Counter-Claim – Requirement for Separate Appeals – Appeal filed challenging the dismissal of the main suit without filing a separate appeal against the counter-claim – Held: When both the suit and counter-claim are decided, separate appeals must be filed to challenge both – Failure to file separate appeals results in res judicata – The First Appellate Court erred by reversing the trial court's judgment on the counter-claim without a separate appeal challenging the dismissal of the counter-claim [Paras 24, 26, 32-37].

Res Judicata – Non-Filing of Separate Appeals – The First Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, despite no separate appeal being filed against the dismissal of the counter-claim – Held: Since no separate appeal was filed against the trial court's dismissal of the counter-claim, the First Appellate Court's interference was barred by the principle of res judicata – The judgment of the trial court should have been restored [Paras 36-37].

Counter-Claim – Legal Principles – Counter-claims are treated as cross-suits and must be separately challenged in appeals – Held: The counter-claim in this case was a separate legal issue requiring its own appeal – Failure to appeal against the counter-claim resulted in the finality of the trial court's decision on that aspect, and the First Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the decision on the counter-claim [Paras 27-30].

Single Appeal for Suit and Counter-Claim – Not Permissible – Where both the suit and counter-claim are decided, a single appeal is insufficient to challenge both – Held: The appellants' appeal was defective as it did not separately challenge the dismissal of the counter-claim – The First Appellate Court’s decision was thus improper [Paras 22, 23, 33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is set aside – The judgment and decree of the trial court, which decreed the appellants' suit and dismissed the counter-claim, is restored [Paras 38-39].

Commercial Law – Civil Revision Petition – Maintainability – Petitioners challenged the rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint – Petitioners argued that the suit was barred by limitation and failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding mandatory pre-institution mediation – Held: Civil Revision Petition not maintainable due to the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against challenging interlocutory orders – Petitioners failed to file an appeal under Section 13(1) or (1A) of the Act – Dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition upheld [Paras 9-17].

Limitation Law – Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Petitioners contended that pre-institution mediation was mandatory and that the suit violated this requirement – Respondent argued that the suit, filed before 20.08.2022, was exempt from the mandate per the Supreme Court's ruling in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Patil Automation applies prospectively from 20.08.2022, and the suit, filed on 30.11.2021, is exempt [Paras 3, 7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India to bypass the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – The court reiterated that the High Court’s power under Article 227 is not unrestrained and must be used sparingly, especially in light of specific statutes aimed at expediting dispute resolution – Held: Article 227 cannot be used to circumvent the bar on revision petitions under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – No costs awarded – No consideration of the merits of the dispute [Paras 18-19].
 

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Acquittal – Appellants convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC for the murder of deceased by attacking him with wooden logs – Trial court sentenced appellants to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 each – On appeal, the High Court found that the evidence of the key prosecution witness (PW1) was unreliable, with contradictions and lack of corroboration – The alleged motive between the appellants and the deceased was weak, and there was stronger evidence of enmity between PW7 and the deceased – No credible connection was established between the recovered weapons and the crime – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal [Paras 10, 12, 16, 20, 21].

Witness Testimony – Reliability of Sole Witness – PW1, the third wife of the deceased, claimed to be an eyewitness but her testimony was inconsistent – Other witnesses like PW2 and PW9, initially projected as eyewitnesses, did not support the prosecution’s case – Contradictions in PW1’s statements during cross-examination, particularly regarding the presence of other witnesses and the sequence of events, undermined her credibility – The court found it unsafe to convict the appellants based solely on her testimony without corroboration [Paras 11, 13, 15, 18, 20].

Motive – Enmity Between the Parties – The prosecution’s claim of enmity between the accused and the deceased due to a property dispute was weak – Evidence showed that PW7, the son of PW1, had a serious altercation with the deceased 15 days before the incident, where the accused had intervened to save the deceased – This raised doubts about the alleged motive of the appellants – The court found the motive unsubstantiated and leaned towards an alternative narrative involving PW7’s enmity with the deceased [Paras 12, 13, 14, 16].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery of Wooden Logs – The trial court relied on the recovery of wooden logs allegedly used in the crime, based on the confession of the accused – However, the forensic report (Ex.P27) did not conclusively link the blood stains on the logs to the deceased, as the serology test was inconclusive – The lack of a direct connection between the recovered items and the crime further weakened the prosecution’s case – The court held that the discovery of the wooden logs did not substantiate guilt [Paras 19, 20].

Delay in FIR and Investigation – Appellants raised concerns about the delay in registering the FIR and forwarding it to the Magistrate – Additionally, the involvement of PW7 in informing others about the incident, despite PW1’s contradictory statements regarding the phone call, raised doubts about the sequence of events – The court noted these delays and contradictions as factors contributing to the unreliability of the prosecution’s case [Paras 7, 17, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellants acquitted – Fine to be refunded – Bail bond cancelled [Para 22].
 

Bail – Criminal Jurisprudence – Circumstantial Evidence – Petitioner seeks bail in a case involving circumstantial evidence with no direct evidence linking him to the crime, except a witness of last seen – Court notes that the petitioner has already spent over one year and three months in custody – Petitioner has no prior criminal history, and the only evidence is the last-seen witness, which requires trial for full adjudication – Bail granted as prolonged incarceration without trial would violate the principle of presumption of innocence [Paras 3, 4, 11].

Presumption of Innocence – Right to Bail – Refers to the fundamental principle "Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception" established by the Supreme Court – Bail granted on the grounds of the petitioner’s right to liberty and a speedy trial, as per Article 21 of the Constitution – The Court emphasizes that unless it can be shown that the petitioner would interfere with the judicial process or pose a danger, continued detention is not justified [Paras 6–9].

Custodial Period and Trial Progress – Grounds for Bail – Petitioner has been in custody for over a year, and only four out of seventeen prosecution witnesses have been examined – Court observes that the trial is still at an initial stage, and further incarceration would be unnecessary when the petitioner can be released on bail under suitable conditions to prevent tampering with evidence [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner granted regular bail upon furnishing a bond to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court – Court observes that any future involvement in similar offenses would lead to the possibility of bail cancellation, and nothing in the current order should affect the merits of the trial [Paras 12–13].

Criminal Law – Education Rights of Prisoners – Petitioner, an accused in a criminal case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, seeks direction to grant admission to the LL.B. course in Siddharth College of Law – Petitioner appeared for the Maharashtra CET law examination under permission from the Special Court, passed the examination, and was provisionally allotted a seat – Held: Imprisonment does not restrict the right to pursue education, and denying the petitioner admission despite following due process would violate fundamental rights – The court allowed the petitioner to take admission, subject to the university and college rules on attendance and eligibility [Paras 1-9].

Right to Education – Fundamental Right – Petitioner argued that education is a fundamental right and sought permission to complete the admission process while being in jail – Respondents opposed the petition, citing mandatory attendance requirements for the LL.B. course, stating the petitioner would be unable to meet the 75% attendance requirement due to his incarceration – The Court held that denying admission on this ground would violate the petitioner's right to education – However, no exemption from attendance requirements was granted, and the petitioner is subject to all rules applicable to other candidates, including attendance [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Directions to University and Law College – The Court directed Siddharth College of Law to consider allowing the petitioner's authorized representative to complete the admission process or to take the petitioner’s signature on necessary documents from the prison – Clarified that the petitioner is not exempt from fulfilling attendance or other course requirements, and the college may refuse permission to sit for exams if criteria are unmet – Petition allowed in these terms [Paras 9-11].
 

Industrial Disputes – Reinstatement vs. Lump Sum Compensation – Unfair Labour Practices – The petitioner, a government-aided private college, challenged the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with 50% back wages – Respondents (workmen) were retrenched in 2006 after completing 240 days but were appointed on ad hoc basis without approval from the competent authority – Court held that reinstatement is not automatic even if the termination violates Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act – Considering that workmen were not appointed on sanctioned posts and the initial award of lump sum compensation was not challenged by the workmen, Court set aside the reinstatement order and awarded lump sum compensation instead [Paras 5–9, 12–13].

Reinstatement – Back Wages – Principles Laid Down in Bhurumal’s Case – Following the Supreme Court's decision in B.S.N.L. v. Bhurumal, 2014 (7) SCC 177, and State of Uttarakhand v. Raj Kumar, 2019 (14) SCC 353, Court emphasized that reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic, especially for daily-wage or ad hoc workers – Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate where the appointment was not made following prescribed procedures and where the worker has already accepted lump sum compensation in the first round of litigation [Paras 8–13].

Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act – Judicial Discretion in Awarding Relief – Court reiterated that under Section 11-A, the Labour Court can award reinstatement or compensation, depending on the facts – Given the circumstances of the case, lump sum compensation of ₹3.5 lakhs was awarded to each workman, while the petitioner was directed to pay 50% back wages for the period prior to the interim stay along with last drawn salary under Section 17-B for subsequent periods [Paras 10–13].

Decision: Petitions disposed of – Reinstatement order set aside – Petitioner directed to pay ₹3.5 lakhs as lump sum compensation to each workman, along with 50% back wages and last drawn salary under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act until the date of this order – Payments to be made within one month, failing which interest at 12% per annum will be applicable [Paras 13–14].
 

Bail - Hostile Witness – Testimony’s Value – Not Entirely Disregarded – The victim initially incriminated the applicant during her examination-in-chief, but later retracted during cross-examination – Held: Testimony of a hostile witness cannot be wholly disregarded – The court should scrutinize the evidence and rely on parts that remain credible and consistent with the prosecution’s case [Para 7].

Delayed Cross-Examination – Manipulation of Witness – Fair Trial – The victim's cross-examination was deferred by two months, and during this time, the applicant may have influenced the witness – Held: Deferring cross-examination for such a long period without valid reason can lead to manipulation of witnesses, as observed in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab – A fair trial requires prompt and continuous examination to prevent witness tampering [Paras 8-10].

Bail Denied – Manipulation of Witness and Seriousness of Charges – Given the seriousness of the charges, the manipulation of the victim's testimony, and the circumstances leading to the delay in cross-examination, the court found no grounds to grant bail – Bail application rejected [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Bail application rejected – The court emphasized the seriousness of the charges, potential manipulation of the witness, and the need for a fair trial without interference – The trial court was directed to expedite the trial in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court [Paras 11-13].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Prima Facie Marriage Dispute – Necessity to Establish Valid Marriage – The petitioner denied that the opposite party (Respondent No. 2) was his legally married wife and argued that she was his maid. The petitioner claimed to have been married to another woman since 1979 and provided documentary evidence, including a marriage invitation card and family nomination forms. The trial court erroneously concluded that the marriage was undisputed and awarded interim maintenance – Held: The court below must examine the disputed question of whether the opposite party is the petitioner's legally married wife before granting interim maintenance. The impugned order was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Wife Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Legal Definition – Need for Valid Marriage – The term "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C. refers to a legally married wife. In cases where the marriage is seriously disputed, the claimant must prima facie establish the existence of a valid marriage before any maintenance order can be made – Held: Prima facie proof of marriage is required even in summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court must re-examine the issue after allowing both parties to present evidence [Paras 7-9].

Perverse Finding by Lower Court – Misinterpretation of Disputed Marriage – The trial court erred in holding that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was undisputed, despite the petitioner's consistent denial and submission of evidence showing an existing marriage with another woman. This finding was perverse – Held: The trial court's order was based on an erroneous conclusion and was set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Opportunity for Fresh Hearing on Maintenance – Directions to Lower Court – The High Court directed the lower court to rehear the application for interim maintenance, allowing both parties to submit documents and evidence regarding the disputed marriage and other issues. The trial court was instructed to pass a fresh order within eight weeks – Held: The lower court must consider the disputed marital relationship and other issues afresh without being influenced by previous findings [Para 9].

Decision – CRR 2554 of 2019 allowed – The interim maintenance order dated 05.04.2019 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court for a fresh hearing. Consequently, CRR 326 of 2024 was also allowed, and the execution proceeding was quashed [Paras 9-11].

Preventive Detention – Non-Application of Mind – Failure to Consider Bail Orders – Detention order quashed  - The petitioner was granted bail in all the FIRs mentioned in the detention order, yet the detention order failed to mention the grant of bail – Held: Non-mentioning of bail orders indicates non-application of mind by the detaining authority, thus rendering the detention order invalid [Paras 10-11].

Delay in Passing Detention Order – Absence of Proximate Link with FIRs – The detention order was passed nine months after the registration of the last FIR – Held: Lack of a proximate link between the grounds of detention and the FIRs undermines the legitimacy of the detention order [Paras 13-14].

Failure to Consider Representation – Violation of Constitutional Rights – The petitioner’s representation was not considered by the authorities despite being submitted through proper channels – Held: Non-consideration of the representation constitutes a violation of the constitutional and legal guarantees, further invalidating the detention order [Paras 15-16].

Provision of Grounds of Detention – No Prejudice Caused to Petitioner – The petitioner was provided with the grounds of detention and requisite documents within the statutory period, and he was informed of his right to make a representation – Held: The petitioner’s contention that he was not informed about his rights to make a representation is baseless [Para 14].

Decision: Detention order quashed – The court held that the failure to consider bail orders and the delay in passing the detention order demonstrated non-application of mind – The non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation violated constitutional rights – Accordingly, the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua, is quashed, and the petitioner is to be released from custody unless required in any other case [Paras 17-19].