Co-operative Societies – Section 66(2) Inquiry – Scope of Inquiry – Petitioners challenged the inquiry conducted under Section 66(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, contending that such inquiries cannot involve a roving investigation into the affairs of the society. The court held that Section 66(2) permits an inquiry into the management and affairs of the society and irregularities in the valuation of mortgaged properties, loan disbursements, and other financial matters can be investigated. Held: No evidence of a roving inquiry, and the inquiry officer’s findings were within the scope of the Act [Paras 14-17].

Maintainability – Challenge to Section 68 Proceedings – The petitioners, representing the bank and its Managing Committee, contended that they could challenge the inquiry report and surcharge proceedings under Section 68. The court clarified that Section 68 proceedings are aimed at surcharging individuals responsible for irregularities, and only such individuals can challenge these proceedings, not the bank or Managing Committee as entities. Held: The writ petition is not maintainable [Paras 11-13, 18].

Preliminary Notice – Challenge to Show Cause Notice – The petitioners sought to challenge Ext. P6, a notice under Section 68(2), as part of their writ petition. The court reiterated that a show cause notice cannot be challenged at this stage, and any challenge can be made only after the final order if the parties are adversely affected. Held: The challenge to the notice is premature [Para 18].

Decision: The writ petition is dismissed. The challenge to the inquiry reports and the show cause notice under Section 68(2) is rejected. The petitioners are not entitled to challenge the Section 68(2) proceedings, which are intended to address mismanagement and irregularities in the affairs of the co-operative bank [Paras 17-18].
 

Family Law – Appealability of Interim Custody and Visitation Orders – Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act – The appellant challenged an order passed by the Family Court granting the respondent temporary custody and visitation rights over the minor child, arguing that the order was not interlocutory and therefore appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act – Held: Orders regarding interim custody and visitation rights under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 significantly impact the welfare of the minor child and cannot be treated as mere procedural or interlocutory orders – Such orders have a direct bearing on the rights of the parties and are appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act – The decision in Colonel Ramesh Pal Singh v. Sugandhi Aggarwal, holding that no appeal lies against interim custody orders, was held incorrect [Paras 9-35].

Nature of Orders Under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act – Orders passed under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 grant temporary custody and can affect the child’s welfare and parents' rights – These are adjudicatory in nature and cannot be termed as interlocutory for the purposes of appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, which provides an overriding appellate remedy for family matters – Appeal allowed to proceed [Paras 26-30].

Principles of Finality in Interlocutory Orders – Distinction Between Procedural and Substantive Orders – The court emphasized that interlocutory orders for procedural matters are different from substantive orders affecting valuable rights – Orders impacting child custody and visitation fall within the category of substantive decisions that should be appealable, despite being interim in nature – Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D. Kania principles applied [Paras 29-34].

Decision: The reference to the Full Bench is answered in favor of the appellant – Orders under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 regarding interim custody and visitation are appealable under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 – The appeal is restored for consideration by the appropriate Bench [Paras 35-37].

Recall of Witness – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Marking of Material Object – The petitioners challenged the recall of P.W.3 under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for further examination to mark material evidence (Bajaj Motor Cycle No. AP 16 BU 1222) – The petitioners argued that the recall was improper as the required photographs and panchanama were not prepared according to the procedure under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act – The Court held: The Sessions Judge correctly allowed the recall of P.W.3 for marking the motorbike and related documents as material evidence – Questions regarding the admissibility of evidence under Section 65-B can be raised at the time of marking the photographs [Paras 3-5].

Interim Custody – Compliance with Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai – The vehicle in question was released for interim custody by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the guidelines established in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat – Photographs and the panchanama prepared at the time of release can be used during the trial, even if objected to on the grounds of Section 65-B [Paras 7-9].

Decision – Criminal petition dismissed – The recall of P.W.3 for further examination was upheld – The petitioners may raise objections concerning the admissibility of the photographs at the time of marking the evidence [Paras 10-12].

Landlord-Tenant Dispute – Execution Proceedings – Joint Tenancy Rights – The appellant raised objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC against his dispossession in execution proceedings arising out of a decree passed against his brother, claiming independent rights based on a separate decree – Held: The appellant, being a joint tenant along with his brother, Prem Chandra, cannot claim independent rights to resist execution – The objections raised under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC were correctly dismissed by both the Executing Court and the First Appellate Court – The decree of eviction applies to all joint tenants [Paras 12-16].

Order 21 Rule 97 CPC – Objections to Execution by Non-Judgment Debtor – The court observed that objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC can be raised by non-parties to the original suit, but such objections must be based on valid, independent rights – In this case, the appellant's claim of independent tenancy rights was unfounded, as the joint tenancy had devolved upon him and his brother, making the eviction decree applicable to both – Appeal dismissed [Paras 10-12].

Effect of Non-Filing of Cross Objections – Finality of Findings – The appellant did not file cross-objections challenging the finding of joint tenancy in earlier proceedings – Held: Without cross-objections, the finality of the appellate court’s finding on joint tenancy rights cannot be disturbed, and the appellant is bound by the earlier judgment – Appeal lacks merit [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage – The judgment dated 07/05/2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 130/2013 is upheld, and the appellant is subject to the execution of the decree of eviction – No costs awarded [Para 17].

Termination of Mid-Day Meal Implementing Agency – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner challenged the termination order dated 09.09.2024 issued by the 7th respondent, terminating the petitioner as the Mid-Day-Meal Implementing Agency without assigning any reasons or giving an opportunity of hearing – Court held: The termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given a show-cause notice or an opportunity to explain – The respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue as the Mid-Day-Meal Implementing Agency unless a proper legal procedure, including issuing a show-cause notice and hearing the petitioner, is followed [Paras 2-4].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Be Heard – The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice, noting that any order affecting the rights of an individual must follow due process, including giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard – Failure to do so amounts to a miscarriage of justice [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Writ petition disposed of – The termination order dated 09.09.2024 was set aside, and the respondents were directed to follow due process by issuing a show-cause notice and hearing the petitioner if they intend to proceed with the termination in the future – No order as to costs .

Criminal Law – Application Under Section 91 CrPC – Timing of Application – Respondents sought production of request letters sent by CBI to the Ministry of Home Affairs for call interception before charges were framed – Held: The accused cannot invoke Section 91 CrPC at the pre-charge stage for production of documents – The Supreme Court has held that Section 91 can be invoked by the accused only after the stage of framing of charges and when necessary for defense – Petition allowed, orders directing production of documents set aside [Paras 1, 25-30].

Interception of Phone Calls – Privilege and Confidentiality – Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act – CBI asserted that its request letters for interception of calls were privileged communications under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act – Held: The CBI’s communications seeking permission for interception were confidential and privileged, and cannot be disclosed at the pre-charge stage – The respondents may apply for such documents at a later stage, subject to court review – Petition allowed [Paras 25-30].

Right to Privacy – Interception of Phone Calls – Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act – The respondents’ argument of privacy violation was rejected – Held: The interception orders were issued as per Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, and reviewed by the competent authority without adverse findings – The right to privacy is not absolute and is subject to lawful restrictions – No violation of privacy found [Paras 25-30].

Decision:

The petition is allowed – The impugned orders dated 20.12.2022 and 16.01.2023 are set aside – Respondents are at liberty to file an application under Section 91 CrPC at the appropriate stage – The CBI is directed to preserve the request letters/communications sent to MHA – No order as to costs [Paras 25-30].

Delay Condonation – Liberal Approach – Sufficient Cause – The petitioners sought condonation of a delay of 443 days in filing applications to set aside the default order dismissing their objections to attachment in execution proceedings – The Court held: The cause shown, supported by medical certificates of the petitioner's husband and the petitioner herself, constituted sufficient cause – Courts should adopt a liberal approach in condonation matters, as the refusal to condone delay would deprive the petitioners of a chance to be heard on merits, which would cause injustice – The delay was condoned on payment of costs [Paras 15-19, 22].

Failure to Adduce Evidence – Importance of Substantial Justice – The petitioners failed to appear and adduce evidence in the claim petition due to medical reasons – The Court observed that while the Executing Court took a technical view, sufficient cause was shown – Courts must prioritize substantial justice over technicalities, particularly when no negligence or malafides were proven against the petitioners [Paras 20-24].

Decision – The civil revision petitions and appeals were allowed – The delay in filing the application to set aside the default order dated 26.04.2018 was condoned – The default order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Executing Court for fresh adjudication – Costs of Rs. 10,000 were imposed, payable to the respondent/decree holder [Paras 25-27].

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused in Poor Lighting – Doubts on Accuracy – The incident took place during the dark night of 24/25 May 2004, and the prosecution relied on eyewitnesses who claimed to have identified the accused in the light of torches and a lantern – The Court found that the lantern was not recovered, and torches were not produced before the trial court – Held: The identification of the accused in such conditions is highly doubtful and cannot be solely relied upon for conviction [Paras 45-50].

Non-production of Seized Articles – Impact on Credibility of Prosecution – The prosecution failed to produce critical evidence such as the torches that were allegedly used to identify the accused – Held: The non-production of these seized articles raises serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case [Paras 51-53].

Motive – Illicit Relationship Insufficient to Prove Motive for Murder – The prosecution suggested that the murders were motivated by opposition to an illicit relationship – Held: The alleged motive was not strong enough to justify the brutal killing of four persons, and this alone does not substantiate the guilt of the accused [Paras 54-56].

Recovery of Weapons – FSL Report Contradicts Prosecution's Case – The firearms recovered from the accused were examined, and the forensic report did not support the prosecution’s claims – Held: The recovery of weapons does not conclusively link the accused to the murders [Paras 57-60].

Decision: The appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.06.2007 of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellants are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds are discharged [Paras 61-63].

Labour Law – Termination of Services – Reinstatement with Full Back Wages – Section 25F of ID Act – Illegal Termination – The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages for the workman Manoj Kumar, who was engaged on an ad-hoc basis as a sweeper and terminated without following the proper procedure under Section 25F of the ID Act – Held: The termination violated Section 25F, but reinstatement is not automatic. The High Court set aside the reinstatement and instead awarded monetary compensation of ₹2,50,000 in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages [Paras 50-64].

Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement – Jurisprudence on Relief for Procedural Defects – While reinstatement generally follows a finding of illegal termination, courts have increasingly awarded monetary compensation where reinstatement is deemed inappropriate, especially for casual or ad-hoc workers – Manoj Kumar’s appointment as an ad-hoc worker and the violation of Section 25F warranted monetary compensation rather than reinstatement [Paras 53-64].

Regularization of Services – Non-Entitlement – The Labour Court denied regularization as Manoj Kumar was not appointed through due process, and there was no sanctioned post for the position – The High Court upheld this decision, citing that mere continuation in service for 1553 days does not confer a right to regularization under the principles laid out in Uma Devi – Further, there were no grounds to claim discrimination as the other regularized employees were either seniors or in different circumstances [Paras 65-93].

Decision:

The writ petition filed by Punjab National Bank is allowed – Reinstatement with full back wages set aside – Compensation of ₹2,50,000 awarded to the workman in lieu of reinstatement – The writ petition filed by the workman for regularization is dismissed.