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].

Negotiable Instruments – Section 138 – Quashing of Complaints – Grounds for Quashing – Petitioner contended that the complaints should be quashed due to the absence of partnership deed and authorization, and lack of requisite license under the Money Lenders and Accredited Loan Providers Act – High Court held that authorization and partnership deed issues should be examined during trial, not at the stage of quashing – Complaints not quashed, petitions dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Partnership and Authorization – Prima facie acceptance of authorization for filing complaint – Complaints not quashed solely due to absence of partnership deed or specific authorization documents – Relevant during trial [Paras 7-10].

Money Lenders Act – Registration Requirement – Petitioner’s contention on lack of registration under the Money Lenders and Accredited Loan Providers Act rejected – Nature of financial support not clearly established as a loan – Issue to be examined during trial [Paras 11-13].

Inherent Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Not exercised to quash complaints where facts are disputed and require trial – Importance of trial in establishing material facts and evidence emphasized [Paras 13-14].

Decision:

Petitions dismissed – Complaints and proceedings under Section 138 NI Act allowed to proceed – Issues regarding authorization and registration under Money Lenders Act to be examined during trial.

Arbitration – Extension of Arbitral Tribunal's Mandate –  Arbitration Law – Applications filed under Section 29(A)(4) and Section 29(A)(5) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 – M/s Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and GPT Infraprojects Limited sought extension of arbitral tribunal’s mandate – High Court appointed arbitrators under Section 11 of the Act – Issues related to jurisdiction and conflicting precedents regarding the maintainability of such applications before the High Court or Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction – Previous judgments by Coordinate Benches considered. [Paras 1-4, 6-7]

Judicial Precedents – Conflicting Judgments – Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Supreme Court’s guidance on handling conflicting judgments of Coordinate Benches – Earlier decisions to be followed until overturned or clarified by a Larger Bench – Judgment in Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Limited vs. Manish Engineering Enterprises highlighted as binding precedent – Reference to Larger Bench on related issues. [Paras 8-24]

Decision – Maintainability of Applications under Section 29A – Judgments in Lucknow Agencies and Indian Farmers Fertilizers delineated different factual scenarios – Applications under Section 29A maintainable before High Court when arbitrator appointed under Section 11 by High Court – Earlier judgment in Indian Farmers Fertilizers holds precedence over A’Xykno Capital Services. [Paras 25-33]

Excise Law – Confiscation Order – Seizure of Black Jaggery and Alum – Writ Petition – The petitioner, operating a proprietary business under the name "New Lucky Kirana and General Stores" with valid trade and tax licenses, challenged the confiscation order and seizure of black jaggery and alum by the Excise authorities. The petitioner contended that mere possession or transportation of black jaggery is not an offence under the Telangana Excise Act unless it is proven to be intended for the manufacture of illicit liquor. The Court referred to the Full Bench judgment in Ganesh Traders and other precedents, emphasizing the necessity of a "reason to believe" for such seizures. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 46C of the Act and ordered the release of the seized goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee. [Paras 1-9]

Reason to Believe – Legal Precedents – Compliance with Law – The Court reiterated that Excise authorities must have a reasonable belief that the seized material is intended for illicit liquor production. The petitioner's case highlighted the lack of evidence for such intent, thereby making the confiscation arbitrary. Citing Ganesh Traders and Athukuri Subba Rao, the Court stressed strict compliance with the Excise Act provisions and allowed the petitioner to challenge the confiscation order through appropriate legal channels. [Para 8]

Decision – Appeal and Conditional Release – The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal against the confiscation order and mandated the provisional release of the seized goods upon providing a bank guarantee. This measure ensured compliance with legal procedures while safeguarding the petitioner’s rights. [Para 8-9]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Mandamus – Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Chief Electoral Officer and the Regional Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation for implementing free bus services for voters and increasing the number of polling booths – Respondents opposed the petition stating such directions would contravene Section 123(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and highlighted that the number of polling booths had already been increased from 160 to 195 – Court held that respondents had duly addressed the petitioner's grievances [Paras 2-6].

Election Law – Free Transport for Voters – Supreme Court of India reviewed the petitioner's plea for free bus services on polling day – Found that provision of such services by the State or Public Transport Corporations would violate the express provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 – Court noted that directions for free bus services could not be issued as it would be deemed a corrupt practice under the Act [Paras 3-4].

Enhancement of Polling Booths – Petition also sought an increase in the number of polling booths for elections – Court noted that respondents had already increased the number of polling booths from 160 to 195 based on voter numbers and Deputy Commissioner’s inputs – Court satisfied that this addressed the petitioner's concerns [Para 5-7].

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Held – The writ petition was dismissed as the respondents had adequately addressed the issues raised by the petitioner through objections and an endorsement, meeting the requirements of the election process as per legal provisions [Para 8].

Bail – NDPS Act – Grant of Bail – Petitioners charged with transportation of narcotics – Trial Court had granted bail to similarly placed co-accused – Petitioners alleged to be mere drivers with no previous criminal record – High Court grants bail considering parity and lack of previous criminal involvement [Paras 1-8].

Offence under NDPS Act – Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 8(c) – Petitioners accused of aiding in the transportation of narcotics – Arrest based on credible information and subsequent seizure – High Court observes that severity of charges alone does not preclude bail – Bail granted with conditions to ensure non-interference with investigation [Paras 1-8].

Conditions for Bail – Compliance and Consequences – Petitioners released on personal bond with sureties – Conditions include regular appearance before police and non-interference with the investigation – High Court warns of serious view on any breach leading to potential cancellation of bail [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Criminal petitions allowed – Bail granted to both petitioners with conditions – Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, closed [Paras 8].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – The application for quashing the FIR was based on the grounds that the alleged cause of action occurred at Indore, and the FIR was lodged as a counter-blast to a divorce petition filed by the applicant. The Court held that the existence of a counter-blast motive and the different residence claims did not justify quashing the FIR as these are matters to be examined during the trial. The court cited precedents establishing that the pendency of a civil proceeding does not affect the validity of criminal proceedings [Paras 1-13].

Jurisdiction – FIR Lodgment and Investigation – It was contended that the FIR was lodged at Kareli, District Narsinghpur, where the respondent did not reside. The Court held that the jurisdiction of the FIR lodgment is valid if mental cruelty persists at the parental home, giving the local police jurisdiction to investigate. The presence of financial transactions linked to Kareli also supported jurisdiction [Paras 12-16].

Malafide Intentions – Role of Complainant’s Relatives – The applicants argued that the FIR was lodged maliciously due to the complainant's father's position as a practicing lawyer in Kareli. The Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the status of the complainant's relatives does not invalidate the FIR if it discloses a cognizable offence [Paras 17-20].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Transfer of FIR – The Court stated that if a Police Station lacks territorial jurisdiction, it must transfer the FIR to the appropriate station, but this does not provide grounds to quash the FIR initially lodged [Paras 21-22].

Errors in Framing Charges – Correction Mechanism – The Court addressed an error in naming while framing charges and clarified that such errors could be corrected through an application under Section 216 of the IPC during the trial, not a ground for quashing the charges [Paras 23-25].

Decision: Application dismissed. The Court found no merit in the arguments for quashing the FIR or charges and emphasized that these matters should be addressed during the trial [Paras 27-28].

Redemption of Mortgage – Rights of Legal Heirs – Plaintiffs (Appellants) sought redemption of a mortgage bond dated 13.09.1969 and claimed 2/3^rd share of the property as legal heirs of Abdul Rahim – Trial Court decreed suit in favor of plaintiffs recognizing their share – First Appellate Court reversed the decision, questioning the redemption right post-execution of a sale deed – Second Appeal addressed substantial questions of law regarding res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC – High Court held that principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC do not bar the present suit – Redemption right upheld based on finality of earlier suit’s judgment confirming plaintiffs’ 2/3^rd share [Paras 1-22].

Res Judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC – Previous judgment in Title Suit No. 16 of 1974, which confirmed plaintiffs’ 2/3^rd share and right to redemption, attained finality – High Court emphasized that res judicata and Order II Rule 2 CPC are inapplicable as the cause of action in the present suit (redemption) differs from the earlier declaratory suit [Paras 17-22].

Finality of Earlier Judgment – High Court overturned the First Appellate Court’s decision – Reinstated the Trial Court’s decree favoring the plaintiffs – Confirmed the 2/3^rd share and the right to redeem the mortgaged property, recognizing legal heirs’ rights under Mohammedan Law [Paras 14-16, 20-22].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s decree restored – Plaintiffs entitled to redemption of 2/3^rd share of the suit property.

Pension and Gratuity – Withholding due to Criminal Cases – Petitioner, a former lecturer, sought release of pensionary benefits – Criminal cases pending but no conviction – No departmental proceedings initiated – Held, pendency of criminal cases without conviction is not a ground for withholding pensionary benefits – Cited precedents affirming pension as a right, not bounty – Mandamus issued to release benefits within 12 weeks [Paras 1-17].

Legal Precedent – Right to Pension – Apex Court judgments highlight pension as a property right under Article 300A – D.S. Nakara case underscored pension as deferred salary – Other judgments reinforce that withholding pension/gratuity without statutory provision is impermissible [Paras 9-15].

Decision:

Writ Petition Allowed – Directed respondents to fix the petitioner’s pension considering the 6^th and 7^th pay revisions, and pay the amount of gratuity, leave encashment, and other benefits within 12 weeks from the date of the order [Para 16].