Partition – Family Property – Joint Family – Appeal against the trial court’s partial decree in partition suit – Appellant’s father managed joint family properties – Defendants contended partition occurred in 1952 with subsequent partition lists – Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of continued joint family properties – Trial court correctly relied on documentary and oral evidence supporting defendants’ claim of partition – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-30].

General Power of Attorney – Evidence – Trial court’s reliance on Power of Attorney holder’s testimony – Power of Attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of joint family properties – Supreme Court precedent states Power of Attorney holder cannot testify on principal’s behalf in matters requiring personal knowledge – Appellant’s failure to testify leads to presumption against their case [Paras 17-23].

Documentary Evidence – Partition Lists and Sale Deeds – Trial court accepted partition list (Ex.B-2) and sale deeds as proof of partition – Oral and documentary evidence demonstrated independent purchase and sale of properties by family members – Court upheld findings that several properties were not joint family properties but were self-acquired [Paras 24-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the trial court confirmed – Pending applications closed – Each party to bear their own costs [Para 30].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Application – Petitioners filed third bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Previously rejected twice – Argument that no prima facie case against petitioners based solely on co-accused’s confessional statement during police custody – Confession not falling within the ambit of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act as no discovery of fact corroborated [Paras 1-5].

Evidence – Admissibility of Confession – Section 27 of Evidence Act – Confession of co-accused in police custody not admissible unless leading to discovery of new facts – No recovery or discovery linking petitioners to offense – Cited Supreme Court precedent in Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra (1976) for narrow applicability of Section 27 [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Bail Granted – Held – Petitioners entitled to bail due to lack of substantive evidence apart from co-accused’s statement – Petitioners to furnish personal bonds and sureties – Court emphasizes need for corroborative evidence for future proceedings [Paras 8].

Mental Health – Competence to Stand Trial – Petitioner, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia with 95% mental disability, found unfit to stand trial – Multiple medical reports and testimonies confirm severe mental disorder – Court directs postponement of trial against the petitioner and continuation against co-accused – Emphasis on provisions under Sections 328, 329, and 330 Cr.P.C. and the Mental Health Act, 1987 [Paras 1-32].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Initial bail granted with stringent conditions – Subsequent modification allowing bail through petitioner’s father due to mental incapacity – Court orders petitioner’s release under care of a relative with undertaking for regular psychiatric treatment – Ensures compliance with Cr.P.C. Sections 328-330 and Mental Health Act [Paras 33-34].

Evidence Assessment – Medical Examination and Expert Testimony – Detailed analysis of medical examinations by various doctors, including Chief Medical Officer, psychiatrist, psychologist, and superintendent of district hospital – Consistent findings of severe disorganized behavior and psychotic features – Expert testimonies support the petitioner’s incapacity to stand trial [Paras 4-10].

Judicial Review – Procedural Errors in Lower Court – Initial rejection of petitioner’s mental illness plea due to lack of documents – Higher court’s intervention leading to re-examination and confirmation of mental disorder – Lower court’s mechanical and arbitrary order for petitioner’s appearance despite medical evidence criticized and set aside [Paras 2-7, 11-13, 27-30].

Directive for Deferred Proceedings – Legal Provisions Invoked – Invoking Sections 328 to 333 Cr.P.C., the court underscores the procedure for dealing with accused persons of unsound mind – Emphasizes postponement of trial until the petitioner’s recovery – Trial against co-accused to proceed as per law [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Criminal Revisional Application allowed – Impugned order set aside – Petitioner’s case deferred until recovery from mental illness – Directed trial against co-accused to continue – Bail granted to petitioner with conditions for psychiatric treatment and regular reporting to the court [Paras 32-34].

Corporate Law – Rights Issue and Allotment of Shares – Petition filed by shareholders alleging oppressive acts and mismanagement by the company’s management – NCLT's interim order dated 12.06.2024 restrained the company from proceeding with the rights issue and mandated maintaining the status quo of shareholding until the main petition is decided – Learned Single Judge set aside the NCLT’s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision with a reasoned and speaking order [Paras 2.3, 2.4, 3.4, 3.5].

Oppression and Mismanagement – Interim Orders – Court emphasized the necessity of a reasoned and speaking order by the NCLT when deciding interim applications under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act – Observations on the conduct of the company’s affairs and compliance with interim orders [Paras 3.6, 6.1, 6.2].

Decision – Appeals Disposed of with Directions – NCLT directed to independently reconsider the case and decide on merits without being influenced by prior observations – Status quo regarding shareholding to be maintained until final decision – Allotments and transactions during the pendency to be subject to final order – NCLT to expedite the decision process [Para 6.4, 6.5, 7].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted and sentenced for the pre-meditated murder of his wife – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court – Court dismisses the appeal, emphasizing the consistent chain of circumstantial evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Issues of procedural deficiencies in the trial court regarding witness identification addressed but found not prejudicial to the case outcome [Paras 1-26].

Witness Testimony – Identification – Failure to identify accused in dock by key witnesses noted – Court acknowledges the procedural lapse but holds it non-fatal due to the nature of the witnesses’ acquaintance with the appellant and other corroborative evidence [Paras 17-19].

Forensic Evidence – Delay in producing material objects in court – Material objects (knife and chappals) produced after significant delay – Court considers the delay non-prejudicial in the absence of cross-examination on this point – Forensic reports linking bloodstains on objects to appellant upheld [Paras 20-21].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Events – Court underscores the principles of circumstantial evidence – Conviction sustained based on a complete and consistent chain of circumstances proving the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Circumstances include appellant’s purchase of weapon, presence at the crime scene, and flight after the incident [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence by the trial court upheld – High Court finds no merit in the appeal, confirming the life imprisonment and fine imposed on the appellant [Para 26].

Hindu Marriage – Ceremonial Requirements – Appellant's suit for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 dismissed; respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights decreed – Appeal contends no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Trial court found documentary evidence reliable, but ignored inconsistencies and lack of proper ceremony – High Court finds no valid marriage solemnized as per Section 7 of the Act, 1955 – Certificates issued by Arya Samaj and Registrar not proof of valid marriage without customary rites [Paras 1-35, 40]. 

Fraud and Consent – Appellant alleges fraudulent registration of marriage – Evidence shows appellant and her family were under the respondent's influence – Appellant and her mother signed papers under false pretexts – No free consent for marriage [Paras 4-10, 17-19]. 

Burden of Proof – Respondent failed to prove valid solemnization of marriage – No evidence of required ceremonies – Witness testimonies and documents inadequate – Trial court's reliance on documents without corroborative evidence flawed [Paras 20-25, 35-39]. 

Marriage Registration – Mere registration under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 does not validate a marriage absent proper ceremonies – Supreme Court's guidance in similar cases highlighted – Registration certificates not sufficient proof of marriage [Paras 26-34]. 

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of trial court set aside – Suit of appellant under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 allowed – Respondent's suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 dismissed – Declared no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Certificates from Arya Samaj and Registrar deemed null and void [Paras 40-43]. 

Narcotic Drugs – Illegally Transporting Ganja – Mandatory Compliance under NDPS Act – Conviction Reversed: Appellants were convicted for illegal transportation of 30 kg of ganja. Trial Court’s conviction based on non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Karnataka High Court held that the seizure, inventory, and sampling of the contraband did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 52A, including lack of certification by the Magistrate. The non-compliance invalidated the primary evidence, leading to the vitiation of the trial and acquittal of the appellants [Paras 1-21].

Seizure and Investigation – Procedure Violations – Seized Contraband and Sample Examination: During a raid on 19.02.2019, appellants were found in possession of 30 kg of ganja. The seizure, preparation of the inventory, and sampling did not involve the jurisdictional Magistrate as mandated by Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Consequently, the evidence, including photographs and FSL reports, lacked legal sanctity [Paras 3-10].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Compliance Required – Certified Inventory and Sampling: The court emphasized the necessity of preparing an inventory of the seized contraband and certifying the same before a Magistrate. The inventory, photographs, and samples drawn must be certified as primary evidence under Section 52A. Non-compliance renders such evidence inadmissible [Paras 10-18].

Failure of Prosecution – Impact on Trial Integrity – Evidence Admissibility: The Karnataka High Court pointed out that the lack of compliance with Section 52A led to the inadmissibility of primary evidence. This non-compliance was seen as a procedural lapse that impacted the integrity of the trial, necessitating the reversal of the conviction and the acquittal of the appellants [Paras 18-21].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Directions issued for refund of fines and cancellation of bail bonds [Paras 19-21].
 

Hindu Marriage – Ceremonial Requirements – Appellant's suit for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 dismissed; respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights decreed – Appeal contends no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Trial court found documentary evidence reliable, but ignored inconsistencies and lack of proper ceremony – High Court finds no valid marriage solemnized as per Section 7 of the Act, 1955 – Certificates issued by Arya Samaj and Registrar not proof of valid marriage without customary rites [Paras 1-35, 40].

Fraud and Consent – Appellant alleges fraudulent registration of marriage – Evidence shows appellant and her family were under the respondent's influence – Appellant and her mother signed papers under false pretexts – No free consent for marriage [Paras 4-10, 17-19].

Burden of Proof – Respondent failed to prove valid solemnization of marriage – No evidence of required ceremonies – Witness testimonies and documents inadequate – Trial court's reliance on documents without corroborative evidence flawed [Paras 20-25, 35-39].

Marriage Registration – Mere registration under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 does not validate a marriage absent proper ceremonies – Supreme Court's guidance in similar cases highlighted – Registration certificates not sufficient proof of marriage [Paras 26-34].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of trial court set aside – Suit of appellant under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 allowed – Respondent's suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 dismissed – Declared no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Certificates from Arya Samaj and Registrar deemed null and void [Paras 40-43].

Patent Law – Inventive Step and Non-Patentability – Appeal against the rejection of patent application No.5360/CHENP/2010 for an orally, rapidly disintegrating tablet – Grounds of rejection included lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and non-patentability under Section 3€ of the Patents Act, 1970 – High Court finds that prior arts D1, D3, and D5 do not teach away from the claimed invention and highlights the European Patent granted to the appellant considering the same prior arts – Patent for the manufacturing process already granted in a co-pending application supports the inventive step – Respondent’s conclusions on lack of inventive step found erroneous [Paras 1-13].

Estoppel in Patent Examination – Once the process patent for the method of manufacturing the tablet is granted, the respondent is estopped from rejecting the product patent for lack of inventive step – The product patent rejection based on the process being obvious to a person skilled in the art deemed incorrect – Patent law distinguishes between product and process patents, with a granted process patent not negating the inventive step in the product itself [Paras 10-12].

Remand for Reconsideration – The Court remands the issue of non-patentability under Section 3€ back to the respondent for fresh consideration – The Court mandates that a different Patent Controller should conduct the re-evaluation and include a hearing for the appellant – Fresh consideration to be completed within three months [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Rejection of patent application on grounds of lack of inventive step set aside – Issue of non-patentability under Section 3€ remitted for fresh consideration – Appellant granted opportunity for a hearing during reconsideration process [Para 15].