Corporate Law – Rights Issue and Allotment of Shares – Petition filed by shareholders alleging oppressive acts and mismanagement by the company’s management – NCLT's interim order dated 12.06.2024 restrained the company from proceeding with the rights issue and mandated maintaining the status quo of shareholding until the main petition is decided – Learned Single Judge set aside the NCLT’s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision with a reasoned and speaking order [Paras 2.3, 2.4, 3.4, 3.5].

Oppression and Mismanagement – Interim Orders – Court emphasized the necessity of a reasoned and speaking order by the NCLT when deciding interim applications under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act – Observations on the conduct of the company’s affairs and compliance with interim orders [Paras 3.6, 6.1, 6.2].

Decision – Appeals Disposed of with Directions – NCLT directed to independently reconsider the case and decide on merits without being influenced by prior observations – Status quo regarding shareholding to be maintained until final decision – Allotments and transactions during the pendency to be subject to final order – NCLT to expedite the decision process [Para 6.4, 6.5, 7].

Hindu Marriage – Ceremonial Requirements – Appellant's suit for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 dismissed; respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights decreed – Appeal contends no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Trial court found documentary evidence reliable, but ignored inconsistencies and lack of proper ceremony – High Court finds no valid marriage solemnized as per Section 7 of the Act, 1955 – Certificates issued by Arya Samaj and Registrar not proof of valid marriage without customary rites [Paras 1-35, 40]. 

Fraud and Consent – Appellant alleges fraudulent registration of marriage – Evidence shows appellant and her family were under the respondent's influence – Appellant and her mother signed papers under false pretexts – No free consent for marriage [Paras 4-10, 17-19]. 

Burden of Proof – Respondent failed to prove valid solemnization of marriage – No evidence of required ceremonies – Witness testimonies and documents inadequate – Trial court's reliance on documents without corroborative evidence flawed [Paras 20-25, 35-39]. 

Marriage Registration – Mere registration under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 does not validate a marriage absent proper ceremonies – Supreme Court's guidance in similar cases highlighted – Registration certificates not sufficient proof of marriage [Paras 26-34]. 

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of trial court set aside – Suit of appellant under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 allowed – Respondent's suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 dismissed – Declared no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Certificates from Arya Samaj and Registrar deemed null and void [Paras 40-43]. 

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Section 16(1)(e) – Subletting and Transfer of Tenancy Rights – Civil Revision Application filed challenging the judgment and order by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court – Appellate Bench decreed the suit directing the termination of tenancy on the grounds of subletting and ordered an enquiry into mesne profits – Revision Application dismissed – High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Bench.

Tenancy – Subletting – Tenant alleged to have sublet the premises to his brother's wife and her children – Evidence showed tenant had vacated the premises and did not return after retirement – Mere legal possession not sufficient; factum of residence by tenant and occupants must be proved – Concurrent user of premises by tenant and family members not established – Subletting inferred from exclusive possession by third parties [Paras 1-40].

Adoption and Tenancy Rights – Tenant claimed to be the adopted son of original tenant – Severed relation with natural family – Attempted to pass tenancy rights to brother’s wife – High Court emphasized the need to end prolonged possession by extended family once original need ceased [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court upheld – Applicants to return possession to landlords – Temporary relief granted for 8 weeks to allow Applicants to seek alternative remedies [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted and sentenced for the pre-meditated murder of his wife – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Court dismisses the appeal, emphasizing the consistent chain of circumstantial evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Issues of procedural deficiencies in the trial court regarding witness identification addressed but found not prejudicial to the case outcome [Paras 1-26].

Witness Testimony – Identification – Failure to identify accused in dock by key witnesses noted – Court acknowledges the procedural lapse but holds it non-fatal due to the nature of the witnesses’ acquaintance with the appellant and other corroborative evidence [Paras 17-19].

Forensic Evidence – Delay in producing material objects in court – Material objects (knife and chappals) produced after significant delay – Court considers the delay non-prejudicial in the absence of cross-examination on this point – Forensic reports linking bloodstains on objects to appellant upheld [Paras 20-21].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Events – Court underscores the principles of circumstantial evidence – Conviction sustained based on a complete and consistent chain of circumstances proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Circumstances include appellant’s purchase of weapon, presence at the crime scene, and flight after the incident [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the trial court upheld – High Court finds no merit in the appeal, confirming the life imprisonment and fine imposed on the appellant [Para 26].

Service Law – Enhancement of Age of Superannuation – Petitioner, a Veterinary Officer, claimed entitlement to the extension of retirement age from 60 to 62 years as granted to other Veterinary Officers under the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service and those in Autonomous District Councils – High Court held that the petitioner is similarly situated and entitled to the same benefits – Respondents’ refusal deemed arbitrary and discriminatory – Writ petition allowed [Paras 1-14].

Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India – Equality Before Law – Principle of non-discrimination in granting privileges – Court emphasized the importance of treating similarly situated persons alike – Held respondents’ action violated the constitutional mandate of equality [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Age of superannuation of the petitioner shall stand extended to 62 years – Directions issued to the respondents to extend the benefit accordingly – No cost [Paras 14].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Application – Petitioners filed third bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Previously rejected twice – Argument that no prima facie case against petitioners based solely on co-accused’s confessional statement during police custody – Confession not falling within the ambit of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as no discovery of fact corroborated [Paras 1-5].

Evidence – Admissibility of Confession – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Confession of co-accused in police custody not admissible unless leading to discovery of new facts – No recovery or discovery linking petitioners to offense – Cited Supreme Court precedent in Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) for narrow applicability of Section 27 [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Held – Petitioners entitled to bail due to lack of substantive evidence apart from co-accused’s statement – Petitioners to furnish personal bonds and sureties – Court emphasizes need for corroborative evidence for future proceedings [Paras 8].

Partition – Family Property – Joint Family – Appeal against the trial court’s partial decree in partition suit – Appellant’s father managed joint family properties – Defendants contended partition occurred in 1952 with subsequent partition lists – Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of continued joint family properties – Trial court correctly relied on documentary and oral evidence supporting defendants’ claim of partition – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-30].

General Power of Attorney – Evidence – Trial court’s reliance on Power of Attorney holder’s testimony – Power of Attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of joint family properties – Supreme Court precedent states Power of Attorney holder cannot testify on principal’s behalf in matters requiring personal knowledge – Appellant’s failure to testify leads to presumption against their case [Paras 17-23].

Documentary Evidence – Partition Lists and Sale Deeds – Trial court accepted partition list (Ex.B-2) and sale deeds as proof of partition – Oral and documentary evidence demonstrated independent purchase and sale of properties by family members – Court upheld findings that several properties were not joint family properties but were self-acquired [Paras 24-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the trial court confirmed – Pending applications closed – Each party to bear their own costs [Para 30].

Mental Health – Competence to Stand Trial – Petitioner, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia with 95% mental disability, found unfit to stand trial – Multiple medical reports and testimonies confirm severe mental disorder – Court directs postponement of trial against the petitioner and continuation against co-accused – Emphasis on provisions under Sections 328, 329, and 330 Cr.P.C. and the Mental Health Act, 1987 [Paras 1-32].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Initial bail granted with stringent conditions – Subsequent modification allowing bail through petitioner’s father due to mental incapacity – Court orders petitioner’s release under care of a relative with undertaking for regular psychiatric treatment – Ensures compliance with Cr.P.C. Sections 328-330 and Mental Health Act [Paras 33-34].

Evidence Assessment – Medical Examination and Expert Testimony – Detailed analysis of medical examinations by various doctors, including Chief Medical Officer, psychiatrist, psychologist, and superintendent of district hospital – Consistent findings of severe disorganized behavior and psychotic features – Expert testimonies support the petitioner’s incapacity to stand trial [Paras 4-10].

Judicial Review – Procedural Errors in Lower Court – Initial rejection of petitioner’s mental illness plea due to lack of documents – Higher court’s intervention leading to re-examination and confirmation of mental disorder – Lower court’s mechanical and arbitrary order for petitioner’s appearance despite medical evidence criticized and set aside [Paras 2-7, 11-13, 27-30].

Directive for Deferred Proceedings – Legal Provisions Invoked – Invoking Sections 328 to 333 Cr.P.C., the court underscores the procedure for dealing with accused persons of unsound mind – Emphasizes postponement of trial until the petitioner’s recovery – Trial against co-accused to proceed as per law [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Criminal Revisional Application allowed – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner’s case deferred until recovery from mental illness – Directed trial against co-accused to continue – Bail granted to petitioner with conditions for psychiatric treatment and regular reporting to the court [Paras 32-34].

Urban Development – Unauthorized Construction – Petitioners challenged provisional orders for demolition of buildings constructed on leased land – Claimed construction followed legal requirements and sought regularization – Court directed authorities to follow due process, consider petitioners’ explanations, and provide fair hearing – Emphasized demolition only if public interest or safety is affected [Paras 1-55].

Administrative Law – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioners argued respondent authorities acted arbitrarily, without proper enquiry or opportunity for hearing – Court reinforced requirement for due process and fair hearing in administrative actions – Directed authorities to objectively verify records and consider explanations before proceeding [Paras 52-55].

Decision – Writ Petitions Disposed – Held – Respondent authorities must follow due procedure in accordance with law – Petitioners permitted to submit additional explanations – No coercive steps to be taken during pending proceedings – Authorities to ensure fair and objective decision-making [Para 55].