Criminal Law - Right of Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Sections 372 and 378(4) - Victim's right to appeal against acquittal in private complaint cases - Applicant-complainant sought leave to appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC against a judgment of acquittal dated 23.02.2018 passed by the JMIC Hisar for offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 452, 427 and 506 IPC - Court analyzed the proviso to Section 372 CrPC which grants victims a right to prefer an appeal against acquittal to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against conviction - Referred to Supreme Court ruling in M/s Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran stating that the victim's right under Section 372 is superior to that of a complainant and the insistence on seeking special leave under Section 378(4) would be contrary to legislative intent - Held - The victim in a private complaint case has a statutory right to file an appeal under Section 372 CrPC before the Court of Sessions and is not required to seek leave from the High Court - Matter relegated to the Court of Sessions Hisar.

Decision: Matter relegated to the Court of Sessions, Hisar – Sessions Judge directed to treat the application for leave to appeal as an appeal filed under Section 372 CrPC and decide the same on merits – Entire record ordered to be transmitted to the Sessions Court forthwith.

Writ Law - Maintainability of writ petition - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Section 18 - Challenge to DRT order dismissing securitization application - Petitioner bypassed statutory appeal under Section 18 and filed writ petition alleging DRT acted without jurisdiction based on prior DRT order - High Court observed that DRT possessed competent jurisdiction as the earlier order had only quashed the specific sale notice and not the entire SARFAESI proceedings - High Court reiterated that the presence of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act absolutely bars the exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction unless exceptional circumstances exist - Exceptions such as the violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice or sheer lack of jurisdiction are not attracted in the present factual matrix - Held - writ petition is not maintainable due to the availability of a robust statutory alternative remedy - petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal - [Paras 1-24].

Writ Law - Alternative statutory remedy - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 - Section 18 - Rule of exhaustion of remedies - High Court held that it should not normally interfere under Article 226 when a statutory alternative remedy is available especially in matters involving recovery of public dues and bank loans - Jurisdiction is to be exercised only in exceptional contingencies namely violation of fundamental rights or failure of natural justice or orders being wholly without jurisdiction or vires of the parent act being challenged - Present case involves a factual dispute regarding the scope of a prior DRT order which the DRT itself rightly clarified in the impugned order asserting its jurisdiction - Held - petitioner must strictly adopt the statutory route of appeal under Section 18 - [Paras 12-22].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Liberty is granted to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy available to them by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act in accordance with law.

Writ Law - Regularization of Service - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Contractual Chowkidars - Petitioners were appointed on contract basis by Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board in 1991 and 1992 and subsequently transferred along with tubewell schemes to Municipal Council Garhshankar in 2000 - Petitioners sought regularization under Policy Instructions dated 15.12.2006 issued pursuant to the Umadevi judgment - Respondents contested the claim stating that petitioners were contractual staff and no sanctioned posts of Chowkidar existed within the Municipal Council while operations were outsourced - High Court observed that contractual engagement carries no promise of permanence and ends by the terms of the contract without amounting to termination - Court further noted that regularization can only be granted against sanctioned vacant posts if the initial appointment was made following a regular recruitment process in accordance with rules - Held - Regularization cannot be claimed as a matter of right by contractual employees especially in the absence of sanctioned posts and regular appointment procedure - [Paras 1-19].

Writ Law - Judicial Review - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Mandamus for Regularization - High Court held that in exercise of power under Article 226 directions for regularization or permanent continuance cannot be issued unless the employee was appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in an open competitive process against sanctioned vacant posts - Court emphasized that policy decisions regarding regularization reside with the State and the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by contractual or temporary employees - Held - High Courts must not interfere unduly with the economic arrangements of the State or facilitate bypassing of constitutional and statutory mandates - [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Contempt petition disposed of accordingly – Pending applications stand disposed of.

Writ Law - Public Employment - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Selection Process - Rejection of candidature - Petitioner applied for Group-B posts under Advertisement No. 15/2024 issued by Haryana Public Service Commission - Petitioner qualified the Screening and Subject Knowledge tests but her candidature was rejected during document verification - Rejection was based on the failure to provide salary proof in the form of bank statements - ESI - EPF - Form 26AS or NPS records as required by Annexure-I of the advertisement to authenticate teaching experience from 2011 to 2014 at a private polytechnic - Petitioner contended she received salary in cash and produced attested pay slips and attendance records - Court observed that recruitment advertisements must be strictly followed - Held - Terms and conditions of the advertisement are sacrosanct - Failure to produce the specific documents required to authenticate experience is a fundamental deficiency and not a curable procedural lapse - Recruiting authority is the best judge of its requirements - Once a candidate participates in the process without challenge - they cannot later seek relaxation of prescribed eligibility criteria - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-20].

Writ Law - Estoppel - Selection Procedure - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenge to advertisement terms - Petitioner participated in the selection process without questioning the express requirement for specific salary documentation - Held - It is the responsibility of an aspirant to read and understand the terms of the advertisement - If an aspirant finds terms ambiguous - they must seek clarity before participating - Having taken a calculated chance by participating without raising demur - the candidate cannot challenge the selection on the ground that the terms are procedural or capable of relaxation - The recruiting authority’s understanding of its requirements matters most - [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The rejection of the petitioner's candidature was upheld due to non-compliance with the mandatory documentary requirements set out in the recruitment advertisement.

Criminal Law - Disproportionate Assets - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) - Order of Discharge - Petitioner State challenged the discharge of a former Deputy Superintendent of Police and his wife - Prosecution alleged the first accused amassed assets worth Rs. 30,79,595/- disproportionate to his known sources of income during the check period between 2003 and 2011 - The trial court discharged the accused finding that the prosecution failed to provide a substantial basis for property valuation and ignored legitimate income sources - High Court observed the evaluation of the residential building was conducted without proper substance - The prosecution failed to account for general provident fund withdrawals - life insurance premium payments - and jewelry belonging to the second accused - Rental income of Rs. 3,60,000/- was also overlooked despite witness statements - Held - Trial court correctly appreciated materials on record - the calculation adopted by the prosecution was flawed - order of discharge upheld - [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Law - Abetment - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 109 - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 13(1)(e) - Non-public servant liability - Second respondent-wife was charged with abetting the amassment of wealth by the public servant - Prosecution relied on properties held in her name - Court held that the liability of a non-public servant for abetment cannot be presumed merely because assets stand in their name or due to a marital relationship - Culpability requires positive evidence of intentional aid or conspiracy - Suspicion cannot replace evidence - Presumption of innocence cannot be diluted by reversing the burden of proof solely based on name-lending within a fiduciary relationship - Held - Solitary circumstances of holding property without proof of mens rea do not sustain a charge of abetment - [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Criminal revision case dismissed – Order of discharge passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai, affirmed.

Arbitration Law - Interim Measures - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9 - Protection of fifty percent share in real estate project - Petitioner sought restraining orders against respondents from creating third-party rights in Capitol City Mall project - Dispute arose from family settlement MOUs where Petitioner was allocated fifty percent stake in project developed through an SPV - Respondents alleged divestment of stake via agreement dated 18th January 2018 in favour of respondent no 3 which Petitioner challenged as a sham and backdated transaction - Multiplicity of proceedings before NCLAT and High Court regarding shareholding and lease restoration - Court observed that Section 9 is intended to preserve subject matter and prevent arbitration from being rendered infructuous - Principles of prima facie case and balance of convenience were satisfied as creation of further third-party rights would irreversibly alter the subject matter and complicate enforcement of any future award - Held - Respondents and their agents restrained from creating third-party rights in fifty percent of total saleable area of the project until further orders or commencement of arbitral proceedings - [Paras 1-59].

Arbitration Law - Limitation - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Sections 9 and 16 - Jurisdictional objection on delay - Respondents contended claims were ex facie barred by limitation as cause of action arose between 2014 and 2019 - Petitioner asserted cause of action was continuing and based on triggers in 2024 and 2025 - Court held that limitation is a mixed question of fact and law closely intertwined with merits - Legislative policy of minimal judicial intervention under the 1996 Act requires such jurisdictional facts to be determined by the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 16 - Held - Issues of limitation and cause of action cannot be conclusively adjudicated in Section 9 proceedings and must be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal - [Paras 37-42].

Arbitration Law - Non-signatories - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9 - Interim relief against non-parties - Respondent no 3 challenged maintainability as it was not a signatory to MOUs - Court held that scope of judicial power under Section 9 is not limited to parties to the arbitration agreement - Unlike Section 17 which binds only parties - Section 9 permits directions against non-signatories if necessary to protect the subject matter of arbitration - Respondent no 3 was a family-owned entity of respondent no 1 and held possession of disputed assets - Question of respondent no 3 being a veritable party via Group of Companies doctrine falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction - Held - Section 9 can be invoked against non-signatories in exceptional circumstances to ensure the arbitral process is not reduced to an ineffective exercise - [Paras 51-55].

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondents and their agents restrained from creating any third-party rights, alienating, or encumbering 50% of the total saleable area of the project Capitol City Mall (now Emaya Mall) – Interim protection to continue until commencement of arbitral proceedings or until varied by the Arbitral Tribunal – Petitioner directed to pursue the pending Section 11 petition for appointment of arbitrator.

Criminal Law - Discharge - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 353 379 403 447 and 506(ii) - Revision against dismissal of discharge petition - Petitioner arrayed as first accused for alleged trespass into forest land and laying of road - Prosecution alleged cutting of 888 trees in 2013 and removal of minerals - Further charge under Section 403 regarding installation of solar lights using constituency development funds - Complaint lodged in 2019 after delay of six years - Petitioner owned no land adjacent to the forest - Inspection in 2019 found fourth accused using petitioner's name to threaten officials - Investigation revealed no evidence of actual tree cutting or specific valuation - Sale deeds showed co-accused sold their land before the inspection - Prosecution failed to produce substantive material or oral evidence to support the charges - Held - No charge made out on the basis of available evidence - Trial Court order set aside - Revision allowed - [Paras 1-20].

Criminal Law - Delay in FIR - Evidence Law - Lack of Material - Prosecution alleged road construction and tree felling occurred in 2013 but complaint was filed only in 2019 - No explanation provided for the six-year delay in detecting a 30-foot wide road in forest land - Prosecution failed to provide details on how the figure of 888 trees was arrived at without any recovery or witnesses - No witnesses spoke to the actual cutting or valuation - Held - Allegations were made after a lapse of six years without any substantive material to support them - Prosecution cannot proceed without sufficient oral and documentary evidence - [Paras 15-18].

Criminal Law - Vicarious Liability - Petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence - Fourth accused allegedly used petitioner's name while threatening forest officials - Petitioner was a sitting Member of Parliament at the time - Held - Mere use of a person's name by a co-accused during a phone call without any other overt act or material linking the petitioner to the crime is insufficient to frame charges - Petitioner did not own the land requiring the access road - [Paras 7-11].

Decision: Revision allowed – Order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem dated 27.01.2026 in C.M.P. No. 567 of 2024 is set aside – Petitioner discharged from all charges.

C.M.A. (MD)No.1424 of 2024 dated 25.10.2024

2014 SCC OnLine HP 4273

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) reported in 2023 (1) TNMAC 465

Representing Advocates:

Mr. D. Bhaskaran for the Appellant

Mr. MA.P. Thangavel and Mr. M. Lokesh for Respondents 1 to 3

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction seeking to restrain the respondent from interfering with possession of a plot purchased in 1994 - Respondent filed a written statement alleging that the vendor had no title due to a 1995 decree and further claiming ownership via a 2015 gift deed - Petitioner moved an application for amendment to challenge the said decree and gift deed within 14 days of the written statement - Trial Court dismissed the application as belated and for changing the nature of the suit - High Court found that the suit was instituted on 05.05.2016 and the amendment application was moved on 30.05.2016 indicating prompt action - Held - Trial Court committed a manifest error by citing delay when the application was filed at the initial stage - Amendments were essential for determining the real question in controversy arising from the written statement - Impugned order set aside and amendment allowed - [Paras 1-14].

Civil Law - Amendment of Pleadings - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Determinative Factors - Liberal Approach - Trial Court refused amendment on grounds of change in the nature of the suit - High Court observed that while the nature of the suit changed it was because of facts emanating from the written statement which were not in the petitioner's knowledge - Relying on Supreme Court precedents the Court held that all amendments necessary for determining the real controversy must be allowed provided they do not cause irreparable prejudice - Delay alone is not a ground to disallow amendment - Courts should avoid a hyper-technical approach and favor a liberal one to avoid multiplicity of litigation - Held - Question of limitation if any can be decided at the final stage by framing a specific issue - [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Revision petition allowed – Order dated 04.10.2019 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Chandigarh set aside – Application for amendment of plaint allowed – Trial Court directed to decide the matter expeditiously.