Trusteeship Removal – Grounds of Removal – The appellant was removed from his position as hereditary trustee due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, unauthorized leasing of temple properties, improper handling of property registers, and unauthorized collection of donations for temple renovations. The court found that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these charges, justifying his removal [Paras 1-26].

Preparation and Maintenance of Property Registers – The appellant omitted certain properties from the new property register and failed to submit the old property register, violating Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records and the statutory obligations under the Act [Paras 10-16].

Unauthorized Leasing of Properties – The appellant leased out temple properties without the necessary permissions from the Commissioner, violating Section 34 of the Act. The court upheld the respondent’s finding that this constituted a serious breach of trust and justified removal from trusteeship [Paras 17-20].

Improper Collection of Donations – The appellant collected donations without forming a Thiruppani committee and without proper authorization, violating Rules 53 and 56. The court underscored the procedural requirements for collecting donations and the appellant’s failure to comply with them [Paras 21-25].

Decision - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. The order of removal passed by the respondent is upheld, and the appellant’s removal from the position of hereditary trustee is confirmed [Para 26].

Anticipatory Bail – Driving under Influence – The applicant sought anticipatory bail following an accident where she was alleged to have driven a car under the influence of alcohol, causing the death of two persons. Initially charged under Sections 304-A, 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC and Section 184 of the MV Act, additional charges under Sections 304 and 427 of the IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act were later applied [Paras 1-4].

Custodial Interrogation – Justification – The court held that custodial interrogation was not required simply because new non-bailable sections were added. The applicant had already been released on bail for bailable offences, and unless the earlier bail was cancelled, the applicant could not be re-arrested. The court referred to Supreme Court judgments indicating that the addition of graver offences does not necessitate immediate arrest without a fresh order [Paras 7, 16-18, 35].

Evaluation of Prima Facie Case – The court examined the evidence, including CCTV footage, eyewitness statements, and blood alcohol reports. It noted that the applicant drove in a rash manner, hit a two-wheeler, and fled the scene, violating Section 134 of the MV Act, which mandates providing assistance to the injured. Despite arguments about permissible alcohol limits, the court found sufficient prima facie evidence of negligence and knowledge of potential harm [Paras 9-12, 31].

Legal Principles – The court emphasized that anticipatory bail considerations include the nature of the offence, the severity of punishment, and the prima facie case against the accused. It referred to various judgments highlighting that the presence of alcohol, even within legal limits, can impair driving abilities, making any resultant accident foreseeable and legally tenable under more severe penal provisions [Paras 20-26, 34-36].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Application Rejected – The application for anticipatory bail was rejected due to sufficient prima facie evidence indicating the applicant's rash and negligent driving under the influence of alcohol, leading to the death of two persons. The court stressed the seriousness of the offence and the applicant's conduct post-accident, including attempts to mislead the investigation [Paras 39-42].

Maintenance for Minor Child – Revision against trial court’s order – Respondent directed to deposit maintenance arrears and continue interim payments – Revision against ex-parte maintenance order favoring minor child – Trial court’s direction for respondent to pay Rs.25,000 p.m. as maintenance – Respondent’s plea to set aside ex-parte order granted, with costs of Rs.5,000 – High Court directs respondent to deposit entire arrears and continue interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 p.m. [Paras 1-6].

Trial Court’s Order – Interim Maintenance – Respondent agreed to deposit entire arrears – High Court directed trial court to expedite disposal of maintenance case – Emphasized adherence to fair process and timely payment [Para 5].

Modification of Order – Respondent’s compliance with maintenance arrears – High Court modified earlier order allowing deposit of entire arrears within two weeks – Registry directed to issue corrected order copy [Paras 2-5].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case disposed of with directions to deposit arrears and continue interim maintenance – Trial court to dispose of maintenance case on merits within three months – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed [Para 6].

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Residence Orders – Petitioners sought direction to shift respondent Nos.1 and 2 to alternative accommodation – Trial court allowed, but appeal dismissed without directing relocation – Issue of cohabitation in shared household with aged mother-in-law raised [Paras 1-3].

Section 19, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act – Discretionary Orders – Court emphasized discretion under Section 19 for providing alternative accommodation – Found no sufficient reason to disturb current living arrangements, highlighting the importance of harmonious cohabitation unless proven otherwise [Paras 4-6].

Judicial Review – Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court scrutinized lower courts’ application of discretion – Upheld the decision to not mandate relocation based on lack of compelling evidence to warrant change in residence, underscoring the need for concrete reasons to alter living conditions [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Revision Petition Dismissed – Held – No fault found with the appellate court’s decision – Petitioners not entitled to order for shifting respondent Nos.1 and 2 to alternative accommodation [Paras 7-8].
 

Contract Law – Dealer Agreement – Appellant, a public sector oil corporation, introduced digital e-locking and VSAT systems in retail outlets – Imposed monthly and annual charges on the respondent-dealer without explicit consent – Single Judge held such unilateral imposition invalid under dealership agreement terms – Appeal by appellant dismissed – Corporation required to bear installation and maintenance costs as per agreement [Paras 1-16].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – Appellant contended writ petition not maintainable due to arbitration clause – High Court held alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes involving public authorities, relying on Supreme Court precedent – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Responsibility for installing and maintaining e-locking and VSAT systems lies with appellant-corporation – Imposition of charges on respondent-dealer without consent invalid – Writ petition maintainable despite arbitration clause – Costs not awarded – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 13-16].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Petitioner challenged the trial court’s partial rejection of the amendment application – Contention that proposed amendment did not change cause of action – High Court held proposed amendment only explained existing cause of action without introducing a new one – Trial court’s order set aside [Paras 1-16].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI, Rule 17 CPC – Legal principles governing amendments – Court emphasized amendments should be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy – Found that trial court erred in holding that proposed amendment introduced a distinct cause of action [Paras 3-13].

Limitation Issue – Preliminary Objection – Respondents’ objection on the ground of limitation discussed – Court held that merits of limitation objection cannot be decided at the amendment stage – Reaffirmed that the proposed amendment did not prejudice respondents as they could file an additional written statement [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Trial court’s order rejecting the amendment application in part set aside – Petitioner allowed to incorporate the amendment in the plaint – Respondents granted liberty to file additional written statement [Paras 14-16].
 

Electricity Act – Unauthorized Use of Electricity – Inspection Report and Assessment – Appeal against Single Judge’s order dismissing writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy under Section 127 of Electricity Act – Appellant alleged excess usage but no unauthorized consumption – Court held Section 126 not applicable as no unauthorized means of electricity use were detected – Writ petition restored for adjudication [Paras 12-44]. 

Supply Code – Regularization of Excess Load – Clause 15.7(iii) – Consumption exceeding sanctioned load not deemed unauthorized use if billed on demand basis – One month notice required for regularization – Inspection report lacking evidence of unauthorized use – Remedy under Article 226 appropriate [Paras 25-33]. 

Decision: Appeal allowed – Single Judge’s order set aside – Writ petition restored for adjudication on merits [Paras 41-44]. 

Evidence Law - Misdescription of Property – Oral Evidence Admissibility – Petitioner sought to clarify boundaries in sale deeds mentioning incorrect plot numbers. High Court held trial court erred in disallowing cross-examination on misdescription of property boundaries. Oral evidence admissible under Section 92's proviso for proving genuine mistakes [Paras 11-12].

Provisions of Sections 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act – Sections 91 and 92 exclude oral evidence contradicting written documents, except in cases of fraud, illegality, or mistake of fact/law. High Court noted genuine misdescription qualifies for exception, allowing oral evidence to correct document inaccuracies [Paras 8-10].

Facts of the Case – The petitioner filed Title Suit No. 23 of 2011 for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of land, where the sale deed had an incorrect plot number. The trial court debarred cross-examination regarding the boundary mentioned in the sale deed, citing Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act [Paras 2-3].

Grounds for Appeal – The petitioner argued that the trial court misunderstood the application of Sections 91 and 92, as the intent was not to alter the document but to clarify a mistake in plot number. The petitioner referenced past admissions and rectifications by the vendor and a panchayati agreement acknowledging the mistake [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Reasoning – The court highlighted that the provisions of Sections 91 and 92 aim to prevent alteration of written documents through oral evidence. However, exceptions exist for proving genuine mistakes, such as misdescription of property. The court cited precedent cases supporting the admissibility of oral evidence to correct such mistakes [Paras 6-10].

Conclusion – The court concluded that the petitioner's request to cross-examine on the boundary was valid under the exceptions provided in Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. It was crucial for determining the correct plot number and establishing the petitioner's title and possession claims [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – Orders dated 22.04.2016 and 02.03.2017 by learned Munsif-I, Munger set aside – Petitioner permitted to cross-examine respondent on boundary discrepancies [Paras 13-14].
 

LOC and Travel Permission – Investigation by SFIO – Petitioner’s request to suspend LOC and permit travel abroad was declined by the Special Judge – High Court upheld this decision emphasizing the ongoing investigation involving significant economic offenses – Court found that petitioner failed to fully disclose assets and there was a risk he might not return to face investigation – National interest prioritized over individual interest to attend personal events [Paras 1-30].

Investigation and Asset Disclosure – Court noted discrepancies in petitioner’s disclosure of assets, with substantial financial interests abroad, undermining trustworthiness – Importance of full and truthful disclosure in such cases underlined [Paras 22-24].

Risk of Flight – Highlighted the petitioner’s significant overseas interests and family residing abroad as factors increasing flight risk – Court stressed national and economic interests over personal liberties in such serious economic offense investigations [Paras 25-27].

Judicial Precedents – Distinguished from cases where travel was allowed due to different contexts or stages of investigation, stressing that each case must be assessed on its individual facts [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Reliefs seeking permission to travel abroad denied – Court found no illegality or incorrect approach by the Special Judge in the impugned order [Paras 30-31].