Negotiable Instruments – Liability of Drawer – Notice of Dishonour – Recovery of Dues – Plaintiff bank sought recovery of dues from the defendant based on the dishonor of bills and Hundis – Both lower courts dismissed the suit, finding that the bank failed to issue a dishonor notice as required under Section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and failed to prove the execution of relevant documents by the defendant – Held, the plaintiff’s argument that no notice was required under Section 30 is untenable – Appeal dismissed as the bank failed to provide necessary evidence and follow due legal procedure [Paras 7-9].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – The judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court upheld, confirming the dismissal of the suit for recovery of dues.

Attachment of Retirement Benefits – Jurisdiction under Section 78 of the KCS Act – The Kerala High Court addressed whether retiral benefits can be attached under Section 78 of the KCS Act. It held that while retirement benefits such as provident fund, gratuity, and pension are generally immune from attachment, the attached amounts in this case need careful examination to determine if they include exempted sums. The Court also emphasized that the writ petition was not maintainable as alternative remedies were available under the KCS Act, which the respondent failed to exhaust [Paras 1-19].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedies – The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked if statutory remedies are available. The High Court should only interfere when statutory authorities have not followed the law, or there is a violation of fundamental judicial principles. The Court found that the respondent should have pursued the statutory remedies provided under the KCS Act and Rules [Paras 12-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment was set aside. The respondent was directed to pursue alternative remedies under the KCS Act and KCS Rules. All factual and legal contentions were left open for determination by the appropriate statutory authorities [Paras 18-20].
 

Recovery of Earnest Money – Competence of SPA to Depose – The appellant’s suit for recovery of Rs. 12,00,000/- along with interest was dismissed by the Trial Court on the grounds that the earnest money was rightly forfeited due to non-payment of the balance consideration – Appellant challenged the judgment arguing the inability of the respondent to produce title documents, which justified the refund of the earnest money – High Court upheld the Trial Court's dismissal, emphasizing that the appellant's Special Power of Attorney (SPA) holder, being merely a witness to the agreement and lacking personal knowledge of the transaction, was incompetent to depose on behalf of the appellant – It was held that only the principal, who has personal knowledge, could have competently testified to prove the facts of the case – The court relied on precedents asserting that the SPA holder can only testify about acts done in his capacity as SPA, not on matters outside his personal knowledge [Paras 18-27].

Adverse Presumption – Non-Appearance of Plaintiff – The High Court observed that the non-appearance of the plaintiff (appellant) to testify led to an adverse presumption against him, as established by precedent – The court reiterated that the plaintiff must stand on his own legs to prove his case and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case [Paras 28-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court found no merit in the appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment and holding that the appellant’s father, who was the SPA holder, could not validly act as a witness for the plaintiff’s case due to lack of personal knowledge [Paras 36-37].

Civil Law – Property Law – Ancestral Property – Inheritance under Hindu Succession Act – Plaintiff claimed co-parcenary rights in the suit land, alleging it to be ancestral property inherited from her grandfather – Trial Court and First Appellate Court found the plaintiff failed to provide documentary evidence proving the ancestral nature of the property – Appellate Court held that the suit property was self-acquired by the father under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act after the death of the grandfather in 1989 – Held, no cogent evidence was provided by the plaintiff to establish that the property was ancestral – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The findings of the lower courts upheld, affirming that the property in question was not ancestral and therefore could not be claimed as co-parcenary property by the plaintiff.

Recall of Witness – Section 311 CrPC – Denial of Adjournment – The petitioner’s counsel sought to recall the prosecutrix for cross-examination after the right to cross-examine was closed on the same day as re-examination due to counsel’s personal reasons – Trial Court rejected the application, noting that adequate opportunity had been provided – High Court emphasized that Section 311 CrPC allows recall to prevent a failure of justice, especially when the testimony is crucial for a fair trial – The Court held that while unwarranted adjournments should be avoided, the denial of cross-examination after a single opportunity was insufficient, especially given the critical nature of the witness's testimony [Paras 10-21].

Fair Trial – Opportunity to Cross-Examine – The Court highlighted that ensuring the accused has a fair trial is paramount, and it is better to err on the side of caution – The Court found that a final opportunity should be granted for cross-examination, balancing the need to avoid undue harassment of the prosecutrix as mandated under Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Petition allowed – The Trial Court’s order was set aside, and one final opportunity was granted for the cross-examination of the prosecutrix, with a direction that no further adjournments be sought by the petitioner [Paras 22-24].

Civil Procedure—Jurisdiction—Maintainability of suit before Civil Court for cancellation of Will—Bar under Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Plaintiff’s suit for cancellation of Will challenged on grounds of fraud—Defendants argued bar under Section 331, contending the suit should be before Revenue Court—High Court held the suit for cancellation of Will is maintainable in Civil Court—Section 331 does not oust Civil Court’s jurisdiction in such cases where cancellation of a voidable document is sought—Second appeal dismissed. [Paras 30-34]

Specific Relief Act—Cancellation of Voidable Instruments—Applicability of Section 31—Court discussed the circumstances under which a Will, alleged to be executed under fraud, can be cancelled by Civil Court—Held, only Civil Court has jurisdiction to cancel such documents and send necessary intimation to Sub-Registrar under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. [Paras 13-31]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed. Civil Court’s jurisdiction upheld for the cancellation of the Will. The suit was found to be maintainable under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the bar under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, was held not to apply.

Civil Law – Property Law – Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Common Passage – Plaintiffs sought injunction to prevent the defendant from obstructing a common passage used by multiple property owners – Defendant claimed the passage as private property – Both lower courts found that the defendant failed to prove the passage was private property and upheld the passage as common – Held, the previous judgment, though not inter-parties, had persuasive value in establishing the passage as common – Defendant’s appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The findings of the lower courts upheld, affirming that the disputed passage is a common passage, and the defendant had no right to obstruct it.

Ex Gratia Compensation – Interest on Delayed Payment – Appellant, a victim of the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, received ex gratia compensation after multiple litigations spanning decades – Appellant sought interest on the delayed payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- – High Court held that although ex gratia compensation traditionally does not attract interest, Constitutional Courts have the authority to grant reasonable interest in cases of significant delay – Given the protracted litigation and delayed compensation, the Court awarded 10% interest per annum from the date of the Rehabilitation Policy (16th January, 2006) until the actual payment on 8th April, 2016 – Emphasized that policies for victim rehabilitation must be implemented in a time-bound manner to remain meaningful [Paras 13-17].

Delay in Government Disbursements – Judicial Remedy – Courts empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution can grant relief in cases where administrative delays cause significant prejudice – Held that failure to implement policies within stipulated timelines warrants judicial intervention to ensure justice for affected parties [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondents directed to pay 10% interest per annum on the delayed compensation amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from 16th January, 2006, to 8th April, 2016 – Respondents also ordered to pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs to the appellant within six weeks [Paras 17-18].

Commercial Courts Act – Definition of Commercial Dispute – Partnership Agreement – The appellants contended that the dispute arising out of a Memorandum of Understanding for the reconstitution of a partnership firm should be classified as a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. However, the court held that the MOU related to a future partnership agreement, not an existing one, and thus did not fall under the definition of a commercial dispute [Paras 1-18].

Specific Performance – Reconstitution of Partnership Firm – The plaintiff sought specific performance of the MOU, which involved the retirement of certain partners and the induction of new partners in the firm. The court found that the dispute did not arise out of an existing partnership agreement, as required under the Commercial Courts Act, but rather a future arrangement [Paras 19-24].

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – The appellants' applications for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were dismissed, as the court found that the MOU did not fall within the ambit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [Paras 25-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the applications under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.