Civil Procedure – Return of Unmarked Documents – Dispute on Impounding Documents for Insufficiency of Stamp Duty and Registration – The petitioner, after the dismissal of her suit for a permanent injunction (O.S.No.181 of 2024), sought the return of unmarked documents which the trial court refused due to insufficiency of stamp duty and lack of registration. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh examined precedents governing the return and impounding of such documents. [Paras 1-3, 18-19].

Legal Principles – Impounding of Documents – Application of Stamp and Registration Acts – The court reviewed various judgments to determine if unmarked, improperly stamped, or unregistered documents could be returned to the parties without impounding. It was concluded that documents not tendered in evidence could not be impounded and should be returned, as their impounding only arises at the stage of marking documents as exhibits during trial. [Paras 5-17].

Decision – Allowing the Civil Revision Petition – Held: The Court directed the return of the documents listed in I.A.No.704 of 2023 to the petitioner, overruling the trial court’s decision. This decision was supported by a conjoint reading of Sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act and relevant case law indicating that the duty to impound arises only when documents are tendered in evidence. [Paras 18-20].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner accused of conspiracy under Sections 341, 307, 120B read with Section 34 IPC – Incident occurred on 11.03.2023 near Saibaba Temple, Anantapuramu, involving physical assault by unidentified assailants – Petitioner’s involvement cited as conspiratorial without direct participation in the assault – Bail granted considering petitioner’s severe physical disability and low likelihood of interfering with the investigation [Para 1-7].

Physical Disability Consideration – Petitioner with 90% disability including impaired mobility and grip – Court considers inability to interfere with investigation due to physical condition – Anticipatory bail granted with conditions of surrender, executing a personal bond, and appearing before the investigation officer as required [Para 7].

Investigation Oversights – Mention of unsubstantiated involvement of petitioner in official remand report noted – Incorrect statements in remand report acknowledged by court without further action on investigating officer – Highlights issues in prosecution’s case against petitioner [Para 6].

Decision: Granting of Anticipatory Bail – Court grants anticipatory bail to petitioner on executing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with two like sureties – Directed to surrender within two weeks and cooperate with ongoing investigation [Para 7-8].

Arbitration Law – Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Dispute over service contract and recovery of dues – High Court dismissed the application for lack of formal notice invoking arbitration – Requirements under the contract for arbitration notice not fulfilled by the applicant [Paras 1, 7-10].

Contractual Obligations – Requirements for initiating arbitration under the contract – Discussion on the necessity of a formal notice as per the contract terms before invoking arbitration – Emphasis on compliance with the contractual procedure for dispute resolution before seeking judicial intervention [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Legal Procedure – Importance of following contractual dispute resolution mechanisms – High Court emphasizes adherence to the precise terms of the contract regarding dispute notices and initiation of arbitration – Application dismissed due to procedural non-compliance by the applicant [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Decision – Dismissal of Arbitration Application – Held – The application for arbitration is dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the procedural requirements stipulated in the contract for initiating arbitration, specifically the absence of a formal notice invoking arbitration clause post-dispute notice period [Para 10].

Contractual Disputes – Withholding of Payment – Dispute arose over withholding of Rs. 1,40,42,000/- payment due to allegations of data breach by the respondent – Appellant cited contractual provisions permitting withholding payment for default – Held, withholding payment pending investigation justified under terms of agreement [Paras 1-7, 10-11].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise in Contractual Matters – High Court emphasized limited scope of writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes – Held, writ jurisdiction not appropriate where arbitration clause exists and parties have alternate remedy – Reference to Apex Court rulings on writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes [Paras 8-9].

Arbitration Clause – Dispute Resolution – Agreement contained arbitration clause for dispute resolution – High Court directed parties to resolve dispute through arbitration, setting aside writ court’s order for immediate payment – Emphasized need for arbitration as per contract terms [Para 11].

Decision: Writ Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Parties directed to resolve dispute through arbitration as per agreement terms – No costs [Para 12].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Validity of Marriage – Appeal challenging the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the respondent – Appellant contended that no marriage took place and that the respondent's claims were fabricated – Respondent provided evidence of marriage through testimonies and documents – Trial court found the marriage to be valid – High Court upheld the Family Court's decision based on consistent and credible evidence supporting the respondent's claims – Appellant's arguments regarding non-maintainability and lack of valid marriage were rejected [Paras 1-40, 100-110].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Allegation of Non-Marriage – Appellant's denial of marriage contradicted by respondent's detailed evidence including marriage certificate, witnesses' testimonies, and photographs – High Court emphasized the importance of examining all evidence in matrimonial disputes – Family Court's reliance on consistent testimonies and documentary evidence deemed appropriate – Appellant's failure to provide credible rebuttal noted [Paras 50-90].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the Family Court, Bhagalpur, affirmed. Appellant directed to restore conjugal rights with the respondent as per the decree.

Eviction under Public Premises Act – Unauthorised Occupation – Prima Facie Satisfaction – The Estate Officer must have prima facie satisfaction that the respondent is in unauthorised occupation before issuing an eviction notice under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises Act – Satisfaction must be based on substantive material – Subsequent notices may waive earlier ones, impacting the basis for the eviction notice – Notice dated 9 February 2001 was found waived due to subsequent notices – Prima facie satisfaction formed on waived notice indicates non-application of mind [Paras 1-19].

Eviction Process – Statutory Compliance – Fairness and Reasonableness – Public authorities must act in public interest and follow principles of natural justice and constitutional fairness – Requirement for eviction under Public Premises Act involves dual-stage satisfaction: preliminary before issuing notice, and final after hearing the occupant – The necessity for eviction must align with constitutional principles and demonstrate bona fide need and fairness [Paras 20-29].

Protection under Maharashtra Rent Control Act – Waiver of Notice – Tenant’s Status – Respondent failed to prove tenancy prior to 1980 to claim protection under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act as interpreted in Suhas H. Pophale’s case – Multiple notices indicated tenancy was treated as subsisting, leading to waiver of earlier notices [Paras 30-31].

Decision: The Civil Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay, setting aside the eviction order of the Estate Officer, is upheld. The Estate Officer’s prima facie satisfaction was found to be based on non-application of mind due to reliance on waived notice. The applicant failed to demonstrate the fairness and reasonableness required for eviction [Paras 32-33].
 

Service Law – Misappropriation and Disciplinary Action – Circular Providing Amnesty – Petitioner challenged the dismissal show cause notice and sought relief under Circular No.1/2017 granting amnesty for certain misdemeanors – Petitioner had a history of misdemeanors, leading to multiple punishments – Court found the circular was misused by employees to evade serious consequences for repeated misconduct – Circular aimed at reform was found to conflict with principles of public accountability and legal discipline [Paras 1-19]. 

Circular No.1/2017 and its Legal Sustainability – The circular allowed bus conductors involved in misdemeanors to avoid dismissal by paying fines – Court deemed it illogical, irrational, and legally unsustainable as it indirectly condoned corruption and lacked a basis in the Discipline and Appeal Rules of MSRTC – Court highlighted the need for legal discipline and public accountability over unchecked amnesty [Paras 20-29]. 

Withdrawal of Circular and Introduction of New Circular – Respondent MSRTC introduced Circular No. X-1 dated 18/04/2024, modifying the previous circular by limiting the amnesty to one or two occasions – Court scrutinized the legality of both circulars and emphasized that any change in punishment procedures must be codified in the Discipline and Appeal Rules to be legally enforceable [Paras 30-43]. 

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court held that the petitioner's reliance on the 2017 circular was untenable and that the modified circular still lacked legal backing in the absence of amendments to the Discipline and Appeal Rules – The MSRTC was directed to enforce disciplinary actions strictly as per the codified rules without undue leniency [Paras 44-47]. 

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – Petitioner seeks review of dismissal order, arguing substantial questions of law were raised but not considered by the court – Review petition examined under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Review permissible on grounds of discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or other sufficient reason [Paras 1-22].

Error Apparent on Face of Record – Definition and Scope – Review jurisdiction confined to patent errors not requiring elaborate argument or reappreciation of evidence – Error must be self-evident and not subject to different interpretations or extensive reasoning – Prior case laws including Parsion Devi and Lily Thomas reiterated [Paras 10-17].

Previous Adjudication – No New Grounds – Petitioner’s arguments largely reiterate points already considered and rejected in the initial appeal – No new evidence or error apparent demonstrated – Review petition found to be an attempt to reargue the case on merits [Paras 19-23].

Judicial Precedents – Analysis and Application – Review jurisdiction principles from Apex Court judgments applied – Review not an appeal in disguise, meant to correct manifest errors only – Precedents from Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon, S. Nagaraj, and others discussed to emphasize limited scope of review [Paras 15-21].

Decision:

Review Petition Dismissed – No grounds for review found within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Original order dated 10.10.2023 upheld, dismissing the appeal for lack of substantial questions of law – Petitioner's arguments considered repetitive and unconvincing [Paras 23-24].

Bail – Cancellation – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondent Indira Kumari @ Tanu secured bail by suppressing material evidence against her, specifically the statements of last seen witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The bail was granted under the false premise that there was no evidence against her. This concealment and misrepresentation amounted to an abuse of judicial process. The court, upon discovering this suppression, recalled the bail order dated 07.03.2024 and directed her arrest. [Paras 1-22]

Principle of Parity – Negative Parity – Bail Application – The co-accused Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj sought bail on the ground of parity with Indira Kumari. The court rejected their bail applications, emphasizing that the principle of parity is based on positive equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality. The court highlighted that parity cannot be claimed when the initial bail was obtained by suppressing material facts. [Paras 23-30]

Decision – Bail Cancelled – Bail Applications Rejected – The bail granted to Indira Kumari on 07.03.2024 was recalled and cancelled. The bail applications of Anuj Pokharna and Rishabh Raj were rejected. Directions were issued for the immediate arrest and detention of Indira Kumari. [Paras 22, 30-31]