Electricity Regulation – Limitation – Refund of Excess Charges – Petitioner (MSEDCL) challenged CGRF orders directing refund of excess AEC and FAC charged – Contention that claims were barred by limitation – High Court held that the cause of action arose upon MERC’s clarification order and complaint filed within two years was timely – Regulation 6.6 of MERC Regulations was held to be directory, not mandatory – Appeal dismissed [Paras 61-70].

Regulation Compliance – Refund of Excess AEC and FAC – MERC orders permitted AEC and FAC recovery within specific periods – MSEDCL recovered charges outside permitted periods – High Court upheld CGRF’s order for refund with interest for excess recovery – Emphasized adherence to regulatory orders and consumer protection [Paras 43-50].

Interest on Refund – Applicability of Section 62(6) of Electricity Act – CGRF directed refund with interest for non-compliance of MERC orders – High Court affirmed, noting failure to comply with MERC directions justified interest under Section 62(6) [Paras 52-55].

CGRF Jurisdiction and Procedure – Reasoned Orders – MSEDCL contended CGRF did not provide reasoned findings – High Court found CGRF orders sufficiently detailed, supported by regulations and evidence – Rejected claims of unjust enrichment by respondents [Paras 56-60].

Decision:

Writ Petitions Dismissed – CGRF orders directing MSEDCL to refund excess AEC and FAC charges with interest upheld – Court stayed judgment for eight weeks to allow appeal** [Paras 75-77].

Civil Procedure – Joint Trial – Appeal against common judgment – Trial court dismissed suits for rendition of accounts but allowed recovery suit – Appeals filed against recovery judgment alleging improper trial procedure and non-appreciation of evidence – Held, trial not conducted as per CPC, trial court failed to appreciate evidence, order partly set aside and remanded for fresh disposal [Paras 1-20].

Order XXVI of CPC – Issuance of Commission for Local Investigation – Trial court failed to invoke provisions of Order XXVI for local investigation in rendition of accounts – Commissioner’s report essential for proper adjudication – Direction for fresh trial with liberty to present additional evidence [Paras 14-15].

Rendition of Accounts – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant’s suits for rendition of accounts dismissed as per law – Appellants can plead their case in the surviving suit upon remand [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Common judgment and decree set aside concerning recovery of amounts – Suit remanded to trial court for fresh disposal after further hearing and evidence – Direction to explore amicable settlement through ADR mechanisms [Paras 15-16].

Criminal Law – Conviction – Appeal – Validity of Evidence – Appellant convicted for repeated rape and criminal intimidation of step-daughter, aged 12, leading to pregnancy – Defense argued on grounds of improbable prosecution narrative, unreliable evidence, delay in FIR, and manipulated documents – Prosecution relied on consistent and corroborated testimonies, medical evidence, and timely police action – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-17].

Sexual Offenses – Minor Victim – Testimonies and Corroborative Evidence – Victim’s detailed account of abuse supported by mother’s testimony and medical confirmation of pregnancy – Delay in FIR deemed reasonable under circumstances – Appellant’s behavior patterns supported credibility of allegations – Court found no merit in arguments of unreliable evidence or manipulated documents [Paras 12-16].

Preventive Measures – DNA Test – Considerations for Victim’s Safety – Inquiry on absence of DNA test during pregnancy – Prosecution cited risks to victim and fetus – Court found explanation reasonable, emphasizing safety and well-being of victim and unborn child [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence confirmed – Prosecution successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt [Para 17].

Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Requirement for Preliminary Enquiry – Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. with a request to refer it for preliminary enquiry – Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam, returned the application citing non-compliance with procedural requirements – High Court noted that while petitioner lacked receipts for stolen motor pump set and wires, this alone could not justify denying reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Directed Judicial Magistrate to refer the complaint for enquiry without insisting on receipts, provided other conditions were met [Paras 3-7].

Decision: Criminal Original Petition allowed – Judicial Magistrate directed to refer the petitioner’s complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for preliminary enquiry without requiring receipts for the stolen items, if other procedural requirements are met.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging manipulation of tender documents leading to overpayment – Accused involved in printing contract awarded by GCERT – Accusations of conspiracy, forgery, and causing wrongful loss to government – Court examined prima facie evidence of fraudulent activities, unauthorized communications, and tampering of documents – Held allegations sufficient to justify continuation of investigation – Petitions dismissed [Paras 1-9].

Forgery and Cheating – Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 IPC – Petitioner accused of altering tender documents post-approval to secure higher payments – Investigation revealed unauthorized changes and misleading representations – Court highlighted the need to establish wrongful gain and intent to deceive for these offenses – Court determined prima facie case was made out [Paras 8.1-8.6].

Criminal Breach of Trust – Section 409 IPC – Petitioner, a public servant, accused of colluding with contractor to misappropriate funds – Court noted high standards expected from public servants – Accusations of breach of trust supported by evidence of tampered documents and unauthorized actions [Para 8.6].

Decision – Applications dismissed – FIR and ongoing investigation upheld – Court emphasized the importance of allowing the investigation to proceed to uncover full extent of alleged misconduct [Para 9].

Maintenance – Interim Order – Revision Petition by Wife and Child – Trial court ordered the husband to pay monthly interim maintenance from the date of the application. The appellate court modified this date to a later point, considering the pandemic. High Court found this modification based on facts not on record – [Paras 1-15].
Discretion of Court – Maintenance from Date of Application – Supreme Court’s guidance in Rajnesh v. Neha applied – High Court held that maintenance should be from the date of application to ensure justice and fair play – [Paras 13-14].
Legally Wedded Wife and Minor Child – Obligation of Husband to Maintain – Appellate court's modification deemed improper as it relied on unsubstantiated facts – High Court restored trial court’s order for maintenance from the application date – [Paras 14-15].
Decision: Criminal revision case allowed. Order of the appellate court set aside. Maintenance to be paid from the date of the application as originally ordered by the trial court. Arrear maintenance to be deposited within six weeks, and monthly payments to continue as per the trial court’s order – [Para 15].
 

Family Law – Divorce – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal by husband challenging dismissal of his petition for divorce – Appellant alleged cruelty and desertion by wife due to her epilepsy, smoking, drinking, and alleged behavior – Family Court found no evidence supporting appellant’s claims – Appellant had not provided medical evidence of epilepsy or other allegations – Evidence showed appellant’s non-cooperation and refusal to take wife back home – No proof of desertion by wife as appellant failed to attempt reconciliation – Divorce petition dismissed [Paras 2-35].

Criminal Law – Domestic Violence – Maintenance Orders – Evidence of domestic violence and subsequent maintenance orders by the court – Family Court referenced previous judicial findings and maintenance orders favoring respondent – Appellant’s claims countered by judicial findings supporting respondent’s allegations of cruelty and desertion by appellant – Previous maintenance orders upheld [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held: Family Court’s findings upheld – No substantiation of appellant’s claims of cruelty and desertion – Previous judicial findings and evidence support respondent’s case – Divorce petition rightly dismissed – Appeal without merit, dismissed with no costs [Paras 33-35].
 

Criminal Procedure – Section 133 Cr.P.C. – Dismissal of Petition for Non-Prosecution – Revision Petition against dismissal of a petition to prevent obstruction of a road – Petitioner claimed the date of hearing was mistakenly noted as 22.09.2023 instead of 22.08.2023 – Court held that the plea of a mistaken date is inherently improbable and unsupported by evidence – Emphasized the statutory obligation under Section 138 Cr.P.C. to record evidence when cause is shown by the respondent – Held, the petitioner failed to produce evidence or appear, thus, the Magistrate was justified in dismissing the petition [Paras 1-14].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – Held – Dismissal of the petition by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was upheld – No infirmity found in the order – Petitioner’s failure to appear or produce evidence on the date fixed warranted the dismissal for non-prosecution [Paras 14-16].

Banking Law – Declaration of Fraud – Petitioner challenged the classification as 'fraud' by the respondent bank – Argument that such classification must be based on a majority rule among consortium banks with at least 60% share in the total lending as per RBI guidelines – Earlier Show Cause Notice quashed for non-supply of documents and lack of hearing – Petitioner's classification as 'fraud' set aside for lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularities – Directions to file a report with RBI and CBI/Police without prejudice to the rights of the parties [Paras 1-12].

RBI Master Directions – Jurisdictional Requirements – Emphasized that individual banks can independently audit accounts but cannot unilaterally declare an account as 'fraud' without consortium majority consent – Respondent bank’s failure to follow this directive renders the classification invalid [Paras 8-11].

Due Process – Requirement of Hearing – Highlighted the necessity of providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before adverse classification – Failure to adhere to due process resulted in quashing of the impugned order [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Impugned order quashing the classification of the petitioner as 'fraud' set aside – Interim relief granted to the petitioner pending final adjudication – Directions for compliance with RBI guidelines and procedural fairness in future actions [Para 11].