Civil Appeal – Partition Suit – Misinterpretation of evidence regarding alleged relinquishment of daughters' share by mother – Appellants are daughters of the defendant, seeking partition and separate possession – Dispute regarding payment of Rs.30,000/- to mother and alleged relinquishment of daughters' share – Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, granting equal rights to daughters in ancestral property – No registered relinquishment deed produced – Mother cannot relinquish minor daughters' share without their consent – Misreading of evidence by lower courts – Second appeal allowed, appellants entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties of the defendant. [Para 14-21]

Criminal Revision Petition – Appeal against judgment of acquittal – State aggrieved by acquittal of the respondent/accused for offences under Sections 504, 324, 498A, and 506 of IPC – Grounds for challenging the acquittal presented – Jurisdictional issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal discussed – State’s appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. held to be not maintainable, as it should have been filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. – Appellate Court’s consideration of the appeal without jurisdiction declared non-est – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed. [Para 1-16]

Writ Petition – Maintainability – Challenge against the impugned order by Indian Oil Corporation Limited – Preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para 2-3]

Legal Remedies and Jurisdiction – The Court establishes that arbitration is not an efficacious remedy for the restoration of a terminated dealership. The writ petition is deemed the appropriate legal forum for the petitioners, especially when the relief sought involves the restoration of the dealership. [Para 23-25, 21]

Termination of Dealership and Procedural History – The petitioners faced multiple rounds of litigation, including arbitration and writ petitions, against the Corporation's termination orders. The Court ultimately quashes the termination orders, citing a lack of substantive reasoning and due process in the Corporation's actions. [Para 22, 26-29, 34-39, 53]

Evidence and Fact-Finding in Tampering Allegations – The Corporation's allegations of tampering with dispensing units are found to be unsubstantiated. The Court notes that no concrete evidence of tampering, such as extra wires or attachments, was presented. The mere presence of marks on the motherboard was deemed insufficient for termination. [Para 34-36, 44-50]

Contractual Obligations and Dealership Agreement – The Court scrutinizes the relevant clauses (16, 44, 58(m)) in the dealership agreement and finds that the petitioners did not violate any of these clauses. The Court also notes that the Corporation did not provide a fitness certificate for the reinstalled dispensing unit, weakening its case against the petitioners. [Para 40-43, 45-47]

Reference to Judicial Precedents – The Court cites a similar case, M/s Modern Service Station Vs. IOC & Others, to bolster its decision in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing the need for substantive reasoning in termination orders. [Para 51]

Detailed Procedural History and Multiple Appeals – The petitioners navigated through arbitration, multiple writ petitions, and appeals. The Court provides a detailed account of this legal journey, leading to the final decision that quashes the Corporation's termination orders. [Para 30-33, 37-39]

Final Decision and Directions – The Court quashes the impugned termination orders dated 03.05.2023 and directs the Corporation to resume the supply to the petitioners' retail outlet within a period of one week from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. [Para 53-55]

Criminal Procedure – Transfer of Sessions Trial

Petitioner seeks to set aside the order transferring Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2020 from 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, NaugachiaSubDivision, Bhagalpur, to 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Para 1]

 Notice and Earlier Orders

The petitioner argues that the case transfer was conducted without providing any notice to him and emphasizes that similar transfer petitions had previously been dismissed by the same court. [Para 2, 3]

 Bar on Jurisdiction – Section 362 of CrPC

Petitioner relies on Supreme Court judgments to assert that the court lacks jurisdiction to review its earlier decisions, pursuant to Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Para 3, 4]

 Maintainability Under Section 407

The Court holds that the petitioner's application, challenging the transfer order under Section 407 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is not maintainable. Alternative remedies are available under different provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Para 12, 13]

 Dismissal- The writ application is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty given to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum for challenging the impugned transfer order. [Para 14, 16]

Anticipatory Bail – Rejection by High CourtThe petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offenses under Section 376 of IPC. The Court observed that the petitioner and the complainant have taken contradictory stances at different stages of the judicial process, thereby manipulating the system. The Court found it inappropriate to grant anticipatory bail in such circumstances. [Para 1, 13, 23, 24]

Victim's Allegations – Sexual Relations on Pretext of MarriageThe victim alleged that the petitioner established physical relations with her on the false promise of marriage. The petitioner initially denied these allegations but later claimed readiness to marry the victim. [Para 3, 4, 12, 13]

Judicial System – Manipulation by PartiesThe Court noted that both the petitioner and the complainant have manipulated the judicial system. The petitioner initially denied the allegations but later claimed willingness to marry the victim. The complainant initially opposed bail but later supported it, claiming readiness for marriage. [Para 15, 16, 17, 19]

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity for TruthThe Court emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to confront the complainant and the accused and ascertain the truth. [Para 23]

Court's Role – Not a Matrimonial FacilitatorThe Court stated that it cannot act as a matrimonial facilitator and should not be used for such purposes. [Para 15, 21]

Dismissal of Bail Application

The Court dismissed the bail application, stating that it was not a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. [Para 24]

Challenged Orders – Petitioner seeks to quash the lower court's dismissal of his complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C., affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge – Orders dated 03.10.2015 and 22.04.2016. [Para 1, 6]

Background Facts – The petitioner had been accused in FIR No. 521 but was subsequently acquitted. He filed a complaint under Section 195 IPC alleging that respondents knowingly provided false evidence. [Para 2-4]

Findings by Lower Courts – Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the complaint, stating there was no specific finding of false evidence provided by the respondents. [Para 5-6]

Arguments Presented – Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents knowingly provided false evidence, thus making them liable for prosecution under Section 195 IPC without the Court's initiating a complaint. [Para 8]

Statutory Provisions – Section 195 Cr.P.C. mandates that proceedings for false evidence can only be initiated by the Court or a subordinate Court. Not maintainable at the instance of a private individual. [Para 10-11]

Final Decision – High Court upheld lower courts' judgments, clarifying that there is no automatic assumption that false evidence was provided simply due to acquittal. Petition dismissed for lack of merit. [Para 12]

Criminal Revision Petition – Discharge Application – Revision petitioner, the 3rd accused, seeks discharge from the case – Offences alleged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code – Petitioner asserts innocence and non-involvement in the case – De facto complainants express no objection to discharging the petitioner – Affidavits affirming petitioner's innocence submitted – Previous attempt through Crl.M.C. No.179/2021 dismissed by the Court – Sessions Court's dismissal of Crl.M.P. No.66/2023 challenged – Alleged mistaken identity and correction acknowledged by de facto complainants – Legal considerations regarding discharge application discussed – Court emphasizes that discharge determination should not be a mini trial – Prima facie case examined – Court satisfied that there is reason to proceed against the accused – Revision petition dismissed – Direction for expeditious disposal of the case due to petitioner's job aspirations. [Para 1-16]

Civil Appeal – Specific Performance – Appellant defendant contesting a suit for specific performance – Sale Agreement executed for purchase of properties – Defendant's contention that Agreement was executed as security for a loan and not with the intent to sell – Lack of readiness and willingness on part of plaintiff – Examination of evidence – Trial Court and Appellate Court erroneously granting specific performance – Courts failed to consider critical aspects such as the Sale Agreement being for a poromboke land without title verification, appellant's filing of a suit for permanent injunction, appellant's refusal to execute Sale Deed on the agreed date, and the plaintiff's delay in filing the suit – Equitable relief of specific performance not available – Judgment and Decree set aside – Appellant directed to return the advance payment of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of Agreement till the date of payment to respondents within six months. [Para 18-33]

Industrial Law - Challenge to Award - Certiorari Jurisdiction - Industrial Dispute - Proof of 240 Days Work - Writ Jurisdiction of High Court – Petition filed under Articles 226/227 challenging the award of Industrial Tribunal rejecting the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement and benefits. Petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence of having worked 240 days in the year preceding termination. High Court held jurisdiction under Article 226/227 to be supervisory, not appellate, and could only interfere to correct errors of law apparent on the face of the record. No error of law found in the Tribunal's decision - Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-17]

Burden of Proof - Continuous Service - Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act - Held: Burden of proof lies on the workman to demonstrate 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding termination. Petitioner’s affidavit alone insufficient without corroborative evidence like employment records or payment vouchers. [Paras 9-10, 12-13]

Exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226/227 - Parameters for Interference - High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226/227 is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction or errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Supervisory jurisdiction does not allow re-appreciation of evidence or questioning factual findings unless based on no evidence or procedural illegality. [Paras 15-16]

Decision - Dismissal of Petition - Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Industrial Tribunal’s decision did not suffer from any error of law or jurisdictional error. The petitioner failed to provide adequate evidence to support his claim of 240 days of continuous service. [Paras 16-17]