Contract Law – Sale Agreement – The plaintiff sought a refund of Rs. 16,20,700/- and damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- – Plaintiff alleged misrepresentation by the defendant regarding the title of the property – Defendant sold the property without clear title – Suit partly decreed by the trial court for Rs. 2,14,000/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the plaint till realization [Paras 1-8].

Evidence – Admissions – Plaintiff’s evidence showed he knew the property details at the time of the agreement – Admissions in cross-examination about receiving partial payments under a mediated settlement – Plaintiff failed to prove misrepresentation conclusively [Paras 10-17].

Contract Enforcement – Understanding Letter – An understanding letter (Ex.A.3) was signed by the plaintiff agreeing to accept certain payments – Plaintiff received partial payments but later contested the settlement terms – Court upheld the mediated settlement and decreed the suit accordingly [Paras 12-18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – The judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit for Rs. 2,14,000/- was upheld – No grounds to interfere with the trial court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed with costs [Para 19-20].

Property Law – Declaration of Title and Possession – Plaintiff claimed title and possession over property through registered gift deeds (Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.1) – Trial court granted declaration of title and possession – First appellate court confirmed title but denied permanent injunction due to ambiguous pleadings regarding possession – High Court found appellate court's approach perverse, upholding trial court's finding of constructive possession following title [Paras 1-19].

Evidence – Admissibility and Relevance – Ex.B.1 and B.2 (photographs) inadmissible without photographer's testimony – Ex.B.3 to B.5 (certificates) inadmissible without issuer's testimony – Ex.B.6 (voter list) irrelevant as it pertained to a different locality – High Court criticized first appellate court's reliance on these documents to deny permanent injunction [Paras 2-18].

Adverse Possession – Defendants' claim of adverse possession for 40 years rejected by trial court and first appellate court – High Court noted lack of evidence showing defendants’ possession for over 12 years – Defendants failed to demonstrate dispossession of plaintiff after transfer under Ex.A.1 [Paras 10-18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – First appellate court's judgment reversed to the extent it denied permanent injunction – Trial court’s decree declaring title and possession of plaintiff and granting permanent injunction reinstated – No order as to costs [Paras 19].

Criminal Law – Dying Declaration – Admissibility – Victim’s statement did not indicate she was forced to consume poison – No history of poison consumption provided to Medical Officer – Statement did not constitute circumstances of death – Excluded as dying declaration [Para 26].

Criminal Law – Rape with Minor – Acquittal – No medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse – Semen on bed sheet not linked to accused – No semen on victim’s or accused’s clothes – Acquittal upheld – Despite the presence of human semen on the bed sheet, the prosecution failed to establish it belonged to the accused due to the lack of further examination and absence of semen on the victim’s or the accused’s clothes. The medical examination did not indicate recent sexual activity [Paras 28-30].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Lack of Evidence – No indication accused forced victim to consume poison – No evidence poison was taken while victim was with accused – Acquittal on charge of abetment of suicide upheld – The victim did not attribute her poison consumption to the accused, and no evidence was provided that the accused facilitated or forced the victim to take poison. The Medical Officer’s examination did not detect signs of poisoning initially, and the victim’s statement did not provide clarity on the manner of poison administration [Para 31].

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Age Determination – Victim’s age established as 14 years via birth and school certificates – No consent from guardian for taking victim – Offence of kidnapping established – Birth and school certificates provided evidence that the victim was 14 years old at the time of the incident. The prosecution established that the victim was taken away without the guardian's consent, fulfilling the criteria for kidnapping under IPC [Paras 33-37].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Lesser Charge – Charge for Section 366 IPC – Conviction under Section 363 IPC permissible – Accused convicted under Section 363 IPC despite being charged under Section 366 IPC as no prejudice caused – Despite being charged under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping with intent to compel marriage), the accused was convicted under Section 363 IPC (kidnapping) because the essential elements of Section 363 were met without causing prejudice to the accused. This approach was upheld as permissible since the charges and facts allowed for such a conviction [Para 38].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Accused convicted under Section 363 IPC – Sentenced to period already undergone and a fine of ₹5000 – In default of fine, simple imprisonment for one month – The court set aside the acquittal under Sections 366, 376(2)(g), 305, 342, 368, and 120B IPC but upheld the conviction under Section 363 IPC, sentencing the accused to time already served and a fine with an additional month of simple imprisonment if the fine was not paid [Para 39].

Railway Accident – Bona Fide Passenger – Claim for compensation due to the death of the appellant’s son in a railway accident – Tribunal rejected the claim stating the deceased was not a bona fide passenger – Appellant contended that the deceased had purchased a ticket and boarded the train, supported by witness testimony [Paras 1-4].

Burden of Proof – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 101 – Appellant must prove the deceased was a bona fide passenger – Tribunal found lack of evidence as no ticket was produced and witness testimony was from a relative, thus potentially biased – Importance of balancing testimonial evidence with corroborative material [Paras 5-15].

Railway Act – Section 2(29) Definition of Passenger – To qualify as a passenger, one must have a valid ticket – Tribunal noted no records of ticket issuance on the stated date – Rebuttal evidence not contested by appellant – Court upheld Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was not proven to be a bona fide passenger [Paras 15-17].

Practical Impossibility – Tribunal’s Finding – Claim that the deceased fell from the train and was run over by the same train deemed impractical by Tribunal – No inquest report or credible evidence to support the claim – Appellate Court agreed with Tribunal’s reasoning [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Tribunal’s rejection of the claim upheld – Lack of conclusive evidence that the deceased was a bona fide passenger – Emphasis on the need for credible and corroborative evidence in such claims [Paras 18-20].

Anticipatory Bail – Dowry Death – Petitioners seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. – Allegations of dowry harassment leading to suicide – Petitioners A.4 and A.5, relatives of A.1 (husband) – Petitioners assert no involvement in marital disputes or the alleged harassment – Opposed by Prosecution on grounds of ongoing investigation – Court examines role, accusations, and material on record – Finds no prima facie evidence linking petitioners directly to harassment – Emphasizes principles of bail, liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioners’ cooperation with investigation noted – Orders anticipatory bail with conditions [Paras 1-15].

Bail Principles – Liberty and Presumption of Innocence – Court underscores importance of liberty and presumption of innocence – Arrest as a last resort – Right to bail as fundamental – Court criticizes indiscriminate arrests without adequate cause – Necessity of careful and cautious exercise of power to authorize detention – Ensures protection of personal liberty [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Court directs petitioners to surrender before the Station House Officer, Nallapadu Police Station within two weeks – Conditions imposed for cooperation with investigation, including regular appearance and non-interference with witnesses – Observations limited to anticipatory bail decision, not indicative of case merits – Petition allowed, pending miscellaneous applications closed [Para 14-15].

Temporary Injunction – Right to Protest – Petitioner sought to restrain the respondent from staging protests within 200 metres of its bank premises – Trial court granted the injunction – Appellate court modified it, allowing protests within 50 metres – High Court upheld the modification to balance the fundamental rights of both parties.

Balancing Fundamental Rights – The Court emphasized the need to balance the right to protest with the right to conduct business – Referenced multiple Supreme Court and High Court decisions to support the 50-metre restriction as a reasonable balance – Ensured that the respondent’s right to protest does not infringe on the petitioner’s right to carry on business without obstruction.

Procedural Details – Trial court’s injunction included a broad restriction within a 200-metre radius – Respondent appealed, claiming violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) – Appellate court modified the restriction to 50 metres, which was upheld by the High Court to allow a reasonable space for protest without disrupting bank operations.

Judicial Reasoning – High Court cited precedents where the judiciary has imposed distance restrictions on protests to prevent obstruction of business activities – Highlighted the necessity of imposing reasonable restrictions on fundamental rights when they conflict with others’ rights – Emphasized that while the right to protest is vital, it must not interfere with the business operations and customer access to the bank.

Impact on Business – The Court noted the petitioner’s argument that even peaceful protests close to the bank premises could harm its reputation and affect customer confidence – Recognized the importance of maintaining a conducive environment for business while respecting the rights of the trade union.

Decision – Petition disposed of – Temporary injunction modified to restrain protests within a 50-metre radius from the petitioner’s premises – This balances the right to protest with the petitioner’s right to conduct business without obstruction.

Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC – Attachment Before Judgment – Plaintiff sought direction for defendants to furnish security and injunction on bank account operations to secure the amount allegedly due for goods supplied – Defendants disputed the quality and quantity of goods, and denied liability – Court held no prima facie case made by plaintiff to warrant attachment before judgment – Application dismissed [Paras 1-25].

Prima Facie Case – Requirement for Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC – Court emphasized that a prima facie case is necessary to order attachment before judgment – Mere apprehension by plaintiff without substantial evidence of defendant’s intent to obstruct or delay execution of decree insufficient – Distinguished from cases where material evidence supported the claim [Paras 19-23].

Specific Case Requirement – Defendants provided evidence of payment and communication regarding quality issues – Court noted plaintiff’s failure to substantiate claims of non-payment and potential asset dissipation by defendants – Highlighted need for concrete evidence of defendant’s malintent to invoke drastic measures under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC [Paras 21-24].

Decision – Application dismissed – Held – Plaintiff failed to demonstrate a prima facie case and provide sufficient evidence to justify an order under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the CPC – Defendants successfully raised material disputes regarding the quality and quantity of supplied goods – No substantial evidence was presented to show intent to obstruct or delay execution of a potential decree [Para 25].

Service Conditions – Entitlement to Benefits – Petitioners, hostel/mess employees of Bengal Engineering College (subsequently BESU and then IIEST), challenged denial of GPF and pension benefits by MHRD – Initially entitled to benefits as per Government of West Bengal notifications – IIEST contended NITSER Act did not extend these benefits – Court found MHRD’s memo denying benefits lacked reasoning, violating natural justice principles – Directed MHRD to reconsider the issue with reasons and opportunity for hearing [Paras 1-19]. 

Statutory Interpretation – Section 5A of NITSER Act – Applied to determine rights of employees post-upgradation of BESU to IIEST – Court held employees retained rights to benefits existing prior to upgradation – MHRD’s stance found legally untenable, as the right to GPF and pension declared before the NITSER amendment remained protected [Paras 16-17]. 

Decision: Writ petition allowed – MHRD’s impugned memo set aside – Directed reconsideration of GPF/Pension benefits for petitioners with a reasoned decision within 8 weeks – Maintained that hostel/mess positions to be treated as a “dying cadre” with no new recruitment post-28.10.2014, to be managed by outsourcing [Paras 18-20]. 

Expulsion of a Partner – Good Faith Requirement – Section 33 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 – Expulsion of Meraj Yusha from the partnership firm Serajuddin & Company due to allegations of misconduct and obstructing business operations – Show cause notice issued, subsequent expulsion ordered by majority partners – High Court found procedural lapses in expulsion process, particularly in adherence to principles of natural justice – Expulsion deemed improper due to insufficient notice and lack of good faith in proceedings.

Interim Orders in Arbitration – Appellate Jurisdiction Principles – Trial court’s discretion in granting interim orders under Section 9 of Arbitration Act affirmed – High Court emphasized the principle that appellate courts should not interfere with trial court’s discretion unless it is shown to be arbitrary or capricious – Interim order maintaining status quo continued to protect interests until arbitration.

Prima Facie Case for Arbitration – Evaluation of Evidence – High Court noted the necessity of further investigation into allegations against expelled partner Meraj Yusha – Evaluation of evidence revealed prima facie case deserving arbitration – Ordered continuation of interim protection and directed reconstitution of partnership firm including legal heirs of deceased partner for fresh adjudication.

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Interim order by Single Judge upheld – Fresh adjudication of expulsion to be carried out by reconstituted partnership firm under supervision of appointed Special Officers.