Narcotics Law – Freezing of Bank Accounts – Compliance with Statutory Procedure – The petitioner, a startup company, sought de-freezing of its bank accounts frozen by the NCB following a case against one of its directors for NDPS Act violations. The court found that the NCB did not comply with Section 68F of the NDPS Act, which mandates communication to and confirmation by the competent authority within specific timeframes. The freeze was ordered without following due process, rendering the action legally unsustainable. The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the freeze orders while allowing NCB to initiate fresh proceedings if necessary [Paras 1-9].

Mandamus – Relief Against Arbitrary Administrative Action – The court issued a writ of mandamus directing the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory mandates to prevent arbitrary actions by authorities [Para 9].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – The order dated 08/12/2022 freezing the petitioner's bank accounts is quashed. NCB is not precluded from initiating lawful proceedings in the future.
 

Amendment Application Dismissal – Specific Performance Plea – Limitation Issue – The plaintiff’s application for amendment to include a specific performance plea was dismissed by the Trial Court. The proposed amendment was found to change the suit's nature, introduce a new cause of action, and was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963. [Paras 1, 1.6, 6, 6.4]

Plaintiff’s Arguments – Inadvertent Exclusion of Specific Performance – The plaintiff argued that the relief for specific performance was inadvertently not included in the original plaint. Cited Supreme Court judgments stating that a party must not suffer due to the mistake of counsel. [Paras 2, 2.1, 2.2]

Defendant's Counter – Application's Timeliness and Validity – The defendants argued that the amendment application was rightfully dismissed based on the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC and raised objections on the maintainability of the suit. [Paras 3, 3.1, 3.2]

Trial Court’s Findings – Dismissal of Amendment Justified – The Court agreed with the Trial Court's findings that the amendment would alter the suit's nature and introduce a time-barred claim, hence was not permissible. [Paras 5, 6, 6.7]

Due Diligence Lacking in Amendment Application – The application for amendment failed to satisfy the due diligence requirement as per the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC. [Paras 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5]

Final Decision – High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, dismissing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. [Paras 9, 10, 11]

Right to Information (RTI) – Maintenance in Matrimonial Proceedings – Wife's Entitlement to Husband's Salary Details for Maintenance Claim - Writ petition challenging the order of the State Information Commissioner directing the employer to furnish the petitioner's salary details to his wife, the fourth respondent, in context of pending matrimonial proceedings and maintenance claim. [Para 2-3]

Applicability of the Right to Information – Husband as Not a Third Party in Matrimonial Dispute - court held that in matrimonial proceedings, the fourth respondent (wife) is not a third party and is entitled to know the petitioner's (husband's) salary for determining maintenance. Reference to a similar order by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in W.A.Nos.168 and 170 of 2015 (Sunita Jain V. Pawan Kumar Jain and Others) supporting the wife's entitlement. [Para 3-4]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition - The court found the order of the State Information Commissioner appropriate, sustaining it, and dismissed the writ petition. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. [Para 4]

Defamation Trial – Petitioner, an acclaimed journalist and Managing Editor of 'Daily Ajit' and 'Ajit Samachar', facing defamation trial for 15 years – Dismissal of criminal revision petition by Sessions Court challenged – Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing summons in defamation case. [Para 1]

Publication of Alleged Defamatory News – Petitioner's newspapers accused of publishing news implicating respondent in corruption – Respondent, an IPS officer, filed criminal complaint for defamation. [Paras 2, 3, 4]

Legal Proceedings and Evidence – Magistrate's issuance of summons based on prima facie evidence – Detailed analysis of pleadings, submissions, and applicability of judicial precedents leading to the outcome of the case. [Paras 5-7, 16-17]

Jurisdiction and Applicability of Section 499 IPC – Complaint's failure to specify how news lowered complainant’s reputation among the public – Lack of sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner for summoning. [Paras 22-24, 27]

Protection under Exceptions to Section 499 IPC – Petitioner's entitlement to protection as news reports were statements of political leaders without any personal or biased comments from the petitioner – Benefit under the first and ninth exceptions of Section 499 IPC. [Paras 29-32]

Responsibility of Editor under Press Law – Petitioner as Managing Editor, not Chief Editor, not responsible for publication of content under Press and Registration of Books Act – No specific allegations against petitioner in the complaint. [Paras 38-41]

Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Invocation of Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice – Quashing of summons and all subsequent proceedings against the petitioner. [Para 43]

Decision: Complaint, summoning order, and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner quashed due to lack of sufficient prima facie evidence and entitlement to exceptions under Section 499 IPC. [Para 43]

Amendment of Written Statement – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Petitioner sought to amend the written statement to include new facts and explanations regarding the execution of the Agreement to Sell (ATS) – Trial Court dismissed the amendment application, noting the completion of pleadings and advanced stage of trial – High Court upheld Trial Court's decision, citing the proposed amendments as inconsistent and prejudicial to the plaintiff [Paras 1-14].

Inconsistent and Contradictory Allegations – High Court emphasized that amendments introducing mutually destructive and contradictory allegations should not be allowed – Found that the proposed amendments would alter the nature of the original defense and introduce a completely new case, contrary to the defendant's previous categorical denials [Paras 5-10].

Prejudice and Delay – Allowing the proposed amendments would delay the trial and cause prejudice to the plaintiff – Court noted the amendments would result in a wholly inconsistent written statement, complicating the adjudication process and leading to potential injustice [Para 10].

Bona Fide Requirement – Defendant's plea of inadvertence by previous counsel was not considered a bona fide ground for amendment – Court stressed the need for legitimate reasons for amendments, especially when they fundamentally alter the defense [Para 12].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – High Court found no error in the Trial Court's dismissal of the amendment application – Emphasized the importance of consistency in pleadings and the prohibition against introducing new, contradictory defenses through amendments [Para 14].

Applicability of ESI Act – Coverage of Establishments – Inspection conducted by ESIC revealed 29 employees in the appellant's establishment, thereby falling under the ESI Act provisions. Appellant failed to produce necessary attendance and wage records. The court emphasized that establishments employing 20 or more coverable employees were liable under the ESI Act even without using power [Paras 9.2-9.5, 14-17].

Burden of Proof – Evidence Admissibility – Appellant’s failure to provide a certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act rendered computer-generated wage records inadmissible. Court underlined the importance of properly maintained and presented evidence to substantiate claims [Paras 9.5, 18-19].

Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissal – Appeal dismissed for lack of substantial question of law. Findings of the Trial Court were upheld as they did not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or incorrect application of the law [Paras 10, 20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Interim order vacated. ESI dues with accrued interest to be released to the respondent.

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Petitioner sought to amend the plaint to include a relief of specific performance based on an Agreement to Sell (ATS) dated 16.11.2011 – Trial Court dismissed the amendment application, citing lack of due diligence and that the amendment would change the nature of the suit – High Court upheld Trial Court's decision, emphasizing the requirement of due diligence and that the amendment was sought after the commencement of the trial [Paras 1-11].

Due Diligence Requirement – The amendment was sought after the trial had commenced, with the plaintiff failing to show due diligence as required under the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Court found the explanation of ‘inadvertence’ insufficient and highlighted the mandatory nature of due diligence [Paras 7-7.4].

Change in Nature of Suit – The proposed amendment to include a relief for specific performance was found to introduce a new cause of action, inconsistent with the original claims of ownership and possession – High Court held that the amendment would change the fundamental nature of the suit and introduce a time-barred claim, thus prejudicing the defendants [Paras 6-6.8].

Time-Barred Claims – Court noted that the amendment sought to introduce a claim that was already time-barred, and thus could not be permitted – Cited Supreme Court precedents stating amendments introducing time-barred claims should not be allowed [Paras 6.6-6.8].

Decision: Petition dismissed – High Court found no error in the Trial Court's dismissal of the amendment application – Emphasized the importance of due diligence and the prohibition against introducing time-barred claims through amendments [Para 9-10].

Debt Recovery – Quashing of order dated 03.10.2019 of Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-I in O.A. No. 889/2017 and recovery proceedings in RC No. 294/2019 – Petitioner seeks permission to participate in the auction scheduled for 22.03.2024 and continue to occupy the subject property until then – Withdrawal of challenge to DRT orders – Petitioner's liability to pay rent and arrears of rent – Terms and conditions imposed – Petitioner permitted to occupy the subject property until 22.03.2024, subject to compliance with conditions – Participation in auction proceedings allowed. [Para 1-9]

Revision Petition – Eviction Order Challenge – Petitioners/tenants challenging the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller for a shop in Rajouri Garden, Delhi. The order dismissed their Leave to Defend/Contest Application, allowing the Eviction Petition by the Respondent/landlord. [Para 1]

Bona Fide Requirement – Senior Citizen Landlord – Respondent/landlord's claim of bona fide requirement due to old age and health issues. Contention that the ground floor space is necessary for residence as he cannot use stairs and lacks alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi. [Para 2, 2.1, 6]

Contentions of Petitioners/Tenants – Arguing against the bona fide need of the Respondent/landlord, citing his US citizenship and availability of alternate accommodations in the property. Also raised issues about the landlord's health and family circumstances. [Para 5]

Contentions of Respondent/Landlord – Emphasizing the necessity of the ground floor due to health and age, the inappropriateness of other spaces in the building, and the legal validity of his requirement as a foreign citizen. [Para 6]

Analysis and Findings – Court examined whether the Respondent/landlord's requirement for the demised premises was genuine and bona fide. Consideration of landlord's age, health, the unsuitability of other spaces in the building, and the absence of alternative accommodation in Delhi. [Paras 7-19]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order. The petitioners/tenants' revision petition and all associated applications are dismissed. The Court upholds the bona fide requirement of the Respondent/landlord for the disputed premises. [Para 21-22]