Criminal Law - Rash and Negligent Driving – Acquittal - High Speed Not Proof of Negligence – Sections 279, 304A, IPC – The appellant sought to challenge the acquittal of the accused, claiming the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner – Held: High speed alone is not sufficient to infer rashness or negligence – The testimony indicating that the bus was being driven at 60 km per hour was within the prescribed speed limit under Section 112(1), Motor Vehicles Act – There was no material to substantiate negligence solely based on speed [Paras 24-30].

Parking on Highway – Violation of Rule 15(2), Rules of Road Regulations – Contributory Negligence – The accident occurred due to a collision between the bus and a stationary truck parked on the highway – Held: The truck driver violated Rule 15(2) by parking alongside another vehicle, causing a dangerous obstruction – The accident cannot be attributed solely to the bus driver, as the truck driver’s negligence contributed significantly to the incident [Paras 31-35].

Witness Testimony – Inconsistencies and Inferences – The key witnesses either did not witness the accident or provided contradictory statements regarding the bus driver’s negligence – Held: Witnesses cannot infer negligence without factual support – The testimonies lacked the necessary facts to establish the accused’s negligence beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 36-40].

Decision – Acquittal Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – The trial court’s judgment was reasonable based on the evidence presented – The court found no reason to interfere with the acquittal of the accused, as the prosecution failed to prove rash and negligent driving beyond a reasonable doubt [Paras 41-45].

Jurisdiction of Lokayukta – Scope under Section 8(1) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act – The Lokayukta's power to investigate pertains to administrative actions involving public servants. However, in this case, the dispute regarding the sugarcane supply payments between the petitioners and respondent No.1, rooted in an inheritance issue, was already pending in civil and cooperative courts. The direction by the Lokayukta to withhold payment to the petitioners and instead make payments to the respondent was deemed to be beyond the Lokayukta's jurisdiction – Held: The Lokayukta lacked the authority to decide on such civil disputes, and the direction was made without adhering to the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting its quashing [Paras 9-15].

Natural Justice – Non-Impleadment of Petitioners in Lokayukta Proceedings – Petitioners were not impleaded in the Lokayukta’s proceedings that led to a direction against them. The court held that such a consequential order affecting their rights could not have been passed without hearing the petitioners – Held: Violation of natural justice and fair play [Paras 16-19].

Decision: Order Quashed – Civil Courts to Decide Dispute – While quashing the Lokayukta’s directions, the court clarified that the rights and entitlements of the parties in the underlying civil dispute remain open for determination by the civil and cooperative courts. The decision was limited to the issue of jurisdiction and procedural fairness, without touching on the merits of the inheritance dispute [Paras 20-23].

Civil Procedure – Judgment on Admissions – Order XII Rule 6 of CPC – The petitioners, plaintiffs in the suit for permanent injunction, sought a judgment under Order XII Rule 6 based on alleged admissions made by the defendants regarding possession of the suit property – The trial court rejected the application, holding that the admissions were not unconditional – Held: For an order under Order XII Rule 6, admissions must be clear, unequivocal, and unconditional – In this case, the defendants' admission regarding the existence of structures on the property was coupled with a denial of the legality of the plaintiffs' possession – Therefore, no unambiguous admission of possession existed – Petition dismissed [Paras 14-25].

Possession of Suit Property – Conditional Admissions – The court found that although the defendants acknowledged certain facts, including the presence of structures, they disputed the legality of the plaintiffs' possession, claiming it was illegal – As the admissions were not clear or unqualified, they could not form the basis for a summary judgment under Order XII Rule 6 – Plaintiffs required to prove their possession through trial [Paras 24-25].

Decision:

Civil revision petition dismissed – No judgment on admissions granted – Petitioners required to prove possession in the trial court – No order as to costs.

Arbitration – Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appeal against Interim Injunction – Non-compete Clause – Post-Termination Restraint - appellant challenged an interim injunction granted by the Single Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which restrained the appellant from sourcing products from a third-party Indian supplier (RKFL) pursuant to the non-compete clause in a Master Supply Agreement (MSA) with the respondent – Held: The non-compete clause in the MSA cannot operate post-termination as it results in a restraint of trade prohibited by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – The court observed that such a clause may be valid during the term of the agreement but not after its termination, as it would unlawfully restrict the appellant's right to trade – The injunction was set aside [Paras 10-14].

Contract Law – Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Restraint of Trade – Validity of Non-compete Clauses - non-compete clause in the MSA restricted the appellant from sourcing products from other Indian suppliers even after the MSA was terminated – Held: Post-termination restraint on trade by way of a non-compete clause is void under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – The court reaffirmed that such clauses can only operate during the term of the contract, not beyond it [Paras 11-14].

New Legal Plea in Appeal – Pure Question of Law – Admissibility - appellant raised the plea of invalidity of the non-compete clause based on Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for the first time in the appeal – Held: Since this was a pure question of law that required no factual adjudication, it could be raised in appeal even though it had not been argued before the Single Judge – The court accepted the new plea as it was based on the interpretation of the MSA and well-established legal principles [Paras 8-9].

Decision: The Commercial Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 08/08/2023, passed by the Single Judge, is set aside. The Arbitration Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, stands dismissed. No order as to costs. The judgment will take effect after four weeks from the date of the decision.

Contract Law – Price Escalation – Clause 32A – Entitlement Confirmed – The plaintiff/respondent, an 'A' class contractor, was awarded contracts under the Kallada Irrigation Project. Due to delays caused by the defendants, extensions were granted without penalties. Held: The plaintiff is entitled to price escalation under Clause 32A of the principal agreement as the delay was not attributable to the plaintiff [Paras 27-31].

Limitation – Suit Not Time-Barred – The appellants/defendants raised a plea of limitation, contending that the claim was time-barred. The Court found that the last payment was made to the plaintiff on 27.01.2006, and the suit was filed on 22.01.2009, within the limitation period. Held: The suit is within the limitation period, and the plea of limitation is rejected [Paras 18-23].

Interest Rate – 6% Interest Upheld – The respondent sought 12% interest on the awarded amount, citing an earlier judgment (Exhibit A44). However, the court found that the 12% interest applied only to admitted bills, not to disputed claims in this case. Held: The trial court’s award of 6% interest on the adjudicated amount is justified [Paras 36-37].

Counter-Claim by Defendants – Rejected – The defendants’ counter-claim for excess payment and unreturned materials was dismissed as the supplementary agreements and materials were properly accounted for. Held: The defendants failed to prove any excess payment or unauthorized use of materials [Paras 39-41].

Decision:
The appeal is dismissed, and the cross-objection is partly allowed. The respondent is entitled to realize Rs. 28,87,190/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of the suit until realization. The respondent is also entitled to proportionate costs. The counter-claim of the appellants/defendants is dismissed [Paras 44-45].
 

Labour Law - Industrial Law – Domestic Enquiry – Natural Justice – Inquiry Vitiated – The workman was dismissed after a domestic enquiry for alleged misconduct and dereliction of duty. The Labour Court found that the enquiry was vitiated as the management failed to provide copies of relevant documents to the workman during the enquiry, violating the principles of natural justice. Held: The findings of the Labour Court that the enquiry was vitiated due to procedural unfairness were based on valid evidence and do not warrant interference [Paras 17-18].

Reinstatement of Workman – Loss of Confidence Not Proven – The management argued that it had lost confidence in the workman, making reinstatement impossible. The court held that "loss of confidence" must be objectively proven, and the management failed to demonstrate that the workman's conduct had forfeited the position of trust or would be detrimental to the establishment. Held: The reinstatement order is upheld [Paras 36-37].

Writ Jurisdiction – Limited Scope in Reviewing Labour Court Findings – The court reiterated that in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, interference with the findings of the Labour Court is permissible only in cases of gross miscarriage of justice or patent perversity. Held: There is no gross failure of justice or violation of natural justice in the Labour Court's decision, and the writ petition is dismissed [Paras 31-35].

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. The award of the Labour Court setting aside the dismissal and ordering reinstatement is upheld. The petitioner has not established sufficient grounds to interfere with the Labour Court’s findings on either the enquiry or the merits of the dismissal [Paras 36-37].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act - Validity of Single Complaint for Multiple Cheques – The petitioners challenged the validity of a single complaint for the dishonor of 36 cheques, arguing that this violates Section 219 Cr.P.C., which restricts trial for multiple offences to a maximum of three instances of the same kind within a 12-month period. The Court held that, given that all cheques were issued as part of a single transaction, presented together, and returned with a single notice, the complaint fell within the “same transaction” provision under Section 220 Cr.P.C. This ruling aligned with principles established in Manjula v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd., supporting the validity of filing a single complaint when the transaction forms a unified series of acts [Paras 24, 28, 37].

Section 138 NI Act - Dishonor Due to “Account Blocked” Status – Addressing whether account blockage by the Income Tax Department and Enforcement Directorate precludes prosecution under Section 138, the Court applied the Supreme Court's rationale in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat, which treats “account blocked” as analogous to “insufficient funds,” thus allowing the complaint to proceed. This interpretation follows the genus-species framework, where “account blocked” serves as a species within the general genus of dishonor scenarios under Section 138 [Paras 31, 32, 38].

Sufficiency of Funds - Rejection of Defense Based on Claimed Account Balance – The petitioners asserted that their account had sufficient funds which were merely blocked by regulatory orders. The Court dismissed this defense, establishing that the account showed a debit status, and no funds were available to honor the cheques, satisfying Section 138’s conditions for dishonor. The decision aligns with the principles set out in NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. and Laxmi Dyechem regarding adequacy of funds as central under Section 138 [Paras 34, 38].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Court ruled that the single complaint for all dishonored cheques was legally sustainable, and the account blockage did not exempt the petitioners from liability under Section 138. Consequently, the criminal original petition and connected miscellaneous petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 37, 39].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Allegations of Conspiracy and Forgery – Business Dispute – Petitioners granted anticipatory bail – Accusations against petitioners of conspiracy, forgery, and extortion arising from disputed business transactions related to reconstitution of a partnership firm and sale of property – The Court found the allegations to primarily stem from a civil dispute over commercial transactions already pending before civil courts – No specific overt act of criminal intimidation or coercion was attributed to the petitioners to justify custodial interrogation – Delay of over three years in lodging the FIR weighed in favor of bail – Petitioners granted bail subject to conditions [Paras 14, 21, 22].

Civil Dispute Given Criminal Color – Bail Granted – The Court held that the dispute, though framed as a criminal offense, appeared to be of a civil nature involving business disagreements – Civil remedies had already been sought in ongoing civil litigation – It was emphasized that mere delay in initiating criminal proceedings post-political change in the state raised doubts about the genuineness of the complaint [Paras 15-18, 21].

Right to Personal Liberty – Pre-Arrest Bail Granted – The petitioners had no prior convictions or history of fleeing from justice – Court considered the personal liberty of the accused, balancing it with the need for proper investigation – In the absence of any requirement for custodial interrogation, bail was granted [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Both Criminal Petition Nos. 4287 and 4338 of 2024 were allowed. Petitioners were granted anticipatory bail upon execution of a personal bond and were ordered to cooperate with the investigation, subject to conditions set by the Court.

Writ - Land Dispute – Mutation and Title – The petitioner claimed possession of land through Oral Hiba from the Nawab of Obedulla, and the land was recorded in his name after eviction suits and a compromise decree in a civil suit – The Collector, Bhopal, initiated suo motu revision proceedings to cancel the mutation and Nazul No-Objection Certificate (NOC) granted to the petitioner – Held: The suo motu power exercised under Section 50 of MPLR Code was valid, and the compromise decree was unauthorized as it was entered without proper authority from the State – The petitioner's objection to the revision was dismissed [Paras 28, 53-54].

Revenue Authority's Role – Fraudulent Compromise – The Naib Tahsildar, Bajrang Bahadur Singh, entered into a compromise on behalf of the State without authority, leading to the illegal mutation of government land in the petitioner's favor – Held: Bajrang Bahadur Singh acted in bad faith and was liable for mesne profits for allowing unauthorized possession of government land – Departmental action against erring officials was directed [Paras 30-39, 58].

Judicial Review – Time Limit for Suo Motu Powers – The petitioner's argument that the revision proceedings were barred by time was rejected – The revision was initiated within the permissible period following receipt of information about the illegalities [Paras 54-55].

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid by the petitioner – The interim order dated 24/10/2011 was vacated – Departmental actions were ordered against several officials for their involvement in the unauthorized compromise and land mutation [Paras 62-63].