Specific Performance – Government Land – Transfer Restrictions – Petitioner, a defendant in a suit for specific performance, sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Contended that the suit property is government land under the West Bengal Government Land (Regulation of Transfer) Act, 1993, requiring prior permission for transfer – The Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that a decree for specific performance may still be granted subject to obtaining necessary approvals – Held: The suit property’s status as government land and statutory restrictions on its transfer necessitate judicial scrutiny – Order rejecting the application set aside – Petitioner permitted to amend the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC to include all grounds and documents supporting the claim – Trial Court directed to decide the application afresh in accordance with law [Paras 2-7].

Remand for Reconsideration – Supreme Court’s Directions – The High Court had earlier rejected the suit, which was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court – Plaintiff permitted to file additional documents to establish maintainability – However, parties expanded the scope of remand by introducing multiple documents and raising new issues – Held: The Trial Court must allow both parties to present evidence regarding the maintainability of the suit – Opportunity granted to amend pleadings and objections accordingly [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Civil Revision Allowed – Order rejecting Order VII Rule 11 CPC application set aside – Petitioner allowed to amend application within two weeks – Trial Court directed to decide maintainability issue expeditiously after permitting objections from the plaintiff – No order as to costs [Para 9].
 

Eviction under Rent Control Act – Bona fide Need – Alternative Accommodation – Tenant’s Contention Rejected – The landlord sought eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, claiming a bona fide requirement to start a hardware business – The tenant contended that the landlord possessed other vacant premises suitable for the said business – The Rent Control Court initially dismissed the eviction petition, but the Appellate Authority reversed this decision and ordered eviction – The High Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s order, ruling that the landlord, being the best judge of his needs, cannot be compelled to alter the structure of existing vacant rooms to accommodate his business – Held: Mere existence of alternative vacant premises does not negate the landlord’s bona fide need for eviction [Paras 7-9].

Tenant’s Burden to Prove Suitability of Alternative Premises – Court’s Limited Scope of Inquiry – The tenant argued that the landlord had obtained possession of three rooms, which could be combined to accommodate the proposed hardware business – The Court held that unless such alternative accommodation completely eclipses the landlord’s need, it cannot bar eviction – Further, the burden of proving the suitability of an alternative premises for the landlord’s requirement lies upon the tenant, not the landlord – Held: The tenant failed to establish that the alternative premises were viable for the landlord’s business [Paras 10-12].

Final Order – Eviction Upheld with Conditional Relief – The High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision petition but granted a four-month period to vacate the premises, subject to compliance with conditions, including filing an affidavit of unconditional undertaking and clearing any arrears of rent – Non-compliance would lead to immediate execution of the eviction order [Paras 13-14].
 

Criminal Writ - Preventive Detention – Detention of Person Already in Custody – Validity of Detention Order – Petitioner challenged the preventive detention order under the PITNDPS Act, arguing that he was already in judicial custody and there was no compelling necessity for preventive detention – The Court held that detention orders can be issued even for persons in custody if there is a real possibility of release and likelihood of continued criminal activity – The detaining authority had considered the petitioner’s past conduct, repeated bail applications, and the magnitude of the offenses before issuing the detention order – Held: The detention order was valid and justified [Paras 7-9, 20].

Preventive Detention – Subjective Satisfaction of Detaining Authority – Judicial Review – The petitioner argued that the detention order was passed mechanically without application of mind – The Court reiterated that judicial review in preventive detention matters is limited to assessing whether the detaining authority applied its mind and had relevant material to justify the detention – Held: The detaining authority’s satisfaction was based on cogent material, and no interference was warranted [Paras 10-12].

Preventive Detention – Bail Applications and Likelihood of Release – Justification for Detention – The petitioner had filed multiple bail applications in pending NDPS cases, with the last one dismissed just three days before the detention order – The Court observed that the detaining authority had rightly apprehended the likelihood of release and potential recurrence of illicit drug activities – Held: The petitioner’s past criminal record and repeated attempts to secure bail justified the issuance of the detention order [Paras 13-14].

Delay in Passing Detention Order – Live and Proximate Link with Past Conduct – The petitioner contended that the detention order was based on stale incidents and lacked proximity to any present or future threat – The Court rejected this argument, holding that the petitioner’s continuous engagement in illicit drug trafficking and the repeated filing of bail applications established a live and proximate link – Held: The detention order was not vitiated by delay [Paras 17-18].

Non-Supply of Material Documents – Impact on Detention Order – Petitioner alleged that he was not provided material relied upon in the detention order, including previous criminal records – The Court held that only documents forming the basis of the detention must be supplied, and past criminal records cited in the counter affidavit do not affect the validity of the detention order – Held: The non-supply of additional material did not vitiate the detention order [Paras 15-16].

Writ Petition Dismissed – No Infirmity in Detention Order – High Court upheld the detention order, holding that the detaining authority had complied with statutory safeguards, assessed relevant material, and applied its mind before issuing the order – Held: No ground for interference—Writ petition dismissed [Paras 20-21].
 

Company Law – Liquidation – Possession of Leased Premises – Official Liquidator Cannot Retain Premises Unnecessarily – Applicants, as landlords, sought possession of flats leased to Surendra Engineering Corporation Ltd., a company in liquidation – Official Liquidator claimed necessity for storage of company records – High Court held: Monthly tenancy does not form part of company’s assets—Official Liquidator’s need was not genuine—Possession directed to be handed over to landlords [Paras 16-24].

Jurisdiction of Company Court – Power to Order Eviction – Section 446 of Companies Act – Company Court has wide powers under Section 446 to determine whether premises are required for liquidation – High Court relied on Modella Woollens Ltd. v. Official Liquidator and Ravindra Ishwardas Sethna v. Official Liquidator, holding that retention of unnecessary premises increases liability and must be avoided [Paras 13-17].

Liquidator’s Duties – Justification for Retaining Property – Court Can Examine Need – Liquidator claimed premises were needed for storing records but failed to specify space requirements or attempt alternative arrangements – High Court held: Mere assertion of necessity does not justify retention—Records were never stored in the premises—Official Liquidator’s possession unjustified [Paras 21-22].

Decision – Application allowed – Official Liquidator directed to return possession of Flats 4 and 5 at Jaitirath Mansion, Mumbai, to applicants within four weeks – Liberty granted to applicants to pursue claims regarding other flats separately [Paras 27-29].

Statutory Bail – Cancellation – Submission of Chargesheet After Court Hours – Legal Validity of Bail – Appellants were granted statutory bail as the chargesheet was not filed within 90 days from their arrest – Chargesheet was filed at the end of the 90th day but after court hours – The NIA Court later cancelled bail without an application for cancellation – Held: The statutory bail granted cannot be questioned as the chargesheet was filed after the official court hours on the 90th day – Statutory bail, once granted, cannot be arbitrarily revoked unless conditions for cancellation are met – Reliance placed on State through CBI v. T Gangi Reddy (2023) 4 SCC 253 [Paras 9-10].

Bail Cancellation – Addition of Graver Offences – Absence of Misuse of Bail – The NIA, upon taking over the investigation, added charges under the SC/ST Act and Explosive Substances Act – The appellants were not informed about the addition of graver charges – No allegations of bail conditions being violated – Held: Mere addition of graver charges does not automatically justify bail cancellation – No evidence of tampering with witnesses or non-cooperation with the investigation – Default bail cannot be cancelled solely on the ground that a chargesheet has later been filed – Reliance placed on Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand (2019) 17 SCC 326 [Paras 16-18].

Jurisdiction of NIA Court – Concurrent Powers of Special Court – Improper Exercise of Jurisdiction – The Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta acted as an appellate forum over the Special Court, Tamluk, despite both courts having concurrent jurisdiction – Held: The NIA Court erred in reassessing the validity of statutory bail granted by a coordinate court – Absence of a prosecution plea for bail cancellation further weakens the NIA Court’s reasoning – Non-application of judicial mind evident in the order [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Restored – The High Court set aside the order dated 21.08.2024 cancelling the appellants' bail – Appellants directed to furnish fresh bail bonds of ₹50,000/- each with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each, subject to conditions – Appellants to report weekly to Moyna Police Station and not leave the jurisdiction except for court proceedings – Any violation of conditions may lead to cancellation of bail [Paras 19-20].
 

Criminal Law - Murder Trial – Appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence – Guilt Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – Acquittal Ordered – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on a dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate – The prosecution alleged that the appellant poured kerosene oil on the deceased and set her on fire – The High Court found several inconsistencies in the prosecution's case, including the lack of direct evidence, contradictory witness testimonies, and an unexplained delay in recording the dying declaration – The defense witnesses, including the couple’s minor daughter, supported the theory of self-immolation – Held: The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the sole inference of guilt – Benefit of the doubt granted, and conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside [Paras 21-22, 42].

Dying Declaration – Admissibility and Reliability – Expectation of Death as a Factor – Prosecution Case Not Free from Doubt – The prosecution relied on the dying declaration of the victim to convict the appellant – High Court held that a dying declaration must be made under an expectation of imminent death – In this case, the victim survived for nearly 49 days after the incident, was discharged from the hospital, and later succumbed to septicemia – Medical evidence showed that patients with 35-40% burns often survive – The delay in recording the statement and the absence of corroboration from neighbors weakened the prosecution’s case – Held: The dying declaration lacked credibility and could not be the sole basis for conviction [Paras 24-27, 31-33].

Medical Evidence – Septicemia as Cause of Death – Causation Not Directly Established – The victim suffered 35-40% burns and later died of septicemia – Medical evidence confirmed that burns of this degree are often survivable and that septicemia is a delayed cause of death – The prosecution failed to establish that the injuries inflicted by the appellant were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death – In the absence of a direct nexus between the burn injuries and death, conviction under Section 302 IPC was held unsustainable – Held: Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt, conviction set aside [Paras 25-27, 29-30].

Deficiencies in Investigation – Failure to Record Statements of Key Witnesses – Impact on Case – The investigating officer failed to record statements of crucial witnesses, including neighbors and the appellant’s minor daughter – The site plan did not support the prosecution’s claim that the appellant fled through a rear exit – No forensic evidence established that the appellant handled the kerosene bottles – The prosecution’s case was marred by lapses in investigation, creating substantial doubt about the appellant’s guilt – Held: The failure to conduct a fair and complete investigation further weakened the case against the accused [Paras 36-41].

Appeal Allowed – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant to Be Released – High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt – The defense established a plausible alternative hypothesis that the deceased committed self-immolation – No direct evidence linked the appellant to the act of setting the victim on fire – Held: The appellant is acquitted, and his conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside – He shall be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 42-43].
 

Criminal Law - Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act – Unauthorized Construction – Tenant’s Liability – Conviction Set Aside – Petitioners were convicted under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 by the Learned Municipal Magistrate, 3rd Court, Calcutta, for allegedly constructing an unauthorized two-storied building at 14/5, B.T. Road, Kolkata – Conviction upheld by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bench – II, City Sessions Court – Petitioners contended that they were tenants, not builders of the alleged unauthorized structure – Held: No credible evidence established that the petitioners constructed the unauthorized building – Prosecution failed to prove the specific time, date, or year of construction – Absence of a sanctioned plan alone does not establish culpability without proof of actual construction – Revision allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 21-29].

Burden of Proof – Standard in Criminal Trials – Unauthorized Construction Cases – Prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons were responsible for the unauthorized construction – Evidence merely suggesting occupancy or trespassing insufficient – Report filed by Kolkata Municipal Corporation engineers in WPA No. 22957/2023 stated that the building was over twenty years old with no recent construction – Held: Prosecution’s failure to prove that petitioners constructed the structure warranted acquittal – Conviction set aside [Paras 24-28].

Judicial Interference – Appellate & Revisional Courts – Conviction without Cogent Evidence – Trial Court concluded that the building was unsafe based on accused’s failure to prove its stability – High Court held such inference unsustainable – Mere possession of a property does not establish liability for unauthorized construction unless proven – Lower courts’ reliance on assumptions rather than direct evidence unjustified – Conviction quashed [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – Conviction and sentence imposed under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 set aside – Petitioners acquitted – Lower court orders reversed [Paras 29-30].

Passports Act – Renewal of Passport – Pending Criminal Proceedings – Petitioner, an Indian citizen residing in the USA, sought renewal of his passport bearing No. M5407876, which was due to expire on 08.09.2025 – Renewal was denied by the Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru (Respondent No.2) due to pending criminal proceedings under Sections 354A, 354D, 504, and 420 IPC – Held: Mere pendency of a criminal complaint under investigation does not attract the bar under Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 – The embargo applies only when cognizance has been taken by the Court – Reliance placed on Sharath Chandrasekhar v. Union of India (WP No. 18066/2023, decided on 14.02.2024) – Writ of Mandamus issued directing respondents to consider the reissuance of the passport if all other conditions are satisfied [Paras 3-5].

Legal Precedent – Applicability of Prior Rulings – Karnataka High Court had previously held that the refusal of a passport renewal is not justified solely on the ground of a pending investigation – Official Memorandum dated 10.10.2019 and Notification dated 25.08.1993 considered – Held: Unless cognizance of the offence has been taken by a competent Court, the denial of passport renewal is not legally tenable [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court issued a mandamus directing the respondents to process the reissuance of the petitioner’s passport, subject to all other conditions being met – Compliance to be ensured within one week from the receipt of the Court’s order [Paras 5].
 

SARFAESI Act – Possession without Proper Delegation – Violation of Section 14(1-A) – Possession by Additional Commissioner of Police without being an officer subordinate to the District Magistrate (ADM) – ADM's order delegating powers found beyond statutory limit – Held: Possession taken contrary to the SARFAESI Act and violative of Article 300A – Illegal possession set aside [Paras 18-22].

Movable Property Seizure – Absence of Notice – Deprivation without Due Process – Petitioners dispossessed of movable assets without notice or proper proceedings – Failure to comply with express directions of DRT and ADM to serve notice on all guarantors – Held: Violation of mandatory requirement of law and breach of Article 300A rights [Paras 21-22].

Writ Maintainability – Alternative Remedy Not a Bar – Availability of remedy under Section 17 SARFAESI Act does not preclude writ when possession is taken illegally – State machinery and police involved in deprivation without lawful authority – Held: Writ petition maintainable in the facts of the case [Paras 15, 20, 23].

Police Involvement – Unauthorized Assistance to Recovery Agents – Police acted without proper delegation under Section 14 – Possession proceedings conducted solely by recovery agents with police aid – No ADM or properly delegated officer present during possession – Held: Process vitiated for want of lawful authority – Supreme Court ruling in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Prakash Kaur applied [Paras 11-13, 24].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Possession proceedings quashed – Liberty granted to respondents to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in compliance with Section 14(1-A) of SARFAESI Act – ADM directed to oversee future compliance – Petition disposed of accordingly [Para 25].