Criminal Procedure - Concurrent vs. Consecutive Sentences – Petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the trial court’s order directing sentences to run concurrently – Petitioner convicted under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act – Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and two separate 5-year sentences under Section 25 Arms Act – Section 31 CrPC allows Court to direct sentences to run consecutively or concurrently – Section 427(2) CrPC mandates that a subsequent sentence runs concurrently with a life sentence unless otherwise directed – Trial court's application of Section 353 and 362 CrPC to modify sentences after 13 years held to be incorrect. [Paras 1-29]

Principles of Sentencing – Analysis – Held – Concurrent running of sentences is permissible when a person is convicted at one trial for multiple offences – Court’s discretion to specify the order of sentences – Consecutive life sentences are unworkable – Life sentence and term sentences run concurrently unless directed otherwise by the Court. [Paras 15-17, 21]

Finality of Judgments – Limitation on Alteration – Section 362 CrPC prohibits alteration or review of a judgment by the Court once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors – Trial court became functus officio after disposing of the matter – Application filed after 13 years for altering the judgment not maintainable. [Para 24]

Decision – Quashing of Order – Petition allowed – Order of trial court directing sentences to run concurrently quashed – Court reaffirms the necessity to specify in judgments whether sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively – Emphasis on judicial discretion and avoidance of mechanical application. [Para 29]

Arbitration Law – Interim Measures – Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief to restrain the respondent from supplying agricultural machinery to third parties – Petitioner relied on exclusivity clauses in the distribution agreement – Court noted the inordinate delay in approaching the Court and failure to initiate arbitration proceedings – Held, relief under Section 9 is discretionary and guided by principles of Specific Relief Act – Delay in seeking relief and non-initiation of arbitration proceedings are fatal to the petitioner’s case. [Paras 1-48]

Maintainability of Petition Against Third Parties – Arbitration Law – Analysis of the scope of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act – Held, interim directions can be issued against third parties even if there is no privity of contract – Court referred to judgments from Delhi and Bombay High Courts supporting the issuance of interim measures against non-parties to the arbitration agreement. [Paras 47-48]

Decision – Denial of Interim Relief – Petition for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act dismissed – Court found no prima facie case or balance of convenience in favor of the petitioner – Petitioner’s delay and failure to pursue arbitration proceedings weighed against granting the interim relief sought. [Paras 44-48]

Injunction - Infrastructure Projects - Civil Revision Petition against Appellate Court order granting interim injunction - Section 164 of Electricity Act read with Sections 10 and 16 of Telegraph Act empowers authority to lay electricity lines over private land without owner’s consent - Injunction barred under Specific Relief Act for infrastructure projects - Appellate Court order set aside, trial court order denying injunction restored. [Paras 11-17]

Civil Procedure - Rights of Landowners - Analysis - Held - Private owners cannot challenge alignment of electricity lines, can only claim compensation for damages - Notification or consent not required under Telegraph Act - Rule 3 of Works of Licensees Rules, 2006 subordinate to Section 164 of Electricity Act. [Para 13]

Decision - Setting Aside Appellate Order - Petition allowed - Appellate order granting injunction against infrastructure project reversed - Specific Relief Act prohibits such injunctions to avoid delays in public utility projects. [Para 16]

Criminal Law - Confiscation of Vehicles - Release on Superdari - Criminal petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's order denying release of a vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. The vehicle was used for illegal transport of cattle, confiscated under the Haryana GauvanshSanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, 2015. Held, the Court which made the confiscation order has no jurisdiction to release the confiscated vehicle. The petitioner should first appeal before the District Magistrate to annul the confiscation order and subsequently request the release of the vehicle. The statute mandates that only the competent authority, not the Magistrate, has the jurisdiction to deal with the release of confiscated vehicles under the Haryana GauvanshSanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act. [Paras 1-9]

Decision - Jurisdiction and Procedure - Court rules that the petitioner must pursue statutory remedies under the Haryana GauvanshSanrakshan and Gausamvardhan Act, which provides that the District Magistrate is the competent authority to annul a confiscation order before seeking the release of the vehicle. The petition is disposed of with directions for the petitioner to appeal to the District Magistrate, and the District Magistrate is instructed to decide the appeal within two months from the date of institution. [Paras 8-9]

Reservation in Public Employment - Constitutionality - Writ Petition challenging 100% reservation for specific categories in appointment of Pre-Primary School Teachers - Held, 100% reservation not permissible under the Constitution - State directed to issue fresh advertisement allowing only 50% reservation, ensuring equality of opportunity. [Paras 1-34]

Equality in Public Employment - Analysis - Held - 100% reservation violates Articles 14, 15, 16 - Reservation beyond 50% requires special justification - Supreme Court precedents emphasized on equality and non-discrimination in public employment opportunities - State action deemed arbitrary and violative of constitutional principles. [Para 34]

Decision - Quashing Advertisement and Directing Fresh Process - Petition allowed - State to issue new advertisement for Pre-Primary School Teachers with corrected reservation policy - Ensuring compliance with constitutional mandates on equality. [Para 35]

Right of Redemption – Interpretation under SARFAESI Act – Petitioners contended the right of redemption continues till the sale certificate is issued and conveyed. The court held that the amendment to Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act does not extinguish the mortgagor's right of redemption until the sale certificate is executed. The court emphasized the continuous applicability of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and noted that the right of redemption persists beyond the auction date until the issuance of a sale certificate. – Held that the amended Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act is intended to regulate the secured creditor's right to transfer the secured asset and not to alter the right of the mortgagor to redeem the mortgage. – Writ Petition allowed subject to the petitioners paying the outstanding dues within four weeks. If not, the petition stands dismissed with costs. [Paras 55-93, 132]

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Despite SARFAESI Act providing a complete code for expeditious recovery of dues, the court held that relegating the petitioners to the statutory remedy after a prolonged period would be inappropriate. The court also considered the non-functioning state of the Debts Recovery Tribunal as a factor in favor of maintaining the writ jurisdiction. – Held that the plea for dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of non-maintainability was rejected. [Paras 94-98]

Decision:

Right of Redemption Upheld – Court held that the right of redemption is not extinguished till the execution of the sale certificate. The writ petition was allowed with the condition that the petitioners must pay the entire outstanding dues within four weeks. If not complied, the petition will be dismissed with costs. The court directed the bank to refund the auction purchasers with interest if the petitioners fulfilled their payment obligations. [Paras 132]

Negotiable Instruments - Interim Compensation - Criminal Revision against Trial Court order directing interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Provisions of Section 143-A held directory, not mandatory - Magistrate's discretion should not be exercised capriciously or arbitrarily - Order set aside due to lack of well-founded parameters and reasoning. [Paras 1-6]

Role of Magistrate in Ordering Interim Compensation - Analysis - Held - The discretion under Section 143-A must be exercised thoughtfully and not arbitrarily - Absence of deliberate delay by accused and frivolous exemptions must be considered - Order lacks elaboration on these parameters, making the exercise of discretion unfounded. [Paras 3-5]

Decision - Setting Aside Interim Compensation Order - Petition allowed - Impugned order directing interim compensation set aside due to arbitrary exercise of discretion by Magistrate. [Para 6]

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Non-compliance with Proclamation Notice Requirements - Petition seeking quashing of FIR for offences under Section 174A IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Held, the mens rea for the commission of an act under Section 174A IPC arises only when there is complete compliance with Section 82(2)(i) Cr.P.C., which includes public proclamation and publication in newspapers. The magistrate must follow the mandates of Section 82(2)(ii) Cr.P.C., ordering publication in newspapers. In the present case, the executing officer did not properly serve the proclamation notice. Therefore, the FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed due to the lack of statutory compliance, resulting in no valid basis for concluding the petitioners had the requisite mens rea. [Paras 1-8]

Decision - Compliance and Procedure - The Court emphasized the necessity of strict adherence to the procedural requirements under Section 82 Cr.P.C. for serving proclamation notices. The deficit in the executing officer's report and the magistrate's failure to follow Section 82(2)(ii) rendered the proceedings invalid. The petition was allowed, quashing FIR No. 131 of 25.10.2018 and subsequent proceedings​​.

Criminal Law - Acquittal and Sentence Modification - Appeal against convictions under multiple sections of IPC. Held, the appellant Rohit was not involved in the kidnapping or gang rape but had a voluntary affair with the prosecutrix. The prosecutrix's statements and lack of injuries supported this. Therefore, Rohit was acquitted on benefit of doubt. Further, the trial court's imposition of life imprisonment without remission for co-accused Anish and Rinku was modified, as such power lies only with the High Court and Supreme Court. [Paras 1-17]

Voluntary Relationship - Evidence Analysis - The Court noted the consensual nature of the relationship between Rohit and the prosecutrix, evidenced by their communication and lack of coercion or injuries. This led to Rohit's acquittal due to reasonable doubt regarding the charges of rape and intimidation. [Para 16]

Decision - Jurisdiction and Powers - The trial court's sentence of life imprisonment for the rest of the natural life of Anish and Rinku was beyond its jurisdiction. This was modified to life imprisonment with the possibility of remission, aligning with the powers vested only in higher courts. [Paras 13-15]