Transfer Petition – Inconvenience of Travel – The petitioner, a resident of Hyderabad, sought the transfer of divorce proceedings from Nirmal to Hyderabad, citing difficulty in traveling from Hyderabad to Nirmal with a minor child – The respondent contended that the petitioner resides in Nirmal and falsely claimed Hyderabad as her residence to file a dowry harassment case – Held: The Court found that both parties reside in Nirmal, and the petitioner had received summons at her Nirmal address – In light of free bus fare for women in Telangana, no significant inconvenience was established – Transfer petition dismissed [Paras 4-6].

Dowry Case and Divorce Proceedings – Concurrent Litigation – The respondent asserted that the dowry complaint filed by the petitioner was retaliatory, following receipt of the notice for divorce – The Court, however, focused on the residence and convenience factors, finding no merit for the transfer [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 7].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonour – The petitioner, Rajesh Exports Ltd., sought to quash the order staying proceedings in a cheque bounce case where the respondent had issued a cheque which was dishonoured – The Magistrate had stayed the proceedings invoking Section 446 of the Companies Act due to the winding up of the respondent’s company – Court directed the resumption of proceedings, clarifying that personal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not get absolved due to company winding up [Paras 1-15].

Company Winding Up – Effect on Criminal Proceedings – Court held that the stay order under Section 446 of the Companies Act was erroneously applied – Personal liability of the respondent for the cheque issued in personal capacity remains unaffected – The judgment reaffirms that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not stayed by company winding up orders [Paras 8-14].

Precedent and Judicial Review – Emphasis on following the Apex Court’s decisions which clarified that winding up proceedings do not stay criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act – The Court discussed the doctrine of per incuriam and held that the earlier orders were passed without considering the binding precedents, thus necessitating a different judicial path [Paras 10-13].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Orders dated 11-11-2014 quashed – Directions to resume and expedite proceedings in C.C. Nos. 19781 and 19782 of 2007 – Magistrate to conclude proceedings within three months [Para 15].

Condonation of Delay – Legal Representation – Revisionists convicted for offences under Sections 454 and 380 IPC sought condonation of 388 days’ delay in filing the appeal. The delay attributed to difficulties in engaging private counsel while incarcerated – Revisionists initially assigned Legal Aid Counsel, but chose to engage a private counsel, causing delay – Revisionist No. 3’s wife managed steps for private counsel engagement. Held: Delay explained with sufficient cause, considering incarceration and right to counsel choice – Delay condoned [Paras 1-11].

Principles for Condonation – Sufficient Cause –
Supreme Court precedents emphasize liberal and justice-oriented approach for condoning delay, especially in criminal matters. Courts to advance substantial justice rather than adhere to technicalities – No gross negligence or deliberate inaction found on part of the revisionists – Governmental procedural delays considered analogously – Revision allowed in interest of justice [Paras 7-11].

Decision: Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Delay of 388 days in filing appeal condoned – Order of Sessions Judge set aside [Paras 12-14].
 

Family Pension – Dependency and Entitlement – Petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s order directing the grant of family pension to the respondent – Contention that respondent was not dependent on her father at the time of his death, hence not entitled to family pension – High Court held that dependency is a crucial factor and mere divorce after the pensioner’s death does not automatically entitle a daughter to family pension [Paras 1-14].

Applicability of OM and Circulars – Petitioners argued OM dated September 11, 2013 not applicable as respondent’s divorce occurred after the pensioner’s death – High Court emphasized that each case must be assessed on its merits, particularly the aspect of dependency at the time of pensioner’s death [Paras 9-12].

Precedents and Judicial Interpretation – The Court distinguished the present case from Mamata Ghosh’s case, highlighting differences in factual matrix and dependency criteria – Reiterated that orders in similar cases are not automatically applicable without factual similarity [Paras 6, 9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Order of the Tribunal set aside – Family pension claim rejected due to lack of dependency evidence at the time of the pensioner’s death – Directions for future claims to meticulously assess dependency and apply relevant circulars and Oms appropriately [Paras 13-15].

Bail Application – Opportunity to Present Case – Violation of Section 45 PMLA – Directorate of Enforcement (ED) contended that they were not given a proper opportunity to oppose the bail application – Vacation Judge denied oral prayer for stay of bail – Failure to fulfill mandatory twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA [Para 2(i), 5]. 

Vicarious Liability – Political Party Involvement – ED argued that the respondent had a vicarious liability under Section 70 PMLA, alleging that proceeds of crime were used for the Aam Aadmi Party’s election campaign in Goa – Vacation Judge failed to consider this aspect [Paras 5.4, 16]. 

Mala Fide Intent – Timing of Arrest – Vacation Judge found malafide in the timing of the ED’s actions – High Court observed that the judgment dated 09.04.2024 by Co-ordinate Bench had cleared ED of mala fide intentions [Para 15]. 

Judicial Discipline – Previous Findings – High Court noted that the Vacation Judge should have adhered to findings of the Co-ordinate Bench – Judgment dated 09.04.2024 had already addressed the issues considered by the Vacation Judge [Para 15]. 

Decision: Stay Application allowed – Operation of the Impugned Order stayed – Bail order set aside, and matter referred to Roster Bench for further consideration [Para 22].

Service Recognition – Cancellation of Recognition – Petitioner’s service as Assistant Teacher initially recognized but later canceled without proper notice or enquiry – Court held cancellation invalid due to procedural deficiencies and prior court orders recognizing service – Cancellation order set aside – Respondents directed to reassess recognition considering petitioner’s qualifications and prior recognition orders [Paras 1-21].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Notice and Enquiry – Recognition of petitioner’s service canceled without issuing notice or conducting proper enquiry – High Court emphasized requirement of notice and enquiry before cancellation – Prior court order affirming recognition not appealed, thus attaining finality – Cancellation held invalid [Paras 12-18].

Service Conditions – Recognition as Trained Teacher – Petitioner’s service recognized as trained teacher from date of appointment – Cancellation without enquiry into qualifications and continuous service – Court directed reassessment of petitioner’s service as trained teacher, considering qualifications and prior recognition [Paras 19-21].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Order canceling recognition of petitioner’s service set aside – Director, Secondary Education directed to reassess petitioner’s service as trained teacher and determine arrears payable in five monthly installments, considering qualifications and prior recognition orders [Paras 19-21].
 

Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR and charge-sheet filed under multiple sections of IPC – Alleged that criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant were a counter-blast to civil disputes – Court held FIR and charge-sheet to be an abuse of process, emphasizing non-compliance with procedural requirements for Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications, particularly absence of mandatory affidavit and prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – FIR and subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 9-18].

Procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Statutory obligation for supporting affidavit and prior complaints – Court relied on Supreme Court precedents in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Babu Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, underscoring mandatory requirements for applications under Section 156(3) – Highlighted misuse of criminal process for settling civil disputes and reiterated the necessity for judicial diligence in verifying such applications [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Revision applications allowed – FIR and charge-sheet quashed – Court mandated strict adherence to procedural requirements for invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., ensuring applications are substantiated with affidavits and prior complaints [Paras 18-21].
 

Motor Vehicles – Compensation for Injuries – Appellant (insurance company) challenged the award of compensation for injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident – Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,77,130/- with 9% p.a. interest – Appellant contended the driver did not have a valid license to drive a light motor transport vehicle – High Court held that the driver had a valid license for light motor non-transport vehicle and no evidence showed the owner had knowledge of any license issues – Tribunal’s decision upheld [Paras 1-16].

Driving License – Validity and Insurance Liability – Ex.B-2 established the driver had a valid license – No evidence of owner’s knowledge of any invalidity – Insurance company’s argument dismissed based on absence of proof of owner’s knowledge of license issue [Para 13].

Interest on Compensation – Tribunal awarded 9% p.a. interest on compensation amount – Appellant sought modification citing lower bank interest rates at the time – High Court found no merit in this argument and upheld Tribunal’s decision [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court confirmed the award and decree by the Tribunal – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, are closed [Para 16].

Execution of Decree – Third Party Rights – Application of Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – The respondent filed an application to execute a preliminary decree for partition. The appellants, not party to the original suit, sought protection of possession under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC. The Trial Court dismissed their application, a decision upheld by the Appellate Court. The High Court, considering substantial questions of law, remitted the matter to the Trial Court for proper adjudication after framing issues and allowing evidence [Paras 1-13].

Maintainability of Application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC – The court addressed whether a third party can seek relief under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC before losing possession. Emphasizing procedural requirements, the court noted the necessity of framing issues and leading evidence to adjudicate rights [Paras 3-9].

Remand for Proper Adjudication – The court remanded the matter to the Trial Court to adjudicate the application filed by the appellants under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC, ensuring proper procedural compliance [Paras 11-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh adjudication in accordance with procedural rules, ensuring issues are framed and evidence is led before deciding the application under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC [Paras 12-15].