Negotiable Instruments Act – Bail Conditions – Revisionist challenged the order directing him to deposit 20% of the fine amount for bail – Contention that the deposit is not mandatory but directory – Additional Sessions Judge’s order considered lawful and not mechanical – Revision dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Judicial Discretion – Emphasized the court’s discretion in ordering deposit under Section 148 – Referenced Surinder Singh Deswal and Jamboo Bhandari cases to underline that deposit conditions can be relaxed in exceptional cases – Held that the lower court appropriately exercised discretion, requiring no interference [Paras 7-14].

Decision – Revision Dismissed – Held – Conditions imposed for bail justified – Revisionist’s previous attempts to delay proceedings noted – Appeal for reduction in pre-deposit amount rejected – Order of lower court upheld [Paras 15-16].

Termination of Pregnancy – Rape Victim – Petitioner, a 19-year-old rape victim, sought permission to terminate her pregnancy of 16 weeks – High Court permitted the termination emphasizing the mental and physical health risks and social stigma attached to continuing the pregnancy – Medical and legal considerations were thoroughly evaluated [Paras 1-11].

Application of MTP Act – The Court applied the amended provisions of the MTP Act, 2021, allowing termination up to 24 weeks for certain categories of women, including rape victims – Emphasized the reproductive autonomy of women and the necessity of informed consent [Paras 7-10].

Reproductive Autonomy and Health – Reiterated the right of women to make decisions about their own bodies – Court highlighted the trauma and potential harm to mental and physical health of the victim in case of continuation of pregnancy from rape – Importance of respecting the victim's choice was underlined [Paras 9-10].

Legal Precedents – Referenced key decisions supporting the reproductive rights and autonomy of women, including the Supreme Court rulings in XYZ v. State of Gujarat and X v. State (NCT of Delhi), stressing the constitutional protections for women's health and choice [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Permission granted for medical termination of pregnancy – Directions issued for the medical procedure to be conducted with due care, and for DNA sampling for evidence collection [Paras 11-11.4].

Family Law - Customary Divorce - Validity and Proof - Second Appeal: The appellant, Anarkali, contended that she was the legally wedded wife of Late Rampal until his death, arguing against the claim of customary divorce (Chhoda Chhutti) by the respondent no.1, Siyawati. The court held that the existence and recognition of the custom must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence. The first appellate court erred in accepting the customary divorce without adequate proof of its prevalence and recognition in the concerned community. The court reiterated that a Hindu marriage can only be dissolved in accordance with the statutory provisions or a well-established custom. The judgment of the first appellate court was set aside, restoring the trial court's decision. [Paras 13-34]

Validity of Marriage - Substantial Questions of Law - Burden of Proof: The appellant's marriage was held valid as the respondent no.1 failed to prove the customary divorce and her own marriage to Late Rampal in accordance with Hindu rites. The court underscored that the burden of proof lies heavily on the party claiming the customary divorce. The appellant successfully rebutted the presumption of a valid customary divorce, maintaining her status as the legally wedded wife. [Paras 21-25, 27-30]

Procedural Law - Appeal - Counter Claim: The court addressed the issue of whether a single appeal challenging the common judgment and decree passed in both the main suit and the counter-claim was maintainable. It held that the appeal was valid as it adequately covered both decrees, emphasizing the principle that one appeal is sufficient where there has been one trial and one decision, even if multiple decrees are drawn. The appeal process in such cases must ensure comprehensive adjudication to avoid piecemeal litigation. [Paras 37-48]

Decision: The Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Raibareli in Civil Appeal No.86/2009 is set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court is restored.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaint – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint and proceedings under Section 138 NIA – Petitioner argued entire liability had been discharged prior to complaint – Court noted petitioner made payments exceeding the cheque amount – Respondent’s claim for interest not a ground for maintaining the complaint – Held, once cheque amount is paid and accepted, Section 82 NIA applies, discharging liability [Paras 1-31].

Interest Claim – Section 138 NIA – Whether dishonor of cheque issued for interest on delayed payment constitutes legally enforceable debt – Court held, in absence of specific demand and agreement for interest in complaint, interest cannot form basis for Section 138 NIA action – Presumption under Sections 118, 139 NIA applies only to principal amount [Paras 16-22, 25-28].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Complaint and all consequential proceedings quashed – Court directed release of remuneration for legal aid counsel as per rule [Paras 29-31].

Criminal Law – Conviction under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC – Petitioner convicted for rash and negligent driving causing death – Trial court sentenced petitioner to six months' imprisonment under Section 279 IPC and one year under Section 304-A IPC – Conviction and sentence upheld by appellate court – Challenge in High Court of Jharkhand – High Court modified sentence considering petitioner's age, time elapsed since the incident, and period already spent in custody – Sentence reduced to period already undergone [Paras 1-9].

Evidence Evaluation – Issues Raised by Petitioner – Petitioner contended non-proof of key documents and failure to examine essential witnesses – Arguments included lack of proof of MVI report, inquest report, post mortem report, and FIR; non-examination of investigating officer and doctor conducting autopsy; inconsistent eyewitness accounts; and suggestion of contributory negligence by the deceased – High Court found sufficient evidence supporting initial conviction despite these contentions – Recognized petitioner's advanced age and previous cooperation during trial [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Modification of Sentence – High Court upheld conviction but modified sentence due to mitigating factors – Recognized significant time lapse since the incident, petitioner's age, and period of custody already undergone – Sentenced petitioner to imprisonment already undergone instead of original sentence – Criminal Revision disposed of with modification in sentence [Paras 7-8].

Lease Agreement – Leasehold Rights – Petitioners, owners of the land, leased their property to the respondent for 25 years – Lease included clause allowing mortgage of leasehold rights – Respondent mortgaged the leasehold rights to the State Financial Corporation – Lease expired in 2008, but possession was taken over by the Corporation in 2013 – Court held that mortgage rights ceased with the lease expiry, making the Corporation’s possession invalid – Directions issued to remove machinery and return possession to the petitioners [Paras 1-24].

Transfer of Property – Rights of Lessee – Lessee’s rights to the property ceased after lease expiration – Court emphasized lessee’s right to remove structures they constructed during the lease period, but no further rights post-lease [Paras 19-22].

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed – Held – The J&K State Financial Corporation must remove the machinery and vacate the premises, returning possession to the petitioners within 90 days. The Corporation is permitted to remove any structures built by the lessee using loan proceeds [Para 23-24].

Central Excise – Refund Claims – Appellant sought refund of Central Excise Duty for supplies made under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) deemed exports scheme – Refund claims initially filed with DGFT, then redirected to Central Excise Authorities following Notification dated 18.04.2013 – Claims partly rejected by lower authorities as time-barred under Section 11B – Appeals allowed, setting aside CESTAT order rejecting claims as time-barred – Held, period spent before DGFT to be excluded from limitation calculation [Paras 1-21].

Limitation Act – Applicability to Quasi-Judicial Authorities – Reference made to Supreme Court ruling in “M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise” (2017) regarding applicability of Limitation Act, 1963, to quasi-judicial authorities – Held, time spent pursuing remedy before wrong forum to be excluded from limitation period [Paras 17-19].

Relevant Notifications – Notification dated 18.04.2013 amended FTP, shifting refund jurisdiction from DGFT to Central Excise Authorities – Clarified that refunds for supplies against ICB should be filed with Central Excise – Held, applications made within one year from 18.04.2013 deemed timely [Paras 7, 20].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – CESTAT order dated 01.07.2016 set aside – Directed respondents to release refund of Rs. 21,09,929/- with interest under Section 11BB within six weeks [Para 21].
 

Labour Law – Preliminary Issues – Domestic Enquiry – Petitioner’s application to decide the issue of violation of principles of natural justice in domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue rejected by the Labour Court – Petitioner argued that this issue should be decided first as it is critical for the adjudication process – Labour Court and respondent opposed, stating it requires evidence and should be decided simultaneously with other issues – Held, Labour Court erred in rejecting application – Issue of natural justice should be addressed as a preliminary issue [Paras 1-14].

Supreme Court Precedents – Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd & Another – M.L. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank – Kurukshetra University vs. Prithvi Singh – Established principle that issue of natural justice must be decided as a preliminary issue before proceeding with other matters – Labour Court's order rejecting application quashed – Directed to decide preliminary issue first [Paras 7-13].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 18.11.2023 passed by Labour Court quashed – Labour Court directed to decide the issue of natural justice as a preliminary issue – Parties to avoid unnecessary adjournments – Labour Court to expedite the adjudication process [Para 14].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise of Power under Article 226 – Discretionary Nature – Rule of Self-Imposed Limitation – High Court’s power to issue certiorari for legality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety – Not barred by statutory remedy if fundamental rights violation or public policy at stake [Paras 7-8].

Building Plan Sanction – Requirement of Registered Agreement – Sanction Plan for Ratan Heights over 86 Kathas – Revision without authority’s approval – False representation in L.S. Case No. 39 of 2009 – Illegal new building plan over 46 Kathas quashed – Violations of FAR and ground coverage norms – Directions for demolition upheld [Paras 10-12, 63-67].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Effect on Legal Proceedings – Orders obtained by fraud – Proceedings in L.S. Case No. 39 of 2009 vitiated – Fraudulent revised map – Reference to “Ram Chandra Singh” and “Lazarus Estates Ltd.” – Fraud unravels all judicial acts [Paras 15, 67].

Common Areas and Facilities – Definition under Jharkhand Apartment Ownership Act – Rights of Flat Owners – Earmarking of 46 Kathas for common facilities – Undivided interest cannot be altered without written consent of all flat owners – Infringement of residents’ rights by unauthorized construction [Paras 12, 63-64].

Demolition and Safety – Imminent Threat to Residents – Structural integrity compromised – Evaluation by Director (Technical), MECON – Directions to demolish unsafe constructions justified – Pre-violation protection under Article 21 [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Writ court’s directions upheld – Sanction plan over 86 Kathas for common facilities maintained – Unauthorized construction over 46 Kathas to be demolished – Landowners and new builder directed to restore area for common use [Paras 16].