Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Jurisdiction of Civil Court in Matters Involving SARFAESI Act – Petition challenging rejection of plaint by lower courts under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Civil Court's jurisdiction barred under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Exceptions to the bar limited – Debts Recovery Tribunal as the appropriate forum for disputes related to secured assets under SARFAESI Act. [Para 1-9(ii)]

Fraud Allegation in Loan Transactions – Role of Civil Court – Petitioner's claim of forged documents in a loan transaction – Civil Court's limited jurisdiction in cases alleging fraud by secured creditors – Matters primarily for the Debts Recovery Tribunal under SARFAESI Act – Exception when the claim of fraud is patently absurd or untenable. [Para 9(ii)-9(iii)]

Dismissal of Revision Petition – Jurisdictional Bar under SARFAESI Act – Petitioner's revision petition against dismissal of suit involving loan transaction dismissed – Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred by SARFAESI Act – Debts Recovery Tribunal identified as the competent authority for such disputes. [Para 9(ii)-9(iii)]

Decision – Orders of lower courts upheld – Civil Court's jurisdiction barred under SARFAESI Act in disputes related to enforcement of security interests – Revision petition dismissed as devoid of merit. [Para 9(iii)]

Bail Cancellation – Criminal Petition for Canceling Bail Order – Petition to cancel bail order dated 10.04.2023 granted by XXVI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in S.C.No.2246/2022 for offenses under IPC Sections 302, 504, 506 – Allegation of violation of bail conditions and no change in circumstances since earlier rejections of bail applications. [Paras 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 18]

Bail Principles – Successive Bail Applications – Consideration of successive bail applications in light of Supreme Court judgments – Necessity for specific reasons for granting bail after previous rejections, particularly in cases of serious offenses without any change in circumstances. [Paras 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18]

Judicial Discretion – Granting Bail – Need for courts to provide cogent reasons while granting bail in cases involving heinous offenses – Importance of adhering to established legal principles and judicial discipline in bail matters. [Paras 9, 15, 16, 17, 19]

Decision – Cancellation of Bail – Order granting bail to respondent no.2 set aside due to violation of principles for consideration of successive bail applications and lack of change in circumstances – Petitioner allowed to file a fresh petition for regular bail. [Para 20]

Civil Procedure – Repairs to Property – Permission for Repairs Granted: Petition under Article 227 - Constitution challenge to Trial Court's order denying roof repair permission. High Court sets aside Trial Court order - allows petitioner to repair property damaged due to MCD's demolition actions on upper floor. Mutual NOCs for regularisation/compounding applications to MCD agreed by parties. [Paras 1, 3, 7, 8]

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) – Demolition and Repairs: MCD confirms demolition on Respondent No.1's property - no current proceedings against petitioner's property. MCD policy permits independent applications by both parties for regularisation or compounding of unauthorised constructions. [Paras 3, 4]

Agreement between Parties – Schedule for Repairs: Detailed schedule for repairs agreed by parties - includes timeframe, supervision arrangements. Petitioner bears costs for repairs on Respondent No.1's property - no rights to recover these costs. Parties undertake not to obstruct each other's repair works - respect future MCD permissions for construction. [Paras 8, 8.8]

Court Directions – Compliance and Cooperation: MCD directed to promptly consider applications for compounding and regularisation. Petitioner can approach Trial Court for impediments in order implementation - MCD to extend cooperation for direction compliance. [Paras 9, 10]

Decision – Trial Court’s Order Overturned: Impugned order dated 24.05.2022 set aside - petition disposed of with directions. Decision made with mutual consent of parties. [Para 11]

Majibullah Mohammad Haneef challenges his extradition to Oman on allegations of murder involving an Omani national and his family - Arrest under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act, 1962 - Formal extradition request from Oman - Inquiry by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi - Magistrate concludes dual criminality principle satisfied, prima facie case against petitioner - Authentication of documents from Requesting State, offence non-political, fair trial expected in Oman - Petitioner argues false implication, concerns over document authentication, and fair trial in Oman - Court validates Magistrate's inquiry and conclusions - Extradition Treaty obligations met - Documents duly authenticated - Assurances of fair trial from Oman - High Court upholds Magistrate's recommendation for extradition - Petitioner's concerns addressed, fair trial assurances deemed adequate.

Writ Petition – Quashing of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and Related Proceedings – Petitioner's plea for quashing of proceedings initiated through ECIR/09/HIU/2019 following compounding and quashing of predicate FIRs – Partly allowed, with continuation of ECIR based on a subsequent FIR. [Paras 1-3, 36-37]

Predicate Offences – Compounding and Quashing of FIRs – Impact on PMLA Proceedings – FIRs No. 16/2018 and 49/2021 compounded and quashed, leading to cessation of proceedings under PMLA in connection with these FIRs against the petitioner – Continuation of ECIR/09/HIU/2019 valid due to existence of subsequent FIR No. 55/2023. [Paras 3, 25, 36]

Money Laundering – Independent Nature of Offence under PMLA – Clarification that offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is independent and continues despite quashing of predicate offences, subject to the existence of subsequent related FIRs. [Paras 32, 34-36]

Jurisdictional Facts – Requirement for Continuation of PMLA Proceedings – Emphasis on the existence of a predicate offence as a jurisdictional fact for PMLA proceedings – Quashing of initial FIRs renders related PMLA proceedings unsustainable, while subsequent FIRs can sustain ongoing ECIR. [Paras 20-21, 34]

Criminal Procedure – ECIR and its Relation with FIRs – ECIR, an internal document for administrative purposes under PMLA, distinguished from FIR under CrPC – ECIR's continuation based on subsequent FIRs held valid despite quashing of initial FIRs. [Paras 28-32, 36]

Decision – Partly allowing the writ petition – Proceedings under ECIR/09/HIU/2019 in relation to FIRs No. 16/2018 and 49/2021 quashed due to their compounding and quashing – Continuation of ECIR based on FIR No. 55/2023 held legitimate. [Paras 36-37]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Conviction of the revision petitioner under Section 138 upheld by Sessions Court – Revision petitioner’s appeal against conviction and sentence. [Para 1, 4-5]

Legal Competence of Power of Attorney Holder to File Complaint – Challenge to the competence of PW1 to file the complaint on behalf of the complainant company – Held, the power of attorney holder can file a complaint and depose for offences under Section 138 of the NI Act. [Para 9-13]

Vicarious Liability of Managing Partner – Revision petitioner, as the managing partner of the convicted firm, held vicariously liable under Section 138 of the NI Act – Managing partner cannot have a defense distinct from that of the firm. [Para 14-17]

Existence of Legally Enforceable Debt – Contention of revision petitioner regarding the absence of a legally enforceable debt – Dismissed based on evidence and admission in Ext.D4 letter by the first accused firm. [Para 18]

Conclusion and Direction – Revision petition devoid of merit and dismissed – Revision petitioner directed to appear before trial court for sentence execution. [Para 19]

Civil Revision – Rejection of Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Petitioners challenging trial court’s order rejecting application for dismissal of plaint based on unregistered contract for sale. The trial court’s decision to proceed with the suit is upheld.

Specific Performance – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Examination of Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act, 1908. An unregistered agreement to sell, while admissible as evidence in specific performance suits, does not offer the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – The court’s authority to dismiss a suit at its initiation stage. Conditions under which a plaint can be rejected, focusing on whether it discloses a cause of action or is barred by any law.

Evidence in Specific Performance Suits – The admissibility of unregistered documents in suits for specific performance. Such documents can be considered for relief, although not providing protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Decision – Upholding the trial court’s decision against dismissing the suit at the preliminary stage. The case to be tried based on its individual merits in the trial court.

Plaint Rejection Application – Defendants No.3 and 4 (Petitioners) – Request for Rejection of Plaint Against Them – Petitioners filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, arguing they are not concerned with defendant No.1’s business and are wrongly implicated. [Paras 1, 4]

Suit Details – Recovery of `18,91,005/- and Permanent Injunction – Respondent No.1 (Plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of dues and permanent injunction against defendants, alleging involvement of defendants No.3 and 4 (petitioners) in business transactions. [Para 2]

Plaintiffs’ Allegations – Petitioners’ Involvement – Allegations against petitioners as Managing Incharge and Manager of defendant No.1, responsible for receiving and acknowledging goods, thus liable for part of due payment. [Para 2, 11]

Petitioners’ Argument – No Personal Transaction with Plaintiff – Petitioners contended they have no direct dealings or transactions with the plaintiff and are not liable for the alleged debt. [Paras 8, 11-12]

Respondents’ Contention – Pleadings in Plaint as Basis for Decision – Counsel for respondents argued that decision on Order 7 Rule 11 CPC application should be based on plaint averments, which implicate petitioners. [Para 9]

Court’s Analysis – No Personal Liability of Petitioners – No direct transaction or contract between petitioners and plaintiff; no assertion of petitioners as guarantors or responsible for payment. [Paras 11-12]

Decision – Plaint Rejected Qua Petitioners – Court set aside trial court’s order and allowed application to reject plaint against petitioners, finding no cause of action against them. Trial to proceed against defendants No.1 and 2. [Paras 13-14]

Petition for Summoning Records at Time of Charge - Challenging the dismissal of application for summoning records and directing authorities to report on drug issuance - Petitioner alleged wrongful implication in recovery of drugs under NDPS Act, asserting that drugs were delivered to others and not recovered from his premises. [Para 1, 4, 6]

Sting Operation & Allegations - Sting operation conducted under PNDT Act at Patiala Hospital, Patran - Petitioner and wife accused of conducting sex determination tests, with recovery of narcotic drugs and illegal abortion equipment. [Para 2]

Charges Under NDPS and IPC - Initially charged under PNDT Act, later provisions of NDPS Act and Section 120-B IPC also invoked - Challans submitted under these sections. [Para 3]

Trial Court's Order and Petitioner's Argument - Trial Court dismissed petitioner's application for record summoning - Petitioner argued for his right to invoke Section 91 Cr.P.C. at the stage of framing charges, citing cases Nitya Dharmananda alias K. Lenin and Brijesh Kumar & 3 others. [Para 6-7]

Supreme Court & High Court Precedents - Reference to Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court judgments emphasizing the court's power to summon material with crucial bearing on framing of charge, even if not part of the charge sheet. [Para 9]

Quashing of Impugned Order & Remand for Fresh Adjudication - High Court found merit in the petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits. [Para 11]