Civil Law – Matrimonial - Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Belated Application – Delay Tactics Found – Amendment Set Aside – Respondent sought to amend his written statement after ten years of divorce proceedings to include a counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights – Amendment was filed after conclusion of evidence and final hearing was scheduled – Held: Application was filed to delay proceedings; respondent failed to explain delay or establish due diligence – Family Court erred in allowing amendment despite High Court’s prior direction to conclude proceedings expeditiously – Amendment order set aside [Paras 6–13, 15–18].

Counter-Claim – Order VIII Rule 6A CPC – Permissible Timing – Must Be Filed Before Delivery of Defence – Amendment After Trial Impermissible – Counter-claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights filed after ten years and post-closure of evidence – Held: Such belated introduction of counter-claim not maintainable as per Rule 6A; counter-claim cannot be permitted when case is at final hearing stage [Paras 9, 14].

Due Diligence – Condition Precedent for Late Amendments – Not Satisfied – Amendment Rejected – High Court reiterated that 'due diligence' under Order VI Rule 17 proviso is not a mere formality – Respondent failed to explain delay despite full knowledge of facts since suit inception – Cited: J. Samuel v. Gattu Mahesh, (2012) 2 SCC 300 [Paras 12–13].

Doctrine of Abuse of Process – Amendment Used as Delay Tactic – Proceedings Already Delayed 10 Years – Court Intervened to Prevent Misuse – Respondent repeatedly filed applications to delay adjudication – After closure of evidence and direction by High Court to expedite, filing of amendment held to be mala fide – Court directed day-to-day hearing to prevent further delay [Paras 5, 13, 17, 19].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Belated Counter-Claim Barred – Claim Must Be Timely and Bona Fide – Respondent’s claim for conjugal rights could and should have been raised earlier – Introducing at final stage amounts to change in nature of proceedings – Not permitted [Paras 7, 16].

Decision – Amendment Order Set Aside – Trial Directed to Conclude Within Two Months – Family Court order allowing amendment dated 20.02.2025 quashed – Family Court directed to proceed on day-to-day basis and conclude trial within two months, without adjournments on strike or other grounds [Paras 18–19].

Family Law – Divorce – Mental Cruelty – Decree Granted – Trial Court’s Dismissal Reversed – Appellant/husband filed suit seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Alleged public humiliation, false threats, and refusal of cohabitation by respondent/wife – Wife filed written statement but failed to lead evidence or cross-examine husband – Trial court dismissed suit based on irrelevant reasoning and generalized observations – Held: Allegations of mental cruelty stood uncontroverted and established – Decree of divorce granted on ground of cruelty [Paras 1–3, 17–25, 33–34].

Trial Court Judgment – Perversity and Extraneous Reasoning – Criticism by High Court – Trial Judge relied on abstract, non-legal reasoning and speculative philosophical language unrelated to record – Remarks disconnected from pleadings and unsupported by evidence – High Court deprecated repeated use of copy-pasted language in matrimonial matters – Held: Judgment perverse and based on extraneous considerations, liable to be set aside [Paras 4–16, 32].

Procedure – Effect of Non-Traverse – Failure to Cross-Examine or Lead Evidence – Respondent/wife failed to cross-examine the husband or adduce evidence in support of her defence – Written statement contained evasive denials without substantive rebuttal – Held: Allegations of cruelty proved by application of doctrine of non traverse – Trial court erred in ignoring unchallenged testimony [Paras 23, 25].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Impact on Relief – Absence of Animus Revertendi – Both parties living separately since 2014 – Wife failed to participate in conciliation or mediation – Continuous absence before appellate court – Held: Marriage had irretrievably broken down and continuance would amount to cruelty – Decree of divorce justified [Paras 26–31, 33].

Judicial Conduct – Adverse Observations – Trial Judge Cautioned – High Court refrained from initiating formal disciplinary action but strongly warned against future repetition of conduct involving copy-paste judgments and literary flourishes divorced from legal reasoning – Future instances may be recorded in service book [Para 37].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Judgment Dated 17/02/2018 Set Aside – Decree of Divorce on Ground of Cruelty Granted – Formal Decree to be Drawn Accordingly – Interim Orders Vacated [Paras 33–36].

Arbitration Law  – Maintainability of Writ under Article 226 – Exception to Rule of Execution – Petitioners sought writ of mandamus for enforcement of arbitral award of ₹61.54 crores related to municipal waste management project—Though execution petition was pending, Court held: Extraordinary delay and non-payment for over 12 years despite decree justified writ jurisdiction—Refused to dismiss petition on ground of alternative remedy [Paras 22–27].

Public Interest – State’s Delay in Compliance – Capricious Conduct Attracts Judicial Intervention – Respondents repeatedly avoided compliance with final arbitral award—Despite failed settlements, no payment made—Court held: Such conduct undermines public trust and warrants constitutional remedy—Government’s defence of ongoing talks rejected as dilatory [Paras 14–18, 25–27].

Partial Relief – Interim Payment Directed – Parallel Remedies Not Barred – While recognizing pendency of execution and appeal, Court directed payment of ₹15 crores before 31.07.2025 as partial enforcement—Held: Preventing miscarriage of justice requires interim relief; balance of amount to be pursued through other legal forums [Paras 28–30].

Contempt of Court – Interim Order Compliance Secured – Petition Closed – Contempt petition filed alleging disobedience of prior interim direction—Court held: As direction to record Government’s stand was ultimately complied with and final relief granted, contempt petition need not proceed further—Closed without punitive orders [Paras 12, 31].

Decision – Writ Petition partly allowed – Government directed to pay ₹15 crores by 31.07.2025 – Petitioners to pursue remainder through execution and appellate remedies – Contempt Petition closed – No costs awarded [Paras 30–31].

Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Violation of Baby Food Control Order – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted for possessing excess tins of Amul Spray and non-compliance with baby food retail license requirements—Held: Prosecution failed to establish from which shop the recovery was made—No production of seized goods or clear seizure location—Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–3, 11–16].

Procedural Safeguards – Invalid Search and Seizure – Non-compliance with Para 17(c) and 17(e) of Control Order – Raid conducted without recording “reason to believe” as mandated—Held: Entire search and seizure vitiated due to violation of statutory procedure—Material irregularity undermines trial’s validity [Paras 7, 14].

Evidentiary Lapses – Independent Witnesses Unreliable – Seizure Not Proven – Independent witnesses (PW3 and PW4) could not confirm seizure origin—Articles not produced in court—Simultaneous raid in another shop (“Kundu Brothers”) blurred item origin—Held: Evidence insufficient; benefit of doubt must go to appellant [Paras 12–16].

Mens Rea – Absence of Accused at Time of Raid – Accused was not present during raid; shop managed by employee—No evidence to prove appellant displayed stock board or acted with culpable intent—Held: Mens rea not established; prosecution failed to link accused to alleged violation [Paras 13–14].

Conflict of Interest – Same Officer as Complainant, Investigator and Seizure Officer – PW6 performed multiple roles including complaint, seizure, and charge-sheet—Held: Raises apprehension of bias and possibility of false implication—Undermines fairness of investigation [Paras 6, 15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the EC Act set aside – Accused released from bail bond – Copy to be transmitted to Trial Court [Paras 17–20].

Company Law – Interim Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC Club Governance – Use of Facilities by Overage Dependents – Appeal Dismissed – Appellants, overage dependents termed “Green Card Holders,” sought interim protection against termination of access to Delhi Gymkhana Club—Held: AoA of the Club does not create enforceable rights for dependents post age 21—Privileges granted by prior committees were ultra vires and void ab initio—Discretion rightly exercised by Single Judge refusing injunction [Paras 1–10, 40–61].

Articles of Association – No Provision for Green Card Holders – Customary Practices Cannot Override AoA – Court held that Green Card Holder category was a discretionary practice without legal sanction under AoA—Use of facilities post-21 permitted without full membership was unauthorized—Customs and bye-laws cannot contradict AoA—Only formal amendments can alter membership rights [Paras 13–18, 41–45, 53–58].

Specific Relief Act – No Enforceable Contractual Right – Privilege is Determinable – Appellants’ claim of contractual rights rejected—Privileges were revocable and not specifically enforceable under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act—Green Card use held to be discretionary, non-binding, and terminable without civil remedy [Paras 60–67].

Corporate Oversight – NCLT/NCLAT Directions Binding – Suspension of Facilities Valid – Based on findings of Naidu Committee and directions from NCLT/NCLAT, club management acted to regularize membership process—Court found action corrective, not arbitrary—No hearing required as appellants lacked vested rights—Public interest, equity, and governance justified termination [Paras 9–10, 12–15, 48–52, 68–69].

Judicial Review – Scope in Interlocutory Appeals – No Interference When Discretion Properly Exercised – Relying on Wander Ltd. v. Antox India, Court held appellate interference with interim orders limited to cases of arbitrariness or perversity—Discretion of Single Judge upheld as reasonable and judicious—Appeal dismissed [Paras 72–75].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Interim relief rightly denied – Appellants not entitled to continued use of club facilities – No costs awarded [Para 75].

Criminal Law – Addition of Charge – Section 216 CrPC – Scope and Preconditions – Trial court allowed addition of Section 306 IPC charge against petitioner after examining prosecution witnesses under Section 216 CrPC – Held: While the court has exclusive power to alter or add charges, such power must be exercised only where materials on record disclose ingredients of the offence sought to be added – No evidence on record to show instigation, conspiracy or intentional aiding to attract Section 306 – Order unsustainable [Paras 1–8].

Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – Absence of Active Role – No Instigation or Intentional Aid – Prosecution relied on the allegation that a draft divorce agreement delivered by another accused caused mental distress to deceased leading to suicide – Held: No material to show petitioner instigated or aided suicide – Mere harassment or mental distress unaccompanied by active role is insufficient to sustain charge under Section 306 IPC – Precedents reaffirmed [Paras 6–8].

Judicial Precedents – Interpretation of Section 216 CrPC – Court’s Discretion Paramount – Later Supreme Court ruling permits informant or prosecutor to bring addition of charge to court’s notice – However, addition cannot be automatic – Must be supported by cogent evidence linking accused to new charge – Trial court erred in applying standard [Paras 5–6].

Decision – Addition of Charge Set Aside – Crl.M.C. Allowed – Impugned Order dated 02.05.2014 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kannur set aside – Charge under Section 306 IPC not maintainable against petitioner in absence of evidence establishing abetment [Paras 8, Conclusion].

Criminal Law - Bail – Sections 302, 201, 365, 34 of the IPC Section 3(2)(v-a) of the SCST Act - Prolonged Custody – No Witness Examined – Bail Granted – Appellant arrested in October 2023 in murder case involving Section 302 IPC and SC/ST Act – Challan presented, but no prosecution witness examined after over 1 year and 7 months – Held: In absence of progress in trial and no direct evidence against appellant, continued custody not justified – Regular bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 1, 2, 5, 6]

Criminal Procedure – Allegations Based on Supplementary Statement – Evidentiary Value – Appellant implicated based on complainant’s supplementary statement and call details showing contact with co-accused – CCTV footage shows only co-accused with deceased – Held: Mere call exchange between co-villagers insufficient to establish guilt – Presence not corroborated by visual evidence – Bail justified pending trial [Paras 2, 4, 5]

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Mandated – Directions Issued – Appellant directed to comply with detailed bail conditions, including appearing before trial court, not influencing witnesses, and reporting to local SHO monthly – Held: Non-compliance will result in cancellation of bail and liberty to prosecution to move appropriate application [Paras 6, 7]

Decision – Bail Allowed – Order of Sessions Court Dismissing Bail Set Aside – Bail Granted with Strict Conditions – Matter to Proceed Before Trial Court Without Delay [Paras 6, 7]

Civil Law – Recovery – Contract  - Supply of Paddy – Breach of Milling Obligation – Agreement Not Proved – Appeal Dismissed - Plaintiff Markfed claimed recovery due to delay and deficiency in return of milled rice – Receipts of paddy supply (Ex.P6 to Ex.P10) relied upon – However, no formal agreement filed or proved – PW1 admitted agreement was mandatory before supply – Held: In absence of agreement, no contractual breach could be established – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 5–7].

Proof of Documents – Receipts Not Properly Proved – Evidentiary Value Denied - Plaintiff relied on unsigned receipts not verified by witnesses – Defendant's signatures not admitted – Held: Receipts not proved per law, hence inadmissible to support recovery claim [Para 8].

Limitation and Arbitration Clause – Suit Barred – Alternate Remedy Available - Plaintiff admitted arbitration clause existed – Suit also filed after expiry of limitation period (31.08.1996 deadline; suit filed on 24.12.1999) – Held: Suit barred both under limitation and due to existence of arbitration clause [Paras 9–10].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – No Substantial Question of Law - High Court found no error in concurrent findings of courts below – Plea of contract breach not made out without agreement – No reason to interfere under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed [Para 11].

Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC – Conviction Based on Related Witnesses – Reversed – Appellant convicted for stabbing a minor girl to death along with co-accused—Trial court relied on testimonies of victim’s mother and relatives—Held: Testimonies of P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3 riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and uncorroborated claims—Independent witnesses not examined—Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 63–71, 73–75].

Identification – Presence of Light Disputed – Alleged eye-witness claimed identification under inverter light—Other testimony and site plan did not mention source of light—Held: Identification doubtful—Site plan omitted key locations—Raises suspicion over prosecution version [Paras 36–37, 53].

Recovery – Knife Not Forensically Tested – Recovery of knife allegedly at accused’s instance not supported by forensic report—No blood found—Held: Absence of forensic confirmation of weapon weakens prosecution case—Recovery held to be doubtful [Paras 50–51, 54–55].

Delay in Naming Accused – Witnesses Unreliable – FIR initially against unknown persons—Victim’s mother allegedly unconscious for 2 days—Names disclosed only after delay—Doctor did not produce admission register—Held: Delay and motive to falsely implicate not ruled out—Testimony of witnesses unreliable [Paras 9–10, 23, 35, 43–46].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death Confirmed – Circumstantial Link Fails – Autopsy confirmed fatal stab wounds—But lack of independent corroboration, no motive proved, and chain of evidence broken—Held: Medical findings alone insufficient without credible link to accused [Paras 7–8, 48–49].

Decision – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of charges under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/4 Arms Act – Appellant to be released unless required in other cases [Para 76].