Civil Law - Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Leave to Produce Additional Documents in Commercial Suits – Plaintiff sought to introduce additional documents during the trial, citing their prior misplacement during an office relocation – Held: The rigour of establishing "reasonable cause" for non-disclosure does not arise where documents were not in possession or control at the time of filing the plaint – The rejection of applications was contrary to procedural principles aimed at securing justice [Paras 16-18, 23-25].

Procedure as Handmaid of Justice – Liberal Interpretation – Procedural and technical hurdles should not obstruct the adjudication of substantial justice – Courts must lean toward doing justice where procedural violations do not prejudice the opposing party – Leave to produce documents may be granted even at a later stage when reasonable cause is shown [Paras 19-22].

Previous Admission of Related Documents – Consistency in Approach – Copies of some documents sought to be introduced were already admitted as evidence in earlier interlocutory applications – Held: Originals of already-marked documents should be admitted to ensure their authenticity and proper adjudication of the suit [Paras 24-27].

Relevance of Documents – Just and Effective Adjudication – The documents sought to be introduced were deemed necessary to resolve disputes regarding financial transactions between the parties – Non-admission of these documents could adversely affect the merits of the case and justice delivery [Paras 27-28].

Applicability of Precedents – Sudhir Kumar and Sugandhi Cases – Relied upon Supreme Court judgments that emphasize leniency in procedural matters to facilitate the production of essential evidence – Applied principles to uphold the petitioner's request for introducing additional documents [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition Nos. 524, 591, and 638 of 2024 are allowed. The common order dated 05/12/2023 in I.A. Nos. 448-450 of 2023 in C.O.S. No. 10 of 2022 by the Special Judge for Trial & Disposal of Commercial Disputes, Visakhapatnam, is set aside.

Panchayat Law - No Confidence Motion – Jurisdiction of District Magistrate (Collector) – Section 15 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 mandates that the Collector alone has jurisdiction to act on a notice of no confidence motion – Delegation of such powers to an Inquiry Committee or District Panchayat Raj Officer is impermissible – Orders passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer rejecting the notice of no confidence on the basis of an Inquiry Committee report held to be without jurisdiction [Paras 33, 37].

No Confidence Motion – Collector’s Role and Inquiry into Validity of Signatures – Collector is required to conduct a prima facie verification of the validity of signatures in the notice of no confidence by examining the records of the Kshettra Panchayat – Detailed evidentiary inquiry or delegation of such inquiry is beyond the statutory powers of the Collector – Actions of the Collector in relying on an Inquiry Committee report to reject the notice were held to be illegal and contrary to the statute [Paras 23–27, 36].

Improper Delegation of Powers – Under Section 15 of the Act, 1961, powers conferred on the Collector cannot be delegated to any authority other than the Additional Collector as per statutory provisions – Constitution of an Inquiry Committee by the Collector and reliance on its report violated the statutory mandate [Paras 26, 33].

Improper Impleadment – No Fatal Defect – Failure to implead the Block Pramukh by name does not render the writ petition invalid when the concerned party has entered an appearance and has been heard – Improper impleadment is a curable defect and not fatal to the proceedings [Para 22].

Costs Imposed for Abdication of Statutory Responsibility – Actions of the Collector in abdicating statutory responsibilities and permitting the District Panchayat Raj Officer to pass an order contrary to the statute were deprecated – Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on the State, with liberty to recover the amount from the erring authority [Paras 37–38].

Relief Granted – Impugned orders rejecting the notice of no confidence motion and the underlying inquiry report quashed – Collector directed to personally verify the validity of the signatures and take appropriate action under Section 15 of the Act within 30 days [Paras 37–39].

Decision:  The writ petition is partly allowed.
The impugned orders dated 21/08/2024 (District Panchayat Raj Officer) and 12/11/2024 (District Magistrate/Collector) as well as the Inquiry Report dated 17/08/2024 are quashed.
Costs of ₹50,000 imposed on the State, recoverable from the concerned authority/Collector.
District Magistrate/Collector directed to conduct a fresh exercise of verifying the validity of signatures and convene a meeting of the Kshettra Panchayat within 30 days if the motion is found valid.
 

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act – Quantum of Compensation – Revision Ordered – Appellant-insurer contested the Tribunal's award of ₹8,43,000/- with 6% interest, claiming excessive compensation and contributory negligence – High Court revised the compensation to ₹7,21,000/- after recalculating the deceased's monthly income as ₹4,500/- (based on prevailing minimum wage), applying a multiplier of 14, and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses – Held: Compensation revised to ₹7,21,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of application [Paras 5-6].

Contributory Negligence – Pleading and Proof Required – Claim Rejected – Appellant-insurer argued for 50:50 liability based on alleged contributory negligence of the deceased's motorcycle, but failed to present evidence or plead such a case before the Tribunal – High Court observed that in the absence of any evidence, the insurer could not escape full liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle – Held: Contributory negligence plea rejected, and liability fixed solely on the insurer [Paras 4-5].

Dependents’ Compensation – Computation Methodology – Reassessment of Income – Tribunal had computed the deceased's monthly income at ₹5,200/- (₹200/day for 26 working days), but High Court reduced it to ₹4,500/- based on the minimum wage rate – High Court further added 25% towards future prospects, deducted 1/3rd for personal expenses, and calculated annual dependency at ₹45,000/- – Compensation recalculated accordingly, with general damages revised under non-pecuniary heads to ₹91,000/- [Paras 5-6].

Statutory Deposit – Refund Condition – Modified Compensation – High Court directed the appellant-insurer to deposit the modified compensation of ₹7,21,000/- with 6% interest within 60 days and allowed refund of the statutory deposit upon proof of compliance – Held: Tribunal to disburse the amount proportionately among the claimants [Para 6].

Decision:

Appeal allowed in part. Compensation modified to ₹7,21,000/- with 6% simple interest from 02/04/2014. Insurer directed to deposit the amount within 60 days, and statutory deposit to be refunded upon compliance.

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Rejection of 'B' Report – Cognizance of Offences – No Interference - The petitioners challenged the rejection of two 'B' reports by the Magistrate and the taking of cognizance of offences under Sections 120B, 403, 406, 409, 410, 420, 468, and 471 IPC, alleging that the dispute was civil in nature – Held: The Magistrate's decision to reject the ‘B’ reports and take cognizance was valid, as the investigation revealed prima facie allegations of unauthorized transactions, misappropriation of funds, and money laundering – The court found no violation of procedural law and ruled that the dispute was not purely civil but involved criminal elements warranting trial [Paras 8-10].

Magistrate's Role – Rejection of 'B' Reports – Proper Exercise of Judicial Discretion - The Magistrate followed established guidelines from Ravikumar v. K.M.C. Vasantha, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 4731, while rejecting the 'B' reports and taking cognizance – The Magistrate duly evaluated material from investigation, protest petition, and supporting documents, concluding there was a prima facie case to proceed with the trial – The procedure adopted was in line with Sections 173, 200, and 202 Cr.P.C. [Paras 8-9].

Criminal and Civil Disputes – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Apex Court Guidelines Applied - Relying on Kaptan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 9 SCC 35, the court reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. if prima facie allegations indicate criminal intent – The petitioners' contention that the dispute was purely civil was rejected, as the allegations of unauthorized transactions and fund misappropriation had criminal implications – Held: The High Court will not interfere in ongoing proceedings unless there is clear abuse of process or lack of jurisdiction [Paras 9-10].

Decision: The petition seeking to quash the rejection of 'B' reports, FIR, and cognizance of offences is dismissed. The interim order operating during the pendency of the petition is dissolved.

Civil Writ - Recruitment Examination – Retrospective Application of Amended Rules – Notification dated 23/05/2022 – Weightage of Interview Marks Limited to 10% – Selection Process Flawed – The petitioner challenged the selection process under the advertisement dated 27/11/2021, claiming the RPSC failed to implement the amended Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 – Held: Procedural amendments, like the limit of 10% interview marks, are retrospective in operation – The RPSC violated statutory provisions and altered the selection criteria mid-process – Selection process directed to be concluded per the amended rules, and the petitioner’s candidature to be considered based on merit [Paras 23.3.6, 25-30].

Judicial Precedents – Transparency in Public Recruitment – Interviews Cannot Solely Determine Selection – Relying on Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, the Court held that interviews should supplement written tests and cannot disproportionately influence the outcome – The RPSC’s practice of allocating 40% marks to interviews was unreasonable and contrary to constitutional principles [Paras 23.3.3-23.3.4].

Principle of Non-Arbitrariness – Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way – Advertisement Criteria Omitted Weightage Bifurcation – Court found RPSC altered selection rules post-publication of the advertisement, violating candidates’ rights to a fair process – Held: Selection process must adhere to rules in force during the recruitment cycle [Paras 23.3.6, 25-26].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed. Selection process under advertisement dated 27/11/2021 to proceed in adherence with the amended Rule 19 of the Rules of 1962, ensuring interview marks do not exceed 10% of total marks. Petitioner’s candidature to be evaluated based on merit.
 

Criminal Law – Conviction – Acquittal – Appellant convicted by the learned Trial Court for offences under Sections 506 and 377 of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act – Sentence included ten years’ imprisonment under Section 6 of POCSO, two years under Section 506 IPC, and fines – High Court observed that the medical and scientific evidence failed to corroborate the victim's allegations of penetrative sexual assault – Prosecution relied on the victim's statement, unsupported by medical or forensic proof – Court held that absence of corroborative evidence rendered the conviction unsustainable – Judgment and sentence set aside – Appeal allowed – Appellant acquitted [Paras 7, 17-21, 23].

Evidence Law – Medical and Scientific Evidence – Corroboration of Testimony – Testimony of victim alleged sodomy – Medical evidence, including the clinical examination and FSL report, showed no signs of penetrative sexual assault – Expert admitted that no redness, bruising, or other injuries were found on the victim or the accused – Prosecution failed to establish offence under Section 377 IPC without corroboration – Held: In absence of medical or scientific evidence, conviction cannot be sustained [Paras 14-16, 18-21].

Criminal Procedure – Leading Questions by Prosecutor – Prosecutor asked leading questions to Medical Officer during examination – Court observed this violated principles of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Such elicited answers cannot form the basis of conviction – High Court relied on precedents disallowing undue influence on witness testimony through leading questions [Paras 15, 16].

Circumstantial Evidence – Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. relied upon by the learned Trial Court – High Court held that such statements are insufficient without corroboration by medical and scientific evidence – Testimonies of relatives, who were informed of the incident later, also found inadequate to sustain conviction [Paras 7, 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 506, 377 IPC, and Section 6 of POCSO Act set aside – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine amount to be refunded after expiry of limitation – Appellant to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000/- with surety as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. [Paras 23-24].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(n) – Allegation of Repeated Rape – Quashing of Offence – Accused (Circle Inspector) alleged to have had a physical relationship with complainant (wife of a constable) from 2017 to 2021 – Complaint alleges force, fraud, and coercion to obtain consent – Evidence suggests a consensual relationship over four years – Held: Prolonged consensual acts cannot be categorized as rape, even if the relationship turned hostile later – Offence under Section 376(2)(n) quashed – Cited judgments emphasize distinction between rape and consensual sex [Paras 9, 11, 13, 14].

Offences of Assault, Threats, and Attempt to Murder – Sections 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506 IPC – Violent Incident on 11-11-2021: Accused allegedly assaulted the complainant after taking her to a hotel – Medical evidence and witness statements corroborate injuries sustained by complainant – Held: Prima facie case established for these offences – These charges sustained for trial [Paras 9, 12, 14].

Consent and Misuse of Authority – Allegation of Dominance: Held: No evidence that complainant’s consent was obtained through fraud or dominance – Relationship between complainant and accused deemed consensual – However, consensual acts cannot justify assault or violent behavior – Trial for remaining charges necessary [Paras 9, 11, 13].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Section 376(2)(n) IPC quashed – Remaining charges under Sections 368, 342, 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506 IPC sustained – Observations limited to Section 482 CrPC proceedings and will not influence trial [Para 14].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Rejection – Petitioner charged under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 506 IPC read with Sections 66(E), 67, and 67-A of the IT Act – Allegations include sexual assault, blackmail using intimate photographs, and circulation of obscene material – Victim, a student of the accused, testified in support of the prosecution case – High Court declined to release the petitioner on bail considering the nature of allegations, the victim’s testimony, and the petitioner’s misuse of his position as a lecturer – Held: Nature and seriousness of offences warrant rejection of bail [Paras 5, 11-13].

Right to Speedy Trial – Period of Custody – Bail Rejected – Petitioner in custody since 23/07/2023 – Argument raised regarding infringement of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Court observed that the petitioner’s custody is not excessive considering the punishment prescribed for the offences – Trial Court directed to complete the trial by June 2025 – Held: No violation of right to speedy trial at this stage; bail on this ground denied [Paras 14-17].

Trial Process – Examination of Victim’s Evidence – Scope of Review in Bail Applications – Petitioner argued inconsistencies in the victim’s evidence and claimed a consensual relationship – High Court held that a detailed examination of evidence at the stage of bail would interfere with the trial process – Held: Detailed evaluation of victim’s testimony is premature and unnecessary during bail proceedings [Paras 11-12].

Victim’s Vulnerability and Accused’s Position of Authority – Bail Denied – Petitioner was the victim’s lecturer and used his position of authority to exploit her – Court considered the age gap and power dynamic between the petitioner and the victim – Held: Allegations indicate a grave misuse of trust and authority, justifying the rejection of bail [Paras 5, 13].

Decision: The bail application was dismissed. The Court directed the Trial Court to endeavor to complete the trial by June 2025 and granted liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh bail application if the trial is not completed by that time.
 

Civil Law - Injunction – Fraud Allegations – No Prima Facie Case by Respondent – Injunction Set Aside – Respondent claimed fraud in execution of supplementary LLP agreements and misuse of digital signatures to remove him as a designated partner – High Court held that the respondent failed to produce evidence to support allegations of fraud or misrepresentation – Respondent had acknowledged execution of resignation documents and consented to uploading changes with statutory authorities – Held: No prima facie case in favor of respondent, and Trial Court erred in granting temporary injunction – Appeal allowed, injunction order set aside, and application for temporary injunction dismissed [Paras 16-21].

Evidence – Resignation and Consent Letters – Admissions Support Appellants – Respondent’s resignation letter, consent to upload changes to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), and subsequent communications confirmed the validity of transactions and changes in LLP partnership – High Court noted that respondent did not challenge the resignation letter and failed to substantiate claims of fraud – Held: Material on record supports the appellants’ case; no fraud established [Paras 17-20].

Balance of Convenience – Impact on Business Operations – Injunction Denied – High Court observed that restraining the appellants from alienating or dealing with the suit property would cause irreparable loss to the appellants and disrupt business operations – Balance of convenience found in favor of the appellants, not the respondent – Held: Injunction order unsustainable [Para 20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Trial Court Order – Justified – High Court interfered with the Trial Court’s order as the findings on fraud and prima facie case were contrary to the material evidence – Held: Injunction order set aside, and application for temporary injunction dismissed [Paras 19-21].