No-confidence Motion – Special Meeting – Appeal from interim order staying special meeting convened to consider no-confidence motion against Up-Pramukh – Appeal and writ petition disposed together – Up-Pramukh contended no valid grounds for no-confidence – Court directed special meeting to proceed on specified date [Paras 1-9].

Panchayat Raj – Sections 69(2), 70(4)(i), 70(4)(ii), 70(4)(iv) – No-confidence motion against Up-Pramukh – Court held delegation of duties by Adhyaksh not necessary for no-confidence motion against Up-Pramukh – Special meeting to consider motion must proceed without Court evaluating the grounds [Paras 5-7].

Sindhu Devi Case – Distinguished – Court found prior case related to Act of 1993, requiring reasons in motion – Current Act requires reasons specified in notice but does not permit Court to assess validity of reasons [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Interim Order Set Aside – Appeal allowed – Writ petition rejected – Special meeting directed to be convened on specified date to consider no-confidence motion – Up-Pramukh prohibited from performing functions till special meeting [Para 9].
 

Jurisdiction – UK Court’s Jurisdiction – Appellant contested jurisdiction of the UK Court over claims based on two Personal Guarantees – UK Court’s jurisdiction affirmed due to service of process under Section 1140 of the English Companies Act, using the appellant’s registered address for service in UK – High Court of Delhi held UK Court had jurisdiction and judgment was enforceable in India under Section 44A of CPC [Paras 8-30].

Application of Foreign Law – Default Rule – UK Court applied UK law by default as appellant failed to plead or establish application of DIFC or Singapore law as stipulated in the Personal Guarantees – High Court of Delhi upheld this application of law under principles governing asymmetrical jurisdictional clauses [Paras 31-33].

Conclusive Judgment – Ex parte Judgments – UK Court’s summary judgment based on merits of evidence and principles similar to Order XIII-A of CPC – High Court of Delhi ruled such ex parte judgments are conclusive under Section 13 of CPC if decided on merits [Paras 34-40].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Judgment of UK Court enforceable in India – Dismissal of objections to enforcement – High Court of Delhi emphasized the importance of compliance with statutory requirements and recognized the legitimacy of summary judgments given on merits by competent foreign courts [Para 41-42].

Revenue Records – Correction of Entries – Appellants contested the correction of entries in revenue records by the Revenue Divisional Officer without an underlying order – Court examined procedural requirements under A.P Records of Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 – Held, an appeal under Section 5(4) of the Act must be against a specific order of the Tahsildar or Revenue Divisional Officer – Entries corrected without an underlying order can only be challenged under Section 9 of the Act – Order of Revenue Divisional Officer set aside – Direction given to approach Collector under Section 9 for rectification of entries [Paras 1-16].

Section 9 of the Act – Revision by Collector – Clarified procedural remedy for irregular changes in revenue records – Collector has the power to correct entries in records suo moto or on application – Status quo to be maintained until Collector’s decision [Para 13-15].

Decision – Writ appeal allowed – Order of Revenue Divisional Officer dated 31.03.2022 set aside – Appellants directed to seek remedy under Section 9 – District Collector to consider application within eight weeks – Status quo maintained [Para 16].

Arbitration – Ex-parte Interim Measures – Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is maintainable against an order granting or refusing ex-parte interim measures under Section 9, even if the application is before a Commercial Court. The scope for interference in such appeals is limited, and the appellate court must consider whether the ex-parte measure was necessary without prior notice to the other party [Paras 1-22].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1-A) – Appeals in commercial disputes – The proviso to Section 13(1-A) does not bar appeals under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The non-obstante clause in Section 37(1) allows appeals from orders granting or refusing any measure under Section 9 of the Act, 1996, including ex-parte interim orders [Paras 17-22].

Procedure – Interim Protection – Interim protection granted by the High Court to remain in force until the Section 9 application is decided by the Commercial Court. The interim order should not be seen as an indication of the merits of the case [Paras 30-34].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Interim protection extended until the final disposal of the Section 9 application by the Commercial Court. Costs made easy [Para 34-35].

Criminal Law – Bail Application in Dowry Death Case – Petitioner, husband of the deceased Rekha @ Mamta, sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., contending her death resulted from an accidental fall. The petitioner argued that the injuries were minor and attributed the death to cardiac arrest. He claimed innocence and asserted the case was falsely foisted on him, lacking concrete evidence linking him directly to the crime [Paras 1-4].

Prima Facie Evidence and Gravity of Offense – The court found substantial prima facie evidence indicating an unnatural death. It noted discrepancies in the investigation, particularly the Investigating Officer’s assumption of an accidental fall, which was not supported by witness statements or medical reports. The court emphasized the seriousness and gravity of the allegations under Section 304-B, IPC, and the necessity of maintaining high accuracy in such investigations [Paras 5-8].

Decision: Bail Application Rejected – Bail application dismissed due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence on record. The court highlighted the investigative shortcomings and ordered that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, and the Superintendent of Police concerned for necessary action [Paras 9-10].

Criminal Law – Bail – Prolonged Custody – Petitioner accused of murder, in judicial custody for 10 months, investigation complete and final report filed – Bail granted with stringent conditions.

Presumption of Innocence – Pre-conviction Imprisonment – Courts should not deny bail solely on public sentiment – Emphasis on presumption of innocence and right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Cites Sanjay Chandra v. CBI and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Discretion – Judicious Exercise – Emphasis on individual case facts and judicious exercise of discretion in granting bail – Reference to Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. and State of Kerala v. Raneef [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties, subject to conditions ensuring appearance, non-interference with evidence, and restricted movement – Court emphasizes compliance with bail conditions under risk of cancellation [Paras 11-12].
 

Recovery of Loan – Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Entitlement to Debt Relief

*Recovery Suit – Borrowing and Liability – Suit for recovery of Rs. 40,098.90 filed by Syndicate Bank against Venkata Rama Saw Mills & Timber Depot, and its proprietor Sk. Nayab Rasool, with K. Moodava Kotaiah and N. Anjaneyulu as co-obligants – Execution of demand promissory note and relevant documents by the defendants for a loan – Defendants admitted borrowing and liability, claiming benefits under debt relief laws – Trial court decreed the suit, holding defendants not entitled to such benefits – On appeal, High Court upheld trial court’s judgment, confirming the defendants’ liability and ineligibility for debt relief [Paras 1-14].

*Debt Relief – Eligibility under Act 4 of 1938 – Defendants’ claim of being agriculturists entitled to benefits under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Agriculturists Relief Act, 1938 rejected – Defendants’ status as business proprietors not meeting the criteria for small farmers – Appellants’ argument deemed unsustainable as the first defendant is a business firm and the second defendant its proprietor [Paras 5, 12-13].

Admission of Liability – Absence of Contrary Evidence – Defendants admitted liability and failed to provide evidence to dispute the plaintiff’s claim – Court relied on plaintiff’s evidence, including promissory notes and account extracts, affirming the amount owed by the defendants – Appellants’ plea for installment payment and usurious interest rejected as unsupported by evidence [Paras 5, 13].

Decision: Appeal Suit dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. No order as to costs [Para 14].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of final report and proceedings in case of extortion and intimidation – Allegation that accused took illicit photographs of complainant and used them to extort money and gold – Accused contends innocence and challenges sufficiency of evidence – Prosecution relies on statements and material evidence suggesting prima facie case – High Court holds that evidence warrants trial, and innocence claims to be tested during trial – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-10].

Extortion and Intimidation – Prima Facie Case – Accused allegedly took illicit photographs and used them to blackmail complainant for money and gold – High Court finds sufficient material to support charges and justify trial – Highlights that detailed examination of evidence required at trial stage, not in quashment proceedings [Paras 5-9].

Decision – Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – High Court emphasizes need for trial to properly assess evidence and allegations – Registry directed to forward copy of order to jurisdictional court for further steps [Para 10].
 

Criminal Law – Bail Application – Prolonged Incarceration – Petitioner in custody since January 2021 – Trial progressing slowly with only 12 out of 30 prosecution witnesses examined over more than three years – Court held that right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under the Constitution of India – Bail granted due to undue delay in trial [Paras 1-5].

Right to Speedy Trial – Constitutional Guarantee – Citing Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Emphasized that an accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely pending trial – Held that prolonged detention without timely trial violates fundamental rights – Court referred to precedents emphasizing the right to a timely trial and the presumption of innocence [Paras 4-34].

Bail Jurisprudence – Pre-conviction Detention – Court reiterated the principles for granting bail, considering the right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Emphasized that the detention should not be punitive but to ensure presence at trial – Bail granted with conditions to ensure the petitioner's presence at trial [Paras 16-34].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner granted bail due to prolonged pre-trial detention and the right to a speedy trial – Ordered to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.