Commercial Dispute – Nature and Scope – Application filed by State Bank of India under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection/return of the plaint on the ground that the suit involving allegations of fraud and misappropriation of funds by the bank manager does not constitute a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)© of the Commercial Courts Act – High Court observed that the dispute arose from the failure to repay fixed deposits, which constitutes a commercial transaction between a banker and customer – Held, despite the fraud allegations, the nature of the transaction remains commercial – Application dismissed [Paras 1-37].
Fixed Deposits – Commercial Transaction – Plaintiff (Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board) had placed fixed deposits with the Defendant (State Bank of India) – Allegations of fraud and misappropriation by the bank manager – High Court held that the dispute involves enforcement of fixed deposit receipts, which are mercantile documents, and thus falls under the definition of commercial dispute under Section 2(1)©(i) of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 27-35].
Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Defendant’s application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that the suit does not constitute a commercial dispute – High Court found that the transaction of placing fixed deposits is a commercial transaction – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed [Paras 36-37].
Decision: Interim Application dismissed – Suit categorized as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act – Commercial summary suit to proceed.
 

Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Improper Service of Summons – Petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC claiming he was never served properly, citing incorrect address in plaint – Trial court and appellate court dismissed application and appeal, respectively – High Court examined the records and found petitioner was duly served at the same address during execution proceedings – No explanation provided for delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 even after admitted date of knowledge [Paras 1-7].

Date of Knowledge – Delay and Limitation – High Court noted that even if the date of knowledge is accepted as 14.05.2012, application for setting aside ex-parte decree was filed after more than a year without any explanation or request for condonation of delay – Emphasized importance of timely action and proper procedural compliance [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Court found no merit in the petition due to lack of explanation for delay and proper service of summons during execution proceedings – No illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders [Paras 6-7].

Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 482, 427(1) of Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought direction for concurrent running of sentences imposed in two separate NIA cases – Delhi High Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 427(1) of Cr.P.C. – Held, offences committed by petitioner in two separate cases cannot be considered part of the “same transaction” – Maximum sentence not awarded by trial courts – Offences under UAPA are grave, impacting national security and societal harmony – Consecutive running of sentences upheld. [Paras 1-51]

Role of Petitioner in Criminal Conspiracy and Terrorist Activities – Convictions in separate cases for raising funds and conspiring to carry out terrorist attacks during Ardh Kumbh Mela and planning assassination of a political leader – Petitioner pleaded guilty to charges – Both cases involved distinct facts and separate trials – Petitioner found guilty of serious offences affecting national security. [Paras 24-29]

Guiding Principles for Exercise of Discretion under Section 427 of Cr.P.C. – Consideration of separate transactions, totality of sentences, gravity of offences, and societal impact – Judicial discretion to be exercised judiciously, not mechanically – Concurrent running of sentences not favored in cases involving serious offences with wide societal impact. [Paras 20-23, 35-47]

Decision – Petition for concurrent running of sentences dismissed – Sentences in two NIA cases to run consecutively. [Para 51]

Criminal Law – Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Challenge to impugned order rejecting deferment of hearing on charge – Accusations of criminal conspiracy and corruption in Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 – Petitioner contends investigation incomplete and seeks delay until supplementary chargesheet against co-accused is filed – Learned Trial Court dismissed application, stating arguments on charge can be halted if further incriminating evidence is filed – Held, maintaining the impugned order with instructions for timely supply of supplementary chargesheet and documents – Ensuring fair trial and speedy proceedings – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Fair Trial – Rights of Accused – Section 207 Cr.P.C. – Emphasizes the importance of providing accused with all material collected by the prosecution – Ensures preparation of defense and arguments on charge – Held, accused entitled to additional documents filed against co-accused – Arguments on charge may be revisited based on new evidence – Directions for prompt provision and scrutiny of supplementary chargesheets. [Paras 17-20]

Decision – Impugned order upheld – Directions for timely supply of supplementary chargesheet and documents to accused – Emphasis on fair trial and adherence to principles of natural justice – Petition disposed of with instructions for expeditious proceedings. [Paras 22-25]

Civil Procedure – Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree – Civil Revision against lower court orders dismissing application to set aside ex-parte judgment and decree – Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement to sell against the petitioner – Ex-parte decree passed – Application to set aside ex-parte decree on grounds of non-service at correct address dismissed by trial court and appellate court – High Court held that the petitioner had knowledge of the decree as of 14.05.2012 but filed the application on 17.05.2013 – No explanation for delay provided – Application dismissed for lack of merit – Revision petition dismissed. [Paras 1-7]

Service of Summons – Address Discrepancy – Analysis – Held – Summons were served at the same address as mentioned in the execution petition, which the petitioner acknowledged – Petitioner’s contention of incorrect address found baseless – Delay in filing application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC not justified by any evidence. [Paras 3-6]

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Petition – Court found no illegality or irregularity in the orders of the trial and appellate courts – Revision petition dismissed – No merit found in petitioner’s claims. [Paras 7]

Family Law – Dissolution of Marriage – Appellant-husband filed for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing cruelty and desertion by the respondent-wife – Family Court dismissed the petition – High Court upheld the dismissal, finding no substantial evidence of cruelty or desertion [Paras 1-30].

Cruelty and Desertion – Insufficient Evidence – Allegations of cruelty included harassment on petty issues, false accusations, and police complaints – Respondent alleged dowry demands, physical abuse, and forced abortions – High Court found both parties’ claims lacked corroborative evidence – No specific instances of cruelty or desertion substantiated by credible testimony [Paras 10-20].

Mediation and Settlement Attempts – Case referred to Mediation Centre, unsuccessful mediation – Despite prolonged separation and appellant’s offer of monetary settlement, irretrievable breakdown of marriage not recognized as a ground for divorce under current law [Paras 15, 27, 29].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Appellant failed to prove allegations of cruelty and desertion with specific instances – Family Court’s order upheld – No error found in the Family Court’s detailed reasoning and judgment [Paras 30].

Service Law – Reinstatement – Concealment of Material Facts – Appeal by the State against reinstatement order granted to respondent who had resigned under alleged threat. Court finds material concealment by respondent regarding previous writ petition dismissals and rejections of representation by Police Headquarters – Appeal allowed, setting aside impugned judgment – Observations on litigant’s duty to disclose all material facts and consequences of suppression [Paras 1-17].

Litigant Conduct – Duty of Disclosure – Emphasizes the importance of full and honest disclosure by litigants seeking equitable relief from writ courts – Misrepresentation or suppression of facts seen as abuse of judicial process – Cites Supreme Court rulings highlighting consequences for misleading the court [Paras 13-16].

Equitable Jurisdiction – Principles – Discusses the equitable nature of writ remedy and the requirement for clean hands by petitioners – Court underscores that litigants must present all relevant facts truthfully and fully to seek court’s intervention [Paras 16-18].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Directions for the State to consider the respondent’s engagement against a suitable post considering her background and previous service [Para 19].

Professional Misconduct – Complaint Locus – Petitioner challenges the complaint filed by the judgment debtor alleging professional misconduct – The Court held that the complainant, being the judgment debtor and not the petitioner’s client, lacked the locus to file the complaint – Section 35 of the Advocates Act mandates that complaints of professional misconduct must come from those with a legal right or interest in the matter – Complaint quashed on grounds of lack of locus and absence of engagement by the complainant [Paras 1-14].

Section 35 of the Advocates Act – Reason to Believe – Statutory requirement for the Bar Council to have reasons to believe professional misconduct based on relevant materials – The Court emphasized that the State Bar Council must apply its mind to determine the existence of such reasons, avoiding arbitrary or irrational actions – The complainant did not meet the criteria for initiating proceedings under Section 35, rendering the Bar Council’s actions invalid [Paras 10-14].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Notice dated 22-07-2023 issued by the Karnataka State Bar Council quashed – Complaint found to lack maintainability as the complainant did not have locus to file against the petitioner – Proceedings invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements for establishing misconduct [Para 15].
 

Family Law – Customary Divorce – Defendant claimed to have divorced first wife Stella by customary practice and subsequently married the deceased Margarette Arulmozhi – Court held that Indian Christian Marriage Act does not recognize customary divorce – First marriage subsisting at the time of alleged second marriage, making the latter invalid [Paras 14-17].

Nomination in Service Records – Defendant nominated as beneficiary in deceased’s service records – Court ruled that nomination for benefits does not equate to legal heirship or marital status – Defendant not considered legally wedded husband based on nomination [Paras 21-22].

Settlement Deed – Validity – Defendant executed settlement deed in favor of Margarette Arulmozhi, later unilaterally cancelled after her death – Court held unilateral cancellation invalid – Deceased’s father entitled to property as per Indian Succession Act [Paras 10-13, 23].

Live-in Relationship – Legal Status – Court distinguished between live-in relationship and legal marriage – Defendant’s relationship with deceased considered non-marital due to subsisting first marriage – Legal consequences of marriage not applicable to live-in relationships [Paras 26-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment affirmed – Declaration of title and possession granted to the plaintiff – Plaintiff entitled to succeed property as legal heir under Indian Succession Act [Paras 31-32].