Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Suppression of Material Facts – Domestic Violence Proceedings – Overlapping Jurisdiction – Family Court dismissed wife’s maintenance petition solely on the ground that she suppressed the fact of receiving interim maintenance under the DV Act – High Court held that mere non-production of interim maintenance order cannot result in outright dismissal of a petition filed under beneficial legislation – At the highest, such conduct may invite costs but not rejection of claim [Paras 8–16].

Maintenance under Multiple Statutes – No Bar – Adjustment or Set-off – Wife is legally entitled to seek maintenance under different enactments such as Section 125 CrPC, DV Act and HMA – Law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha mandates disclosure and adjustment of amounts awarded in earlier proceedings – Held: Family Court erred in treating the filing of successive proceedings as impermissible [Paras 12–15, 22–27].

Duty of Court – Consideration of Evidence – Failure of Husband to Lead Evidence – Respondent-husband neither entered the witness box nor adduced evidence to establish wife’s independent income or inability to maintain her – Family Court failed to consider settled principle that an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of maintaining his wife – Findings held to be contrary to law [Paras 17–21].

Beneficial Legislation – Approach of Court – Maintenance provisions are social justice measures – Courts must adopt a pragmatic and humane approach rather than hyper-technical view – Non-disclosure of interim maintenance order should not defeat substantive rights of a deserted wife [Paras 15–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Improper Exercise by Family Court – Family Court gave undue weight to alleged suppression and failed to adjudicate entitlement and quantum of maintenance on merits – Such approach warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 28–29].

Decision – Revision application allowed – Impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for fresh consideration on merits with direction to adjust maintenance already granted in DV proceedings – Proceedings to be completed within stipulated time [Paras 29–31].

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Section 304B IPC – Conviction of Husband Affirmed – Appellant Vikas Kumar’s wife committed suicide within seven years of marriage – Consistent evidence from parents and corroborative suicide note established that Vikas repeatedly made dowry demands for a Santro car and ₹3–4 lakhs, tying resumption of cohabitation to fulfilment of such demands – Suicide note and diary entries corroborated emotional abandonment and dowry-linked pressure – Held: Prosecution established cruelty “soon before her death” and foundational facts under Section 304B IPC – Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act attracted – Defence failed to rebut the presumption [Paras 16–49]

Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Section 498A IPC – Mental and Physical Cruelty – Marriage described by deceased as “only a label” due to husband’s alleged extramarital affair – Combined with evidence of beatings and economic pressure regarding dowry demands – Held: Pattern of rejection, emotional neglect, and conditional abandonment over time constituted cruelty within meaning of Section 498A – Conviction sustained [Paras 50–53]

Criminal Law – Acquittal of In-Laws – Section 304B/498A IPC – No Specific Role or Evidence – Allegations against husband’s elder brother and sister-in-law were vague, general, and uncorroborated – Visit of 10th June 2005, the only proximate event alleged, found to be a later improvement not mentioned in earliest statements – Suicide note contained only omnibus references to “in-laws” without specific attribution – Held: Prosecution failed to prove foundational facts necessary to attract presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act – Conviction of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita under Sections 304B/498A IPC set aside [Paras 54–64]

Criminal Procedure – Presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act – Application Only to Specific Accused – Court reiterated that presumption under Section 113B arises only when cruelty or harassment is proved “soon before death” – Cannot be extended to collateral relatives in absence of specific, proximate evidence – Over-implication of family members cautioned against – Presumption not attracted in case of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita [Paras 55–59]

Decision: Appeal of Yogesh Kumar and Swati @ Savita allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 304B/498A/34 IPC set aside – Acquitted of all charges – Appeal of Vikas Kumar dismissed – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC affirmed – Directed to surrender forthwith [Paras 65–67]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – “Account Blocked” – Cheques issued by petitioners after Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) had commenced and company accounts taken over by IRP – Cheques returned with remark “ACCOUNT BLOCKED” – Held: Dishonour due to account block caused by statutory moratorium under IBC does not amount to dishonour for insufficiency of funds – Essential ingredients under Section 138 NI Act not met – Offence not made out [Paras 70, 74–79, 81].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code – Moratorium – Effect on Prosecution – Moratorium declared under Section 14 IBC in April 2019 – Liquidator appointed in December 2019 – Cheques dated September 2020 dishonoured in October 2020 – Held: Directors had lost control over company accounts – No valid authority to issue cheques – Vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act cannot be imposed where principal offence under Section 138 is not made out [Paras 66–68, 71].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Proceedings – Continuation of proceedings against directors where company is under liquidation – Held: Cheques issued post-moratorium and account dishonour due to statutory prohibition – Complaint and summoning order not sustainable – Proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 72–73, 82].

Decision: All three complaints under Section 138 NI Act and summoning orders dated 19.01.2021 (CC No. 90/2021), 21.01.2021 (CC No. 113/2021), and 22.01.2021 (CC No. 117/2021) are quashed – Proceedings against petitioners are untenable as offence under Section 138 is not made out due to “Account Blocked” status caused by CIRP and liquidation process – Petitions allowed.

Criminal Law – Revision – Interlocutory vs Intermediate Orders – Petitioner sought direction for registration of FIR alleging conspiracy and murder of son – Magistrate rejected application under Section 156(3) CrPC holding that court itself could inquire into complaint – Revisional Court dismissed revision on ground that order was interlocutory – Held: Order rejecting application under Section 156(3) CrPC is not purely interlocutory as it affects valuable rights of complainant – Revision maintainable under Section 397 CrPC – Matter remanded for fresh decision [Paras 1-4, 13-23]

Police Investigation – Role of Magistrate – Complaint disclosed cognizable offence and warranted police investigation – Mens rea, conspiracy, and alleged tampering of evidence required custodial interrogation and collection of evidence by police – Magistrate erred in refusing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC – Observed: In serious matters involving murder, procedural powers must be exercised to advance justice [Paras 7-10]

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Sessions Court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing revision mechanically without examining nature of impugned order – High Court exercised inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside the order and restore revision – Clarified that no opinion on merits of complaint was expressed [Paras 21-23]

Decision: Petition allowed – Order of Sessions Judge dated 09.08.2021 set aside – Criminal revision restored for decision on merits – No opinion expressed on merits of complaint [Paras 23-24]

Public Procurement – Bid Submission Failure – Display of Incomplete Bids – Rule 19 KTPP Rules – Re-submission Attempt After Corrigendum – Petitioner submitted bids on 25.09.2024 and re-submitted revised bids on 27.09.2024 – Cancelled bids again on 30.09.2024 intending to upload final corrections, but failed to re-submit before deadline (17:30 hrs, 30.09.2024) – Alleged non-compliance with Rule 19 in not showing bids as “DRAFT” – Held: Petitioner’s cancelled bids were correctly shown as “DRAFTS” on the portal – No procedural impropriety found – Incomplete bids rightly excluded from evaluation [Paras 11.1–11.5]

Judicial Review – Procedural Irregularity – Locus After Dismissal of Earlier Petition – Abuse of Process – Petitioner previously challenged corrigendum and failed – Present petitions relate to alleged exclusion of bids due to portal failure – Held: Issue of bid status as DRAFT not considered earlier – Petitioner has locus – However, failure to upload revised bids before deadline is attributable to petitioner’s own conduct – No relief warranted [Paras 10.1–10.4, 11.6]

Tender Law – Onus on Bidder – Last Date and Time Compliance – Rule 15(4)(b) – Statutory obligation lies on tenderers to ensure bid submission within time – System required bid cancellation before corrections, which petitioner failed to re-submit – Held: Bid remained incomplete – Incomplete bid cannot be considered for evaluation [Para 11.6]

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – No violation of Rule 19 of KTPP Rules found – Petitioner failed to re-submit corrected bids before cut-off – Bids remained incomplete (DRAFT) and were validly excluded – No costs.

Arbitration – Execution of Award – Interest for Period of Deposit in Court – Conflicting Orders – Decree Holders in separate proceedings claimed interest from the date of deposit by Judgment Debtors till actual withdrawal – In one case, interest allowed; in the other, denied – Held: Both appeals relate to execution of awards and do not fall within appealable orders under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act [Paras 1–18, 31].

Appeal – Maintainability – Section 13 Commercial Courts Act – Scope – Appeals arising out of orders passed in execution proceedings – Held: Section 13(1) read with its proviso restricts appeals only to orders enumerated under Order XLIII CPC or Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Orders not falling within Rule 1(j) or 1(ja) of Order XLIII CPC are not appealable – Present appeals not maintainable under Commercial Courts Act [Paras 24–34].

Interpretation – Effect of Non-Obstante Clause – Sections 13(2) & 21 Commercial Courts Act – Held: These provisions override any contrary remedy or jurisdiction under any other law, including Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Even if appeal may lie under Delhi High Court Act, it is barred by Commercial Courts Act unless permitted expressly [Paras 42–47].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court & Division Bench Judgments – Held: View in Kandla Export Corporation binding – Only those orders in execution which are listed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC are appealable – Other Division Bench judgments of Delhi and Bombay High Courts affirm same view – Earlier contrary decisions doubted or distinguished [Paras 32–40].

Statutory Right to Appeal – Nature and Scope – Held: Right of appeal is statutory and not inherent – If the statute does not provide for appeal, remedy cannot be inferred merely because party is aggrieved – Legislative intent of finality and speedy disposal of commercial disputes must be respected [Paras 35, 37, 41].

Decision: Both appeals held not maintainable either under Section 13 of Commercial Courts Act or under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Dismissed with no order as to costs – Pending applications also dismissed [Paras 48–49].

Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments – Dishonour of Cheques – Legally Enforceable Liability – Appellant convicted under Section 138 NI Act for dishonour of five cheques aggregating Rs.1,41,000/- issued towards commercial dues – Trial Court sentenced appellant to six months RI with fine – Appellant remained untraceable for over two decades – Counsel appointed through DHCLSC and Amicus Curiae for respondent due to non-appearance [Paras 1-4]

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Once cheque issuance and dishonour established, presumption of legal liability arises – Appellant’s defence that cheques were issued blank and no goods were supplied found unsubstantiated – Statement of account and bill proved by complainant – Evidence of bank officials confirmed dishonour due to insufficient funds and stop payment instructions – Appellant’s own Section 313 CrPC statement admitted stop payment and withdrawal of funds – Held: Defence failed to rebut statutory presumption under Section 139 [Paras 5-18]

Sentence – Mitigating Circumstances – Appellant aged over 83 years – Appeal pending for over 20 years – Already undergone 5 months in custody – Held: Conviction under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Sentence modified to period already undergone in light of mitigating factors and Section 138’s allowance of fine or sentence or both – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Conviction affirmed – Sentence reduced to period already undergone – Bail bonds and sureties discharged – Appeal disposed of [Paras 22-24]

Bail – Medical Grounds – UAPA Offences – Statutory Embargo under Section 43-D(5) – Appellant aged 77 sought bail citing multiple ailments including cardiac disease, pacemaker implantation, urological, ophthalmic and neurological conditions – Held: Bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where medical condition cannot be adequately treated in custody – Mere multiplicity of ailments or frequent hospital visits insufficient [Paras 17–22, 37].

Terrorism Offences – Murder of Advocate – Alleged Conspiracy with Terrorist Outfit – Influence of Accused – Investigation Transferred to SIA and Trial Shifted from Srinagar to Jammu due to threat perception – Held: Appellant’s influence and possibility of hampering free and fair trial weighs heavily against grant of bail [Paras 3–6, 23–24, 38].

Medical Treatment in Custody – Adequacy of Facilities – Pacemaker Implanted During Incarceration – Regular Follow-up with Multiple Specialties – Latest Medical Report Showing Stable Condition – Held: Record demonstrates that jail and State authorities have provided advanced and specialized medical care as and when required – No material to show inability of authorities to manage health condition [Paras 18–21, 33–35].

Palliative Care – Scope – Whether Independent Ground for Bail – Held: Palliative care is not an independent ground overriding medical grounds – Once bail on medical grounds is declined, plea for palliative care must also fail [Para 36].

Balancing Individual Liberty and Societal Interest – Article 21 – Right to Health vis-à-vis Right to Fair Trial – Held: In serious terrorism-related offences, Court must harmonize personal liberty with societal interest and right to free and fair trial – Enlargement on bail at this stage would prejudice prosecution and witnesses [Paras 24, 34, 38].

Precedents on Medical Bail – Distinguishable on Facts – Reliance on Manish Sisodia, Shoma Kanti Sen, Jalaluddin Khan, Varavara Rao and Others – Held: Judgments relied upon turned on distinct factual foundations including absence of prima facie case or lack of medical facilities – Not applicable where adequate treatment is being provided and prima facie case exists [Paras 25–32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of trial court rejecting bail on medical grounds upheld – No illegality or perversity found – Bail declined [Para 39].

Succession Law – Conflicting Wills – Probate – Registered Will vs. Unregistered Will – Two first appeals arising from a common judgment rejecting probate of unregistered Will dated 25.5.2002 and granting probate for registered Will dated 20.9.1996 – Trial Court held registered Will valid and subsequent Will fabricated – Held: Second Will surrounded by suspicious circumstances, not proved in accordance with law, and judicial conscience not satisfied – Appeals dismissed [Paras 20, 56–72].

Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Burden of Proof – Later unregistered Will alleged to revoke earlier registered Will – Propounder took active role in preparation – Contradictions regarding place of execution – Delay and non-disclosure in mutation proceedings – Held: Suspicion surrounding execution of later Will not dispelled – Principles in Venkatachala Iyengar, Shivakumar, and Shashi Kumar Banerjee followed – Will rejected [Paras 49–53, 56–72].

Proof of Will – Attesting Witness – Credibility – DW-2 attesting witness admitted affidavit was not prepared on his instructions and he did not know contents – Found to be a beneficiary’s associate – Held: Witness unreliable – No credible attestation of Will dated 25.5.2002 – Will not proved under Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act [Paras 66–68].

Mutation Proceedings – Non-disclosure of Will – Inference of Fabrication – Mutation application filed after death of testator based on inheritance, with no mention of alleged Will – Drafted by same advocate who allegedly prepared Will – Held: Conduct casts serious doubt on existence and genuineness of Will – Indicates Will was fabricated later to defeat probate of earlier Will [Paras 63–65].

Will – Revocation of Earlier Will – Reason Unconvincing – No Evidence of Fraud – Alleged revocation of earlier Will based on claim of fraud – No supporting evidence adduced – Testator was aged and bedridden, looked after by original beneficiaries – Held: Stated reason for revocation not credible – Revocation plea rejected [Paras 69–70].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Probate of unregistered Will dated 25.5.2002 rightly denied – Probate of registered Will dated 20.9.1996 upheld – Trial Court’s judgment affirmed [Paras 73–75].