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]

Bail Petition and Criminal Background – Petitioner seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC – Involved in a corruption case with FIR No. 22 dated 26.05.2023 – Accused of embezzlement and fund transfers for personal gain – Previous criminal antecedents include FIR Nos. 23 and 29, both dated 2023, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. [Paras 1-2, 9]

Case Facts and Investigation Details – Allegations of transferring funds from ICDP, Rewari to personal accounts and purchasing property – Co-accused involved in the case – All accused admitted involvement during interrogation. [Paras 3, 5-7]

Legal Precedents and Bail Considerations – Reference to various Supreme Court judgments on bail criteria – Consideration of criminal history, nature of allegations, and potential for reform – Bail granted with stringent conditions. [Paras 6-10, 12-14, 17-19]

Bail Conditions – Personal bond of Rs. 10,000 and surety of Rs. 25,000 or alternative financial arrangements – Strict compliance with investigation and court appearances – Restrictions on communication tools and conditions against influencing witnesses or committing further offenses. [Paras 11, 13-17, 19-20]

Rights of the Petitioner and Investigation – Rights to modify bail conditions if found violating fundamental rights – Continuation of investigation rights for police – Applicability of bail order to any additional sections added to the FIR. [Paras 21-24]

Challenge to Trial Court's Decision – Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Impugning order dated 14.10.2023 by ADJ-05, South West District, Dwarka Courts in CS No. 673/2019 – Dismissal of application under Section 151 CPC seeking dismissal of partition suit for concealment by plaintiff. [Paras 1-1.4]

Contention of Petitioner – Petitioner (defendant no.3) contends Trial Court failed to appreciate multiple orders by DV Court, restraining respondents from dispossessing or visiting the suit property – Argued that the partition suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff is not in actual or constructive possession of the property. [Paras 2-2.7]

Reliance on Judicial Precedents – Petitioner cites various High Court decisions to support the argument that a plaintiff must be in actual or constructive possession of property for partition suit to be maintainable. [Para 2.4]

Trial Court's Analysis – Dismissal of Section 151 CPC application by Trial Court – Considered defendant no.3's admission of plaintiff’s title to the property, ongoing EMI payments for the mortgage, and the nature of DV Court orders as interim protective measures. [Paras 5-7.5]

High Court's Observation – High Court unable to accept defendant no.3’s contention – Finds no infirmity in the Trial Court’s order – References Supreme Court decision in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, holding that DV Act proceedings do not impede civil proceedings. [Paras 8-11]

Conclusion and Dismissal – High Court dismisses petition, upholding Trial Court’s decision – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 13]

Dissolution of Company – Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Application moved by the Official Liquidator for dissolution of M/s Amrit Worldwide Ltd. – Company in liquidation since 17.05.2000 with final winding up order dated 10.08.2004 – No assets procured for liquidation or realization. [Para 1-2]

Application under Sections 542 & 543 of the Companies Act – Aimed at fixing personal liability on Ex-Directors – Dismissed by Court due to demise of Ex-Directors and lack of actionable claims. [Para 3]

Absence of Company Assets – Registered office and other properties not belonging to Company – No funds available to disburse to creditors – Liquidator unable to proceed further. [Para 4]

Legal Provision for Dissolution – Invocation of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Circumstances of the case justifying dissolution of the company. [Para 5]

Reference to Supreme Court Principle – Citing Meghal Homes(P) Ltd. v. Shree Niwas Girni K.K. Samiti & Ors. for dissolution of company when winding up process cannot proceed. [Para 6]

Decision – Approval of application for dissolution of M/s Amrit Worldwide Ltd. – Official Liquidator relieved and permitted to close company's books of accounts – Direction to communicate judgment to Registrar of Companies. [Paras 7-9]

Concealment and Misrepresentation Allegations - Applicant, Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. And M/s Jads Services Pvt. Ltd., allege non-applicant Yashovardhan Birla concealed material facts and misrepresented information – Challenges the maintainability of Birla’s petitions filed for quashing complaint cases under Section 138 of NI Act. [Paras 4.1-4.9]

Background of Earlier Petitions and Withdrawal: Non-applicant had previously filed and then withdrawn similar petitions under Section 482 CrPC, with liberty to raise issues before the trial court – This fact was not disclosed in the current petitions, leading to allegations of concealment. [Para 4.1]

Material Suppression Arguments by Non-Applicant: Non-applicant’s counsel argues that the non-disclosure of earlier petitions was an inadvertent error, not a deliberate concealment – Asserts this non-disclosure does not constitute material suppression affecting the merits of the case. [Para 5.3]

Court’s Analysis and Decision: The court finds that the non-disclosure of previous petitions and their subsequent withdrawal does not amount to deliberate concealment by the non-applicant – The court emphasizes the necessity of deliberate and conscious false statements for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC – Applications by the applicant for dismissal of Birla’s petitions on grounds of fraud are dismissed. [Paras 12, 20-23]

Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Application for Termination of Pregnancy - Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India along with Section 482 of the CrPC and the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 - Applicant-victim, a minor aged about 16 years seeking termination of pregnancy resulting from rape - Application includes offences under Sections 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 6, 10, 18 of the POCSO Act. [Para 2]

Medical Examination and Report - Court's order for medical examination by Civil Hospital, Bhavnagar's Medical Board - Medical Board's report indicating pregnancy of 27 weeks and 04 days with a viable fetus, suggesting possible methods for termination and highlighting potential risks. [Paras 4, 7, 8]

Victim's Consent and Psychological Evaluation - Court's interaction with victim to ascertain her will - Victim's firm decision to terminate pregnancy after being apprised of medical report - Assessment of mental and psychological preparedness as per guidelines. [Para 5]

Legal Precedents and Guidelines for Termination of Pregnancy - Reference to Supreme Court decisions and MTP Amendment Act, 2021 - Emphasis on the pregnant woman's autonomy and right to bodily integrity - Consideration of mental health and dignity of rape victims in allowing termination of pregnancy beyond standard legal limits. [Paras 10-14]

Direction for Termination of Pregnancy and Responsibilities - Court's directions for termination of pregnancy by senior medical professionals - Emphasis on safety and care during pre- and post-termination - Provisions for DNA sampling for investigation purposes - State's responsibility for the child if born alive and unclaimed by the victim, in adherence to Juvenile Justice Act, 2005. [Paras 14-16]

Conclusion - Petition disposed of with directions for immediate action and care for both the victim and potential child. [Para 17]

Specific Performance Suit – Sale of Property – Appeal against trial court’s judgment declining specific performance and ordering return of advance sale consideration – Original suit involved an agreement (Ext.A1) for sale of property, with the plaintiff alleging defendant’s evasion of performance. [Para 2]

Readiness and Willingness to Perform – Key issue in the appeal – Whether the plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the agreement terms, crucial for specific performance – Trial court found plaintiff lacking in proving continued readiness and willingness. [Paras 5, 7]

Evidence Analysis – Consideration of Ext.A2 (notice), Ext.A3 (defendant’s willingness), Ext.B2 (defendant’s presence at Sub Registry Office), and Ext.A4 (plaintiff’s bank passbook) – Evidence indicated defendant’s readiness but not plaintiff’s. [Paras 6-7]

Financial Capacity – Plaintiff’s inability to show sufficient funds for balance sale consideration – Reliance on oral statement about land acquisition compensation, without supporting evidence. [Para 7]

Interest on Advance Sale Consideration – Modification of trial court’s order – Interest rate increased to 12% per annum from agreement date to filing of suit, then 9% per annum till realisation, considering the defendant’s use of the amount and banking rates during the relevant period. [Para 9]

Decision – Appeal partially allowed – Judgment modified regarding interest rate, upheld in other aspects. 

Infanticide and Evidence Assessment – Appeals against conviction for murder (Section 302) and causing disappearance of evidence (Section 201) – Main question regarding whether disposing of a body believed to be lifeless constitutes culpable homicide – Conviction based on allegations of causing grievous harm resulting in death, and subsequent disposal of the body in the sea. [Paras 2-5, 7, 10, 16, 17]

Prosecution’s Burden of Proof – Reliance on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies (PW6, PW7, PW8, PW13, PW14, PW15, PW23, PW27) – Injuries observed on the infant prior to death – Inconclusive evidence on whether appellants knew the infant was alive at the time of disposal in the sea. [Paras 11-15]

Legal Interpretation of Culpable Homicide – Analysis of Section 299 IPC – Intention and knowledge as essential elements – Discussion on whether an act on a body believed to be lifeless attracts Section 299 IPC – Reference to the legal principles and precedents on culpable homicide. [Paras 17, 18]

Judgment – Conviction of appellants under Sections 302 and 201 IPC set aside due to lack of conclusive evidence on their knowledge about the child's life at the time of disposal – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released unless required in other cases. [Final Judgment Para]

Decision:

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC, and acquitted the appellants.