Civil Law - Judgment on Admission – Order XII Rule 6 CPC – Application Rejected – Plaintiff sought a judgment upon admission for ₹63,92,425.50 based on emails and account statements provided by the defendant – Held: The court found that there was no unequivocal admission of liability by the defendant – The defendant's email communications referred to reconciliation of accounts rather than an admission of debt – No categorical admission was made by the defendant regarding the outstanding amount of ₹38,63,506.60 – Application for judgment on admission was rejected [Paras 22, 24].

Interim Order – Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Security for Debt – Interim Order Upheld – The court upheld the interim order dated 13/12/2023, restraining the defendant from operating his bank accounts without securing ₹38,63,500 – The defendant’s financial status indicated an intention to delay or obstruct the execution of any potential decree – The court directed the defendant to secure the amount with the Registrar within two weeks – The application to vacate the interim order was dismissed [Paras 30, 35].

Prima Facie Case – Balance of Convenience – Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – The plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for recovery of the outstanding amount based on confirmed accounts – The court, applying the principles from the judgments of Rajendran v. Anr. and Rahul S. Shah, found that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, warranting the security deposit to prevent potential prejudice [Para 33].

Decision: Plaintiff’s application for judgment on admission dismissed. Defendant’s application to vacate the interim order dismissed. The defendant directed to deposit ₹38,63,500 with the Registrar within two weeks [Paras 36, 38].

Writ - Unauthorized Construction – Demolition Ordered – Cantonments Act – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner constructed a building within a restricted "Red Zone" without prior permission. The Court rejected the plea for regularization of the construction, holding that the construction violated the rules of the Cantonments Act and the Works of Defence Act – Held: No construction can be permitted in the Red Zone as declared under the Works of Defence Act, 1903. The petition was dismissed, and demolition was ordered [Paras 10, 12, 25].

Deemed Sanction – Section 238(6) of the Cantonments Act – No Application of Deemed Sanction – The petitioner sought to regularize the construction claiming deemed sanction under Section 238(6) of the Cantonments Act due to a lack of response from the Board – Held: The deemed sanction provision cannot apply to unauthorized constructions in restricted areas like the Red Zone. The petitioner’s failure to comply with essential legal requirements, such as obtaining prior approval, invalidates the claim of deemed sanction [Paras 15, 19].

Suppression of Material Facts – Non-disclosure of Communication – The petitioner was found to have suppressed material facts, including a crucial communication from the Cantonment Board regarding payment of fees and the rejection of the building plan – Held: The petition was dismissed due to suppression of facts, which further weakened the petitioner’s case for regularization [Paras 20, 21].

Decision:

The writ petition was dismissed with a cost of ₹1,00,000, and the Cantonment Board was directed to proceed with the demolition of the unauthorized construction. The Board was also instructed to file an affidavit explaining the delay in executing the demolition order within nine years and to submit a compliance report by 22nd November 2024 [Paras 30-35].

Ryotwari Patta – Non-Service of Notice – Andhra Pradesh Inams Act – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners challenged the grant of Ryotwari Patta to Sri C. Vishwanathaiah on 04.01.2002, arguing that no notice was issued to them or their vendors – Held: For claiming Ryotwari Patta under the Act, petitioners must demonstrate a title flowing from an Inamdar or tenant of an Inamdar, which they failed to establish – The petitioners did not present adequate documentation showing possession or title as of the critical date of 07.01.1948 – Non-service of notice would not impact their case as they could not prove prejudice caused by the lack of notice [Paras 16, 18, 25].

Inam Land – Inamdar’s Rights – Inconsistent Documents – Petitioners presented sale deeds from 1967 and 1976, but these were inconsistent with the land's survey numbers and did not match the land in dispute (Sy. No. 305/4) – The court found no evidence connecting the petitioners or their vendors with the Inamdar or tenants – The sale deeds did not substantiate a claim for Ryotwari Patta [Para 22].

Consideration of Facts – Writ of Certiorari – Scope – The court held that a Writ of Certiorari could only be issued in cases of patent illegality and not on factual grounds – The authorities correctly evaluated the documents and evidence presented – The petitioners’ claim that notices were not served was immaterial as they could not establish their entitlement to the land [Paras 18, 28].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – The petitioners failed to establish any right to claim Ryotwari Patta under the 1956 Act – No order as to costs [Paras 29, 30].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR on the grounds of false implication in a murder case due to land dispute – Allegation that petitioners administered poison to the deceased based on a dying declaration – Petitioners contended that the deceased had purchased the poison himself and arranged for his last rites – Held: FIR cannot be quashed at this stage as the prosecution's version is supported by the dying declaration and corroborated by forensic evidence – Allegations of false implication due to land dispute insufficient to quash proceedings [Paras 12, 17].

Criminal Law – Dying Declaration – Section 32 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Deceased made a statement to the informant that petitioners administered something to him – This statement, treated as a dying declaration, formed the basis for the FIR – Post-mortem report confirmed death by phosphide poisoning – Held: Dying declaration supported by medical evidence provides sufficient grounds to proceed with the prosecution [Paras 12, 17].

Judicial Precedents – Scope of Inquiry under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners relied on judgments asserting that the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held: The Court's power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and cannot involve detailed inquiry into the merits of the case at this stage – FIR cannot be quashed unless it is manifestly absurd or inherently improbable [Paras 9, 16].

Decision:

Petition dismissed – FIR cannot be quashed based on the grounds of false implication at this stage, as the prosecution has presented prima facie evidence through the dying declaration and post-mortem report – The observations made are confined to the disposal of this petition and will not affect the merits of the case during trial [Paras 12, 17].

Taxation Law - Reopening of Proceedings – Section 74 of the CGST Act – Second Show Cause Notice Quashed – The petitioner challenged the issuance of a second Show Cause Notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act after the earlier proceedings under Section 73 were concluded in favor of the petitioner. Held: Once proceedings under Section 73 are concluded, reopening under Section 74 is only permissible if fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts is specifically alleged. In this case, the Show Cause Notice under Section 74 failed to mention any such allegations. Thus, the second notice lacked the necessary jurisdictional basis and was quashed [Paras 19, 25, 28].

Fraud, Misstatement, or Suppression – Jurisdictional Requirements for Section 74 CGST Act – The Court emphasized that for invoking Section 74, the Show Cause Notice must clearly state the presence of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. A mere allegation of excess ITC without these elements does not satisfy the jurisdictional threshold for reopening concluded proceedings under Section 73 [Paras 20, 27].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Show Cause Notice Lacking Jurisdiction – The Court rejected the argument that a writ petition is not maintainable against a Show Cause Notice, ruling that when the notice is without jurisdiction, a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. In this case, the absence of allegations required under Section 74 rendered the proceedings unlawful [Paras 28, 30].

Decision:

The writ petition was allowed, and the Show Cause Notice dated 03.08.2024 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act was quashed. However, the Respondent was granted liberty to issue a fresh notice under Section 74 if there are allegations of fraud, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts to evade tax [Paras 31-34].

Criminal Procedure – Condonation of Delay – Filing of Criminal Appeals – Delay of 390 days in filing Appeals under Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 – Petition by appellant/accused No. 2 seeking condonation of delay in filing the Appeals – Delay caused in filing the Criminal Appeals against orders dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Special Court for NIA Cases – The issue before the Court was whether the statutory period under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act could be extended beyond the second proviso, which limits the filing period to 90 days – Held: Delay of 390 days condoned, Appeals maintainable, subject to the Supreme Court's decision on this issue [Paras 1, 3, 5, 35, 36].

Interpretation of Law – Section 21(5) of NIA Act, 2008 – Scope of Condonation – Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, can be read into Section 21(5) of the NIA Act – Appellant argued that Section 5 of the Limitation Act should apply, allowing the condonation of delay – Special Public Prosecutor argued that the NIA Act provides its own timeline and that any further extension of time would contradict the object of the special statute – High Courts have provided inconsistent rulings on this issue, some allowing condonation based on Article 21 of the Constitution, others ruling against extension beyond 90 days – Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies as the NIA Act does not expressly exclude its application [Paras 5-9, 24-27, 31, 34].

Fundamental Rights – Right to Appeal – Article 21 of the Constitution – High Court relied on Article 21, stating that procedural law cannot deprive a person of their right to Appeal, which is a part of the fundamental right to life and liberty – Equal protection under Article 14 of the Constitution invoked due to the NIA's inconsistent stance in different High Courts regarding condonation of delay under the NIA Act – Court emphasized that the law must apply equally to the accused and the Agency without discrimination [Paras 16, 19, 21-23, 29].

Judicial Inconsistency – Inconsistent Stances by NIA – The NIA adopted contradictory positions in different cases, supporting condonation of delay in some instances while opposing it in others – Court criticized this inconsistent application of law by the NIA, noting that it should not selectively argue for condonation of delay based on convenience [Paras 12, 14, 19].

Decision: Appeals maintainable – Delay of 390 days condoned – The Court allowed the delay considering the absence of any express exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act from Section 21(5) of the NIA Act – However, this decision is subject to any future rulings by the Supreme Court on the same issue – I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.421 of 2024 and I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Crl.A.No.425 of 2024 allowed and disposed of [Paras 35-37].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Rape – Acquittal – Appellant was convicted for attempting to rape the prosecutrix (PW-1) and sentenced to 10 years R.I. by the trial court – On appeal, the High Court found contradictions regarding the date of the incident, with different dates (18th, 20th, and 21st June 2022) mentioned in the prosecutrix’s statement, FIR, and MLC – FIR was delayed by 6-9 days without proper explanation – No corroborative evidence from independent witnesses or forensic support (FSL or DNA) – Medical examination was also delayed – Held: Prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 294, 323, 376(1) read with Section 511, and 506(2) IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted [Paras 1, 8, 10, 11, 14].

Witness Testimony – Credibility of Prosecutrix – The prosecutrix’s testimony was inconsistent, with contradictions regarding the date of the incident – Her statement under Section 164 CrPC mentioned a different date from the FIR and her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC – The derogatory words alleged to have been used by the appellant were missing in her initial statements – No independent witness supported her version – The unexplained delay in filing the FIR further weakened her credibility [Paras 8, 9, 10].

FIR Delay – Impact on Prosecution's Case – FIR was lodged after a delay of 6-9 days, with no reasonable explanation provided – Citing precedents, the Court noted that such a delay can raise doubts about the genuineness of the prosecution's case – The delayed medical examination and other procedural lapses further weakened the case [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 294, 323, 376(1) read with Section 511, and 506(2) IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant to be released immediately if not wanted in any other case [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Attempt to Murder – The appellants were convicted under Sections 307/149 IPC for assaulting the complainant, causing the amputation of his right hand palm – Appellants argued that the injury was not fatal and was caused by a single blow to a non-vital part of the body – Held: The court reduced the conviction from Section 307 to Section 326 IPC, noting that the injury was grievous but not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and there was no clear intention to kill [Paras 13-18, 23-26].

Common Object – Application of Section 149 IPC – Appellants argued they did not share a common object to attempt murder – Court observed that all appellants participated in the attack with deadly weapons, making them liable under Section 149 IPC for the common object of causing grievous hurt [Paras 15, 27-30].

Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – The trial court's conviction under Section 120-B was set aside due to lack of evidence supporting the existence of a prior agreement to commit the offense – No conspiracy was proven beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 31-32].

Sentencing – Conviction Modified – Conviction under Section 307 IPC reduced to Section 326 IPC – The appellants sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹20,000 each – Court held that a lesser punishment would not serve the ends of justice given the gravity of the injury inflicted in a public place [Paras 33-38].

Compensation – Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. – Out of the fine amount, ₹80,000 to be paid to the complainant as compensation for his injuries [Para 39].

Civil Law - Development Agreement – Breach of Contract – Declaration Sought for Nullity – The plaintiff sought a declaration that the development agreement and supplementary agreement with the defendant firm were null and void due to non-performance and failure to obtain registration from ORERA – The trial court and first appellate court held that the defendant breached the contract by collecting money from prospective buyers without obtaining ORERA registration, violating Section 3 of the RERA Act – Held: The plaintiff was justified in seeking a declaration of nullity, and the agreements were rightfully rescinded [Paras 22-24, 27].

Premature Filing of Suit – Cause of Action – The appellant argued that the suit was prematurely filed before the stipulated timelines in the agreement for completing the project and making payments – The court rejected this, holding that the breach occurred when the defendant collected funds without ORERA registration, justifying the filing of the suit even before the expiration of the contractual period [Paras 19-21].

Authority to File Suit – Power of Attorney Holder’s Knowledge – The appellant challenged the maintainability of the suit, asserting that the plaintiff’s authorized agent lacked personal knowledge of the transaction – The court ruled that the agent’s lack of knowledge regarding specific agreements did not invalidate his general awareness of the case – Any procedural defects in authorization were curable and did not defeat the substantive rights of the parties [Paras 12-16].

Reconstitution of Partnership – Dissolution on Death of Partner – The original partnership firm, having only two partners, was dissolved upon the death of one partner – The court held that the reconstitution of the firm could not bind the plaintiff to the agreements made with the dissolved entity, justifying the plaintiff’s claim for declaration of nullity [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. The plaintiff’s declaration that the agreements and GPA were null and void was affirmed. The defendant was ordered to refund Rs. 3.2 crores to the plaintiff with interest at 12% p.a. from 01/05/2020 until payment [Paras 33-35].