Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious Liability under Section 141 – Criminal Appeal against summoning orders issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without referring to Section 141 – Petitioners argued they were neither signatories of the cheques nor responsible for the company’s daily affairs – Court quashes the summoning orders and complaints, finding that summoning orders were issued in a casual manner without necessary observations – Held, petitioners cannot be held vicariously liable as there were no specific averments indicating their responsibility in the conduct of the company's business. [Paras 1-31]

Role of Accused in Cheque Bounce Case – Analysis and Legal Framework – Examination of the requirements under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Held, for vicarious liability, the complaint must specifically state that the accused were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the company's business at the relevant time – References to various Supreme Court judgments, including SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, and National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, which emphasize the necessity of specific averments for establishing vicarious liability. [Paras 22-31]

Decision – Quashing of Summoning Orders and Complaints – Summoning orders and complaints quashed due to lack of specific averments and evidence against the petitioners – Court directs that the civil right for recovery of the amount remains open between the parties, subject to the law of limitation. [Paras 30-32]

Criminal Law – Summoning of Witness – Petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Criminal Appeal against the trial court's order dismissing the application to summon an eyewitness – Petitioner argues essential evidence was not adduced due to inadvertence – Supreme Court principles emphasize the need for Courts to permit correction of such oversights to administer justice fairly – Held, the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the eyewitness is allowed. [Paras 1-16]

Rectification of Inadvertent Omissions – Legal Framework and Court's Approach – Analysis of Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Held, Courts should distinguish between a prosecutorial lacuna and inadvertent oversight by the prosecutor – Function of criminal Courts is to ensure the administration of justice, not to count errors made by parties – Application of principles from Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, Supreme Court case. [Paras 7-9]

Decision – Summoning of Witness – The trial court's order is set aside – Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon and examine the eyewitness, Arashdeep Singh, is allowed – Matter remitted to trial court with instructions to summon and examine the witness and provide the accused an opportunity for cross-examination. [Paras 15-16]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138, 141 – Petitions for quashing complaints under Section 138 NI Act and summoning orders – Business dealings and transactions involving purchase of paddy crops – Cheques signed by co-accused/Director of the Company – Authorized person responsible for day-to-day business of the Company, not the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be vicariously liable under Section 141 NI Act as he was neither the signatory of the cheques nor in charge of the company's day-to-day business. Summoning order passed in a casual manner, without referring to Section 141 NI Act. Petitions allowed. [Paras 1-36]

Evidence Evaluation – Supreme Court found substantial corroboration in the initial consistent statements of the complainants and the actions of co-accused Anil Mahajan, who was the authorized signatory and responsible for the company’s transactions. Despite the petitioner not being directly involved in issuing the cheques, his bona fide actions of settling payments were considered. However, this did not establish vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act. [Paras 1-36]

Decision – Quashing of complaints – Held – The petitions are allowed based on the lack of evidence against the petitioner showing his involvement in the day-to-day operations or as a signatory to the cheques. The court highlighted that liability cannot be vicariously fastened under Section 141 NI Act without specific evidence of involvement in the company's operations. [Para 36]

Criminal Procedure - Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences – Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the trial court’s order directing sentences to run concurrently – Petitioner convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act – Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and two separate 5-year sentences under Section 25 Arms Act – Section 31 CrPC allows Court to direct sentences to run consecutively or concurrently – Section 427(2) CrPC mandates that a subsequent sentence runs concurrently with a life sentence unless otherwise directed – Trial court's application of Section 353 and 362 CrPC to modify sentences after 13 years held to be incorrect. [Paras 1-29]

Principles of Sentencing – Analysis – Held – Concurrent running of sentences is permissible when a person is convicted at one trial for multiple offences – Court’s discretion to specify the order of sentences – Consecutive life sentences are unworkable – Life sentence and term sentences run concurrently unless directed otherwise by the Court. [Paras 15-17, 21]

Finality of Judgments – Limitation on Alteration – Section 362 CrPC prohibits alteration or review of a judgment by the Court once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors – Trial court became functus officio after disposing of the matter – Application filed after 13 years for altering the judgment not maintainable. [Para 24]

Decision – Quashing of Order – Petition allowed – Order of trial court directing sentences to run concurrently quashed – Court reaffirms the necessity to specify in judgments whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively – Emphasis on judicial discretion and avoidance of mechanical application. [Para 29]

Arbitration Law – Interim Measures – Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief to restrain the respondent from supplying agricultural machinery to third parties – Petitioner relied on exclusivity clauses in the distribution agreement – Court noted the inordinate delay in approaching the Court and failure to initiate arbitration proceedings – Held, relief under Section 9 is discretionary and guided by principles of Specific Relief Act – Delay in seeking relief and non-initiation of arbitration proceedings are fatal to the petitioner’s case. [Paras 1-48]

Maintainability of Petition Against Third Parties – Arbitration Law – Analysis of the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act – Held, interim directions can be issued against third parties even if there is no privity of contract – Court referred to judgments from Delhi and Bombay High Courts supporting the issuance of interim measures against non-parties to the arbitration agreement. [Paras 47-48]

Decision – Denial of Interim Relief – Petition for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act dismissed – Court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner – Petitioner’s delay and failure to pursue arbitration proceedings weighed against granting the interim relief sought. [Paras 44-48]

Injunction - Infrastructure Projects - Civil Revision Petition against Appellate Court order granting interim injunction - Section 164 of Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of Telegraph Act empowers authority to lay electricity lines over private land without owner’s consent - Injunction barred under Specific Relief Act for infrastructure projects - Appellate Court order set aside, trial court order denying injunction restored. [Paras 11-17]

Civil Procedure - Rights of Landowners - Analysis - Held - Private owners cannot challenge alignment of electricity lines, can only claim compensation for damages - Notification or consent not required under Telegraph Act - Rule 3 of Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 subordinate to Section 164 of Electricity Act. [Para 13]

Decision - Setting Aside Appellate Order - Petition allowed - Appellate order granting injunction against infrastructure project reversed - Specific Relief Act prohibits such injunctions to avoid delays in public utility projects. [Para 16]

Criminal Law - Confiscation of Vehicles - Release on Superdari - Criminal petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's order denying release of a vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The vehicle was used for illegal transport of cattle, confiscated under the Haryana GauvanshSanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015. Held, the Court which made the confiscation order has no jurisdiction to release the confiscated vehicle. The petitioner should first appeal before the District Magistrate to annul the confiscation order and subsequently request the release of the vehicle. The statute mandates that only the competent authority, not the Magistrate, has the jurisdiction to deal with the release of confiscated vehicles under the Haryana GauvanshSanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act. [Paras 1-9]

Decision - Jurisdiction and Procedure - Court rules that the petitioner must pursue statutory remedies under the Haryana GauvanshSanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, which provides that the District Magistrate is the competent authority to annul a confiscation order before seeking the release of the vehicle. The petition is disposed of with directions for the petitioner to appeal to the District Magistrate, and the District Magistrate is instructed to decide the appeal within two months from the date of institution. [Paras 8-9]

Reservation in Public Employment - Constitutionality - Writ Petition challenging 100% reservation for specific categories in appointment of Pre-Primary School Teachers - Held, 100% reservation not permissible under the Constitution - State directed to issue fresh advertisement allowing only 50% reservation, ensuring equality of opportunity. [Paras 1-34]

Equality in Public Employment - Analysis - Held - 100% reservation violates Articles 14, 15, 16 - Reservation beyond 50% requires special justification - Supreme Court precedents emphasized on equality and non-discrimination in public employment opportunities - State action deemed arbitrary and violative of constitutional principles. [Para 34]

Decision - Quashing Advertisement and Directing Fresh Process - Petition allowed - State to issue new advertisement for Pre-Primary School Teachers with corrected reservation policy - Ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates on equality. [Para 35]

Right of Redemption – Interpretation under SARFAESI Act – Petitioners contended the right of redemption continues till the sale certificate is issued and conveyed. The court held that the amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act does not extinguish the mortgagor's right of redemption until the sale certificate is executed. The court emphasized the continuous applicability of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and noted that the right of redemption persists beyond the auction date until the issuance of a sale certificate. – Held that the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is intended to regulate the secured creditor's right to transfer the secured asset and not to alter the right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage. – Writ Petition allowed subject to the petitioners paying the outstanding dues within four weeks. If not, the petition stands dismissed with costs. [Paras 55-93, 132]

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Despite SARFAESI Act providing a complete code for expeditious recovery of dues, the court held that relegating the petitioners to the statutory remedy after a prolonged period would be inappropriate. The court also considered the non-functioning state of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as a factor in favor of maintaining the writ jurisdiction. – Held that the plea for dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of non-maintainability was rejected. [Paras 94-98]

Decision:

Right of Redemption Upheld – Court held that the right of redemption is not extinguished till the execution of the sale certificate. The writ petition was allowed with the condition that the petitioners must pay the entire outstanding dues within four weeks. If not complied, the petition will be dismissed with costs. The court directed the bank to refund the auction purchasers with interest if the petitioners fulfilled their payment obligations. [Paras 132]