Civil Law - Promissory Notes – Validity and Binding Nature – Burden of Proof – Promissory Notes Upheld – The plaintiff successfully established the execution of five promissory notes totaling ₹2,50,000 by the defendant at Gudivada, corroborated by testimonies of scribe and attestors – The defendant failed to substantiate his claim of repayment or prove that the promissory notes were blank and manipulated – Held: The promissory notes were valid and binding on the defendant – Decision: Appeal dismissed; trial court’s decree upheld [Paras 12-17, 21].

Debt Relief Act – Applicability – Defendant's Status as Agriculturist Rejected – The defendant claimed relief under the Andhra Pradesh Agriculturists Relief Act but admitted in cross-examination to being a Class-I Contractor handling substantial contracts – Held: The defendant did not qualify as an agriculturist under Section 13A of the Act and was not entitled to scaled-down interest – Decision: Defendant not entitled to relief under the Debt Relief Act [Paras 22-23].

Interest Rates – Trial Court’s Award Justified – The trial court's award of 12% interest from suit filing to decree date and 6% thereafter was upheld – Held: Interest determination was reasonable and aligned with facts of the case – Decision: No modification required in the trial court's interest determination [Paras 9, 25].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Findings of Trial Court Affirmed – On careful review of evidence and pleadings, the appellate court found no justifiable reason to overturn the trial court's judgment – Held: Appeal dismissed, and the decree for recovery of ₹4,28,665 with costs and interest affirmed – Decision: Trial court's judgment upheld; appeal dismissed [Paras 24-26].

Rent Law - Transmission of Tenancy Rights – Section 7(15)(d), Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Relationship and Residence as Family – Claim Rejected – The applicant sought recognition as a tenant after the death of the original tenant, claiming to have resided with the deceased as a family member – The Trial Court and Appellate Court held that the applicant, being the son of the deceased tenant’s sister-in-law, did not meet the requirements of Section 7(15)(d) – The Courts further found no evidence of continuous residence with the tenant as a member of the family – Held: Plaintiff’s claim of tenancy was untenable, and the concurrent findings were upheld – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 17-54].

Definition of ‘Family’ – Distant Relatives Not Included – The Court reiterated that while the term 'family' must be given a liberal interpretation, it cannot include distant relatives such as nephews or cousins who do not provide evidence of consistent residence with the tenant as part of one family unit – The applicant’s distant relationship with the deceased tenant and his lack of evidence regarding continuous cohabitation negated his claim – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 22-26].

Concurrent Findings – Limited Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – The applicant failed to demonstrate any perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts – The High Court refused to re-assess evidence in its revisional capacity – Decision: No interference warranted; application dismissed [Paras 54-56].

Documentary Evidence – Inadequate Proof of Continuous Residence – Transmission of Tenancy Rejected – The applicant’s reliance on documents such as ration cards, bank statements, and photographs was insufficient to establish continuous residence with the deceased tenant as a family member – Most documents either pertained to a period after the tenant’s death or failed to substantiate the claim of family residence – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 46-54].

Neutral Testimony – Credibility of Constituted Attorney – Evidence of Arvind Kamdar – The testimony of the deceased tenant's constituted attorney was found to be credible and neutral – It established that the applicant forcibly entered the suit premises shortly before the tenant’s death and was not residing there as a family member – Decision: Evidence supported rejection of tenancy claim [Paras 38-44].

Legislative Intent – Protection for Genuine Family Members – Section 7(15)(d) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act aims to protect genuine family members from eviction, not to create inheritable rights for distant relatives – The applicant’s claim violated the legislative objective – Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed [Paras 53-54].

Decision:

The Civil Revision Application was dismissed, upholding the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court that the applicant failed to establish himself as a member of the deceased tenant’s family residing in the suit premises. The High Court emphasized the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and found no perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings.

Civil Law - Employees’ Provident Fund Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Limitation Bar Applied – Proceedings Quashed – The petitioners challenged criminal proceedings alleging non-filing of provident fund returns, citing limitation and prior dissolution of their establishment – Held: Cognizance taken beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 468 CrPC rendered the proceedings unsustainable – Proceedings quashed [Paras 12-15, 17-19].

Directors’ Liability – Absence of Mens Rea or Vicarious Responsibility – No Grounds for Continuation – The petitioners, who were directors of a defunct company, were not liable for vicarious responsibility under Section 14A of the EPF Act due to the absence of active management or control over the establishment during the relevant period – Quashing upheld [Paras 6a, 7, 16].

Policy Recommendations – Withdrawal of Prosecution for Non-Filing of Returns – The Court noted that the Central Board of Trustees, EPFO, recommended withdrawal of prosecutions for non-filing of returns to avoid unnecessary litigation – Held: Continuation of such proceedings would waste judicial resources and government exchequer [Paras 6f, 16].

Precedents – Applicability of Prior Judgments – Prosecution Barred by Limitation – Following Kartik Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal and C.B. Bhandari v. Provident Fund Inspector, the Court reaffirmed that delayed cognizance in cases of this nature contravenes statutory limitations and procedural safeguards [Paras 6h, 6i].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – Cognizance orders and related proceedings quashed, and any associated orders set aside – Observations made regarding the futility of continuing such proceedings given the non-operational status of the company and expiry of the limitation period [Paras 18-19].

Civil Writ - Foreign Medical Graduates – Requirement of CRMI for Two Years – Judicial Deference to Expert Bodies – The petitioners challenged Note 3 in provisional registration certificates requiring two years of CRMI, asserting they completed offline training and examinations during the pandemic – The respondents cited Supreme Court decisions and National Medical Commission circulars mandating two years of CRMI for students who studied online during the pandemic or Ukraine war – Held: The Court declined to interfere, deferring to the expertise of regulatory authorities and the public interest in ensuring adequate practical training for medical professionals [Paras 9-19].

Academic Matters – Limited Judicial Review – Courts Should Avoid Substituting Expert Decisions – Reiterated the principle that academic bodies’ decisions should not be interfered with unless there is a statutory or legal violation – Courts lack the technical expertise to evaluate clinical training sufficiency or academic curricula [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Illegality Found in Note 3 – The petitioners failed to substantiate claims of completing adequate offline training during the pandemic – The stipulation of two years’ CRMI was upheld as reasonable and consistent with Supreme Court directions and regulatory mandates – Writ petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 21].
 

Civil Law - Bar under Section 49 of U.P.C.H. Act – Applicability – Suit Not Maintainable – The Court found that the sale deed was executed during ongoing consolidation operations, and subsequent rights of the appellants were adjudicated by the consolidation authorities under Section 12 – Held: The suit challenging the sale deed is barred under Section 49, as it involves matters cognizable exclusively by consolidation authorities during operations [Paras 27-37].

HUF Property – Jointness Not Established – Presumption Rebutted – Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove the existence of HUF or a joint nucleus – Documents and oral evidence did not establish the property was purchased with joint family funds – Held: The property was acquired individually and not as part of a joint family arrangement; cancellation of sale deed unsustainable [Paras 40-48].

Bar under Section 34 of S.R. Act – Inapplicable to Suit for Cancellation – The suit, being a simplicitor action under Section 31 for cancellation of the sale deed and not involving declaratory relief, is unaffected by Section 34 – Held: Rejection of the prayer for possession does not render the suit barred under Section 34 of the S.R. Act [Para 38].

Restitution of Possession and Damages – Order under Section 144 CPC – The appellants were illegally dispossessed during appeal pendency despite interim orders – Held: Possession to be restored to appellants, with Rs. 10,00,000/- damages imposed on respondents for unauthorized possession [Paras 52-57].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed. Judgments of the trial court and first appellate court set aside. The original suit for cancellation of the sale deed dismissed. Directions for restitution of possession and payment of damages issued.

Territorial Jurisdiction – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Cause of Action Partially Arising in Lucknow – Application Dismissed – The applicant challenged the cognizance order and chargesheet on the grounds that no part of the cause of action arose in Lucknow, where the case was filed – Held: Part cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow as the victim visited the co-accused’s residence in Lucknow, and crucial incidents linked to the allegations occurred in Lucknow – Territorial jurisdiction upheld [Paras 4, 43].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120-B IPC – Sufficiency of Evidence for Cognizance – Application Dismissed – The applicant contended that no direct or circumstantial evidence established a conspiracy between him and the co-accused – Held: Prosecution can rely on circumstantial evidence to establish conspiracy, and in the absence of manifest injustice or abuse of process, the trial court must decide the evidentiary merits – Cognizance upheld [Paras 13-20, 44].

Abetment of Suicide – Section 306 IPC – Ingredients of Instigation and Mens Rea – Application Dismissed – The applicant argued the absence of intent or positive act to instigate the victim’s suicide – Held: The victim’s live statements on social media and her dying declaration alleging instigation by the applicant and co-accused, coupled with supporting evidence, established a prima facie case – Whether the accused had requisite mens rea is a matter for trial – Application dismissed [Paras 22-24, 38, 44].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Limits of Exercise – Application Dismissed – The applicant sought quashing of the proceedings citing lack of evidence and abuse of process – Held: Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, and only in cases of manifest injustice or where allegations fail to constitute any offense – The materials on record disclose prima facie offenses, justifying trial – Application dismissed with directions to expedite trial [Paras 39-42, 47].

Decision: The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, upholding the cognizance order, chargesheet, and trial proceedings. The trial court was directed to expedite and conclude the trial without unnecessary adjournments. [Paras 46-48].

Conviction Based on Dying Declaration – Omnibus Accusations – Reversal of Conviction – The trial court convicted accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC based on the sole reliance on the dying declaration of the deceased. The dying declaration (Ex.P8) attributed a vague and omnibus accusation to both the accused for pouring kerosene and setting the deceased on fire – Held: The dying declaration lacked specific attribution of overt acts to the accused and suffered from infirmities, including doubts on the deceased's fitness to make the statement given her 97% burns. In the absence of corroborative evidence, the conviction was unsafe and overturned [Paras 20-27].

Reliability of Dying Declaration – Medical Endorsements and Conscious State – Conviction Set Aside – The deceased suffered 97% burns, and initial medical observations recorded her as unconscious. Her alleged recovery of consciousness within an hour to give a coherent statement was doubtful. Coupled with a lack of corroborative evidence, the dying declaration did not inspire confidence to sustain a conviction – Held: The conviction under Section 302 IPC based solely on the dying declaration was unsafe, and appellants were acquitted [Paras 26-27].

Standard of Proof in Criminal Cases – Absence of Specific Allegations and Corroborative Evidence – The prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the specific involvement of the accused in the alleged acts of murder. The dying declaration attributed generic allegations to both accused without specifying individual roles – Held: Failure to specify overt acts in the dying declaration undermined the credibility of the evidence. The case did not meet the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction [Paras 24-27].

Dying Declaration as Sole Evidence – Necessity of Corroboration in Case of Suspicion – Courts should exercise caution in relying solely on a dying declaration, especially when there are doubts regarding its correctness – Held: Ex.P8-dying declaration lacked corroborative support and exhibited suspicious circumstances. In such cases, courts should look for corroborative evidence before recording a conviction [Paras 25-27].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC recorded against appellants/accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the trial court in Sessions Case No. 66 of 2015 were set aside. The accused were acquitted in terms of Section 235(1) CrPC. Any fine amount paid by the appellants was ordered to be refunded.

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Prima Facie Case Established – Rejection Upheld – The petitioner, an advocate, sought discharge in a case involving forgery, conspiracy, and transfer of government land based on disputed mutation entries. Both the Magistrate and Sessions Judge rejected the discharge application, citing prima facie evidence of the petitioner’s role in executing fraudulent sale deeds despite knowledge of the government’s ownership of the land – Held: Sufficient material exists to frame charges; discharge application rightly rejected. Defense cannot be considered at this stage [Paras 1-52].

Cheating and Forgery – Knowledge of Government Ownership – Prima Facie Case – The petitioner allegedly conspired with co-accused to execute fraudulent sale deeds for land known to be owned by the government. Investigation revealed that mutation entries were manipulated by the accused, and the land was transferred fraudulently to defraud the government. Court held that the material on record established ingredients of cheating and forgery under IPC [Paras 36-41, 47-49].

Role of Advocate in Conspiracy – Professional Misconduct – The petitioner, a practicing advocate, actively participated in the execution of forged sale deeds and filed civil suits to claim ownership over government land. The Court found his actions not only criminal but also amounting to professional misconduct – Held: Prima facie case established against the petitioner, justifying framing of charges [Paras 50-51].

Discharge vs. Quashing – Distinct Legal Considerations – The Court reiterated the distinction between grounds for quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and those for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Held: While the earlier dismissal of the quashing petition established the existence of prima facie evidence, the discharge application must be assessed independently based on materials on record [Paras 44-45].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed.

Presumption of Joint Ownership – Application of Mohammedan Law – Appeal Allowed – The appellant claimed exclusive ownership of seven properties, while the respondent asserted joint ownership inherited from their father. Both lower courts relied on the concept of a "karta" and presumption of joint ownership akin to Hindu law principles – Held: Under Mohammedan law, there is no presumption of joint ownership, and each property must be individually assessed based on title, possession, and evidence. The lower courts erred in applying Hindu joint family principles to Mohammedan property disputes, leading to a perverse finding [Paras 22-23].

Declaration of Title – Weight of Evidence – Records of Rights and Tax Receipts Given Due Weight – The lower courts dismissed the appellant's claims of ownership despite registered deeds, records of rights (CS & RS ROR), and tax receipts in the appellant's name. Reliance on a Local Commissioner’s report for determining possession was improper – Held: Official records of rights and tax receipts carry a presumption of correctness unless rebutted with substantive evidence. Lower courts erred in disregarding such documentary evidence [Paras 21, 27].

Doctrine of Adverse Possession and Gifts – Misapplication of Mohammedan Law – The appellant’s claim of title through adverse possession and oral heba (gift) was rejected by the lower courts based on procedural technicalities and lack of registration – Held: Under Mohammedan law, gifts (heba) need not be in writing or registered but require declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession. The lower courts failed to apply this standard and incorrectly rejected the appellant's claim without evaluating compliance with the essentials of a valid Mohammedan gift [Paras 25-26].

Bar Under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act – Improper Dismissal of Suit – The suit was dismissed for lack of a prayer for recovery of possession, with reliance placed on the Local Commissioner’s report showing the defendant’s possession over certain properties – Held: In disputes between co-sharers, mere possession by one party does not amount to ouster unless hostile title is established. Absence of such pleading or evidence makes dismissal under Section 34 unsustainable. Relief could also have been molded under Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC [Paras 29-30].

High Court's Role in Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings Overturned – The lower courts ignored settled principles of Mohammedan law and made findings based on inadmissible or no evidence, amounting to perversity – Held: High Court, in second appeal, has jurisdiction to interfere where findings are based on no evidence, ignore material evidence, or apply incorrect legal principles [Paras 16-17].

Decision:

The second appeal was allowed. The judgments of the Trial Court (28/11/1979) and First Appellate Court (03/04/1984) were set aside. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication on merits within six months, after giving both parties an opportunity to contest [Paras 31].