriculturists entitled to benefits under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 rejected – Defendants’ status as business proprietors not meeting the criteria for small farmers – Appellants’ argument deemed unsustainable as the first defendant is a business firm and the second defendant its proprietor [Paras 5, 12-13].

Admission of Liability – Absence of Contrary Evidence – Defendants admitted liability and failed to provide evidence to dispute the plaintiff’s claim – Court relied on plaintiff’s evidence, including promissory notes and account extracts, affirming the amount owed by the defendants – Appellants’ plea for installment payment and usurious interest rejected as unsupported by evidence [Paras 5, 13].

Decision: Appeal Suit dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. No order as to costs [Para 14].

Arbitration – Extension of Arbitrator’s Mandate – Application Filed Post-Termination – Consideration of Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Court holds that it retains the power to extend the mandate even if the application is filed after the statutory timeline for expiry of the mandate – Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Berger Paints India Limited distinguished – Mandate extended by six months with direction to avoid unnecessary adjournments [Paras 1-88].

Precedent – Binding Nature – Rohan Builders (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Berger Paints India Limited not binding due to Supreme Court stay – Court emphasizes independence in adjudication when Supreme Court stay is in place – Decisions from Delhi and Bombay High Courts on similar issues considered persuasive [Paras 3-16].

Court’s Discretion – Section 29-A(4) and (5) – Language allows for extension of mandate before or after termination – No statutory prohibition against post-termination application – Judicial discretion and sufficient cause paramount in extension decisions [Paras 18-38].

Legislative Intent – Comparison with Other Statutes – Absence of negative provisions in Section 29-A indicates flexibility – Legislative intent to facilitate arbitration, not to curtail it – Statutes with strict timelines highlighted for contrast [Paras 51-58].

Law Commission’s Recommendations – 176^th Report – Comparison with 2016 Amendment – Suspension versus termination and revival – Emphasis on court’s power to extend mandate reflecting legislative intent to avoid arbitral deadlocks [Paras 39-49].

Purpose of Section 29-A – Encourage Arbitration – Facilitate speedy dispute resolution without excessive court intervention – Flexibility provided to ensure justice and avoid arbitral proceedings becoming cul-de-sacs due to procedural delays [Paras 59-77].

Decision:

Petition allowed. Mandate of the arbitrator extended for six months from the date of judgment. Arbitral proceedings to conclude within the extended period without unnecessary adjournments. No order as to costs. Urgent certified server copies, if applied for, to be issued upon compliance with due formalities [Paras 87-88].

Bail Application – Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Principles – Petitioner accused of serious offences including attempted murder – Consideration of factors such as length of custody, completion of investigation, and absence of criminal antecedents – High Court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Criminal Law – Presumption of Innocence – Right to Bail – Petitioner in custody for 43 days, investigation complete, and final report filed – No previous criminal record – Court held that further detention was unwarranted and allowed bail with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent tampering with evidence [Paras 1-10].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Decision – Court exercised discretion judiciously and compassionately – Noted the importance of safeguarding individual liberty while ensuring the integrity of the investigation – Cited precedents emphasizing the fundamental right to bail [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Application for bail allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties – Imposed conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the investigation.

Service Law - Judicial Review – Departmental Enquiry – Second Enquiry Not Permissible – Petitioner challenged the initiation of a second disciplinary enquiry on the same charges after the first enquiry was completed – Court held that a second enquiry is impermissible under law if the first enquiry decided the allegations on merits – Second enquiry deemed void [Paras 14-16].

Natural Justice – Cross-Examination – Violation – Petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine key witnesses during the second enquiry – Court emphasized the importance of cross-examination to ensure a fair trial – Inquiry conducted without allowing cross-examination held to violate principles of natural justice [Paras 17-20].

Personal Hearing – Decision Making – Decision of Board of Directors challenged as it was made by members who did not hear the petitioner personally – Court held that the authority that hears the arguments must be the same authority to pass the decision – Decision made by members who did not hear the petitioner deemed invalid [Paras 21-26].

Delay in Disciplinary Proceedings – Prejudice – Court noted the 14-year delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings caused significant prejudice to the petitioner, including mental distress and financial loss – Delay attributed to the Opposite Party [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned order of compulsory retirement set aside – Opp. Party directed to settle retirement dues and pay interest on delayed payments – Proceedings deemed legally untenable due to multiple violations of natural justice [Paras 31-33].