Writ of Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Non-consideration of Representation – Violation of Article 22(5) – Detention confirmed under Section 9(f) of the PIT NDPS Act – Petitioner contended that representation dated 08.02.2025 was not considered independently by State Government – Court found no mention of such consideration in confirmation order (Annexure-B) or related files – Held: Representation must be considered independently of Advisory Board opinion – Failure to do so violates constitutional mandate under Article 22(5) – Detention vitiated [Paras 11–16, 19]

Detention – Right to Representation to Central Government – Detenue not informed of right to make representation to Central Government under Section 12(1)(b) of the PIT NDPS Act – Held: Obligation exists under Article 22(5) to inform detenue of such right – Failure to communicate this vitiates the order – Supported by SC ruling in Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India [(1995) 4 SCC 51] [Paras 20–22]

Preventive Detention – Independent Application of Mind – Confirmation order (Annexure-B) merely reproduced draft order based on Advisory Board report – No independent examination of detenue’s representation found in file – Held: Confirmation must reflect independent reasoning by competent authority – Mechanistic approval insufficient – Quashed [Paras 15–16]

NDPS Offences – Habitual Offender Allegation – Detenue had 12 prior NDPS cases, several pending trial – Alleged to be involved in organized trafficking from Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh – Court held such allegations, though serious, do not override procedural safeguards under Constitution – Preventive detention must satisfy strict compliance with statutory and constitutional mandates [Paras 2–5, 23]

Decision – Detention order dated 27.12.2024 and confirmation order dated 20.03.2025 quashed – Writ petition allowed – Operative portion to be communicated to prison authorities immediately [Para 23]

Family Law – Divorce Proceedings – Jurisdiction – Overseas Citizens – F.C.O.P. filed by respondent-husband in India seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty – Petitioner-wife contended both parties are US citizens and have only temporarily resided in India – High Court held: Citizenship alone does not bar filing of matrimonial proceedings in India – If parties last resided together within Indian court’s territorial limits and cause of action arose therein, jurisdiction can be invoked – Dismissal of Order VII Rule 11 petition upheld [Paras 3–4, 11–13].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Cause of Action – Allegation that petition creates an illusory cause of action due to pending divorce and custody cases in the USA – Held: Marital discord and cruelty allegations constituted sufficient cause of action – Whether jurisdiction exists is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial – No ground to reject F.C.O.P. at threshold stage [Paras 7, 9–10].

Matrimonial Law – Parallel Proceedings Abroad – F.C.O.P. filed in India prior to initiation of proceedings in Utah, USA – Petitioner's argument of forum shopping rejected – Trial court not barred from adjudicating merely due to overseas proceedings initiated later – Petition dismissed [Paras 4, 8, 13].

Procedure – Jurisdiction Challenge – Determination of Residency – OCI Card Holders – Evidence Required – High Court held that questions regarding citizenship, domicile, and last place of residence are factual and cannot be resolved at stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial court must proceed with trial to determine such issues [Paras 12–13].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Trial court’s order refusing to reject F.C.O.P. confirmed – No order as to costs.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Validity of Statutory Notice – Appellant alleged that respondent borrowed ₹2,00,000 and issued cheque dated 30.03.2007 – Cheque dishonoured on 03.04.2007 for insufficient funds – Statutory notice sent on 13.04.2007 returned on 18.04.2007 as “not claimed” – Trial Court dismissed complaint on ground that notice was incorrectly addressed – On appeal, High Court upheld acquittal holding that notice (Ex.P3) and postal cover (Ex.P5) contained material correction in respondent’s name, originally written as “Thangarajan” instead of “Thiyagarajan” – Evidence of Postman (D.W.1) and Postal Officer (D.W.2) corroborated the error – Held: Mandatory requirement of proper service under Section 138(b) N.I. Act not complied with – Acquittal justified [Paras 3–6]

Presumption under Section 139 – Cheque not denied – Respondent claimed it was given as security during financial dealings between fathers of both parties – High Court held that presumption under Section 139 does not arise automatically where statutory notice was not properly served – Burden of proving service not discharged by complainant – No interference warranted with trial court's finding [Paras 4–5]

Evidence – Postal Records and Witness Testimony – Postal receipt (Ex.P4) and returned cover (Ex.P5) bore serial no. 5558 – D.W.1 (Postman) and D.W.2 (Postal Officer) confirmed letter was originally addressed to “Thangarajan” – Correction made later – Endorsements on postal cover supported this – Court accepted their testimonies and postal records (Ex.D1 & Ex.D2) – Held: Trial court rightly found that notice not delivered due to incorrect addressing [Paras 3–6]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode in C.C. No. 158 of 2011 upheld – No grounds to interfere with findings [Para 7]

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case – Allegation of ₹10 lakh bribe involving public servant – Cash recovered from Petitioner’s vehicle – Petitioner not named in FIR but added during investigation – Held: FIR discloses cognizable offence and prima facie material exists – Investigation at nascent stage – No grounds for quashing at this stage [Paras 1, 8-9, 15-17]

Prevention of Corruption Act – Role of Private Individual – Petitioner argued as being outside scope of PC Act as he is not a public servant – Court held: PC Act extends to private persons who abet, conspire or facilitate corruption involving public servants – Involvement of Petitioner cannot be ruled out at this stage [Paras 6(j), 14-15]

Criminal Procedure – Stage of Investigation – Court reiterated that investigation is executive function – Judicial interference limited unless FIR is patently illegal or lacks ingredients of offence – Presence of Rs.10 lakh cash in Petitioner’s vehicle sufficient to continue probe – Court refuses to halt investigation [Paras 11-13, 15-16]

Evidence – Recovery of Bribe Money – Petitioner claimed absence of delivery details and improper Memo procedure – Court observed that ₹10 lakh recovered from Petitioner’s car and FIR discloses sequence of events justifying investigation – Alleged irregularities can be examined after charge-sheet or during trial [Paras 6(g)-(h), 15-16]

Constitution – Article 20(3) – Right Against Self-Incrimination – Demand for mobile phone passwords by CBI – Petitioner claimed violation – Court noted CBI’s position that password is a means of access and not testimonial evidence – Issue kept open for future examination [Paras 6(m), 7(h)]

Decision: CRLMC petitions dismissed – FIR and investigation not quashed – Liberty granted to petitioners to approach court after filing of final report or charge-sheet, if aggrieved – No interference warranted at current stage [Paras 17]

Tenancy Law – Eviction – Default in Rent Payment – Concurrent Finding of Default – Defendant tenant failed to prove payment of rent for April, May, and July 2010 despite claim of postal delivery of cheques and court deposit – Courts below found the tenant in default based on unrefuted evidence and absence of cross-examination of landlord’s witnesses – Tenant’s plea of enhanced rent being exorbitant and landlord’s refusal to accept rent found insufficient without resort to fair rent proceedings under Rent Control Act [Paras 18, 22, 28].

Tenancy Law – Bonafide Requirement – Commercial Premises – Landlord proved requirement of premises for automobile dealership of wife and son – Evidence adduced through Exhibits 6 & 7 accepted – Courts below held landlord best judge of suitability of premises – Tenant’s objection regarding lack of issue framing on bonafide need rejected as requirement pleaded and established [Paras 20, 24, 29].

Civil Procedure – Ex-parte Proceedings – Effect of Non-appearance of Substituted Defendants – Legal heirs of original tenant failed to appear and contest post-substitution – Trial proceeded ex parte – Courts drew adverse inference due to absence of evidence rebutting plaintiff’s case – Held: Mere pleadings without proof insufficient – adverse inference justified under Section 114, Evidence Act [Paras 16-17, 28.1, 30].

Compensation – Unauthorized Occupation – Trial Court awarded Rs. 2000/- per day – Appellate Court reduced to Rs. 500/- per day citing it was ‘high in degree’ – High Court held though brief, appellate court assigned a valid reason and interference not warranted in revisional jurisdiction [Paras 33-34].

Subsequent Events – Land Acquisition by Government – Notification dated 28.05.2025 issued for acquisition of suit premises – Held: Decree passed much earlier on 05.12.2020 (Trial Court) and 07.11.2022 (Appellate Court) – Subsequent acquisition does not invalidate earlier judgments – No retrospective application of notification – Tenant’s argument on loss of landlord-tenant relationship post-notification rejected [Paras 27, 31].

Arbitration Clause – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Clause 7 of original agreement provided for arbitration – Tenant raised objection under Section 8 of Arbitration Act – Held: Not raised at the appropriate stage or properly pursued – Civil court’s jurisdiction upheld in light of parties’ conduct and non-invocation of arbitration mechanism [Implicitly considered – Para 7].

Decision: Both Civil Revision Petitions dismissed – Eviction, arrears of rent, and compensation at the reduced rate of Rs. 500/- per day upheld – Subsequent land acquisition has no bearing on decree validity – No costs awarded [Paras 36–38].

Maintenance – Disclosure of Income – Remand Ordered – Wife claimed past and future maintenance without properly disclosing her employment and income – Trial court awarded maintenance of ₹2,88,000 to wife and ₹1,44,000 to child with future monthly maintenance of ₹8,000 and ₹4,000 respectively – High Court noted suppression of employment and salary of ₹13,500/month from AWH College – Held: Orders granting maintenance to wife set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication by Family Court after permitting both parties to adduce evidence afresh [Paras 14–17, 19].

Dowry & Return of Gold Ornaments – Proof of Ownership and Custody – Wife claimed 200 sovereigns of gold – Court found she failed to prove full claim but accepted 60 sovereigns based on photographic evidence (Ext.A1) and gold shop estimate (Ext.A2) issued in her father’s name prior to marriage – Respondent's inconsistent claims and failure to produce bank records undermined his case – Held: Wife entitled to recover 60 sovereigns or their market value [Paras 7–12, 19].

Divorce – Cruelty – Validity of Decree – Trial court granted divorce to wife on grounds of cruelty and dismissed husband’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights – No appeal filed against this part – Held: Divorce decree stands unchallenged and final [Para 6].

Interim Maintenance – Continuation During Remand – Considering the wife’s low income and time elapsed, interim maintenance of ₹8,000/month directed to continue until final disposal – Amount already withdrawn from earlier deposit allowed to be retained by wife [Paras 18–19].

Decision:

Mat.Appeal No.1174/2017 partly allowed – Wife entitled to 60 sovereigns of gold or market value.

Mat.Appeal No.1215/2017 and R.P.(FC) No.518/2017 allowed – Orders relating to wife’s maintenance set aside – Case remanded to Family Court.

Mat.Appeal No.1173/2017 and R.P.(FC) No.608/2017 disposed of accordingly.

Motor Accident Claim – Insurance Liability – Validity of Cover Note – Insurer challenged award on ground that no policy was issued pursuant to the cover note – Tribunal held that insurer failed to cancel the cover note or notify the authority as required under Section 147(5) – Held: A cover note has the same legal effect as a policy unless cancelled – Insurer liable to pay compensation [Paras 10-12.5, 23-24]

Rash and Negligent Driving – Factual Finding – Auto Rickshaw ran over claimant’s leg after she fell from vehicle due to rash driving – Tribunal found accident was caused by rash and negligent driving – No challenge to this finding in appeal – Held: Tribunal’s conclusion on negligence remains unassailed and binding [Paras 13, 13.1]

Quantum of Compensation – Routine Injury – Compensation of ₹1,10,600 awarded under heads of medical expenses, incidental costs, and pain and suffering – Tribunal rightly did not award under other heads due to lack of proof of hospitalization or income loss – Held: Assessment reasonable and does not warrant interference [Paras 16, 16.1, 17-19]

Interest on Compensation – Rate Enhanced – Tribunal awarded interest @6% p.a. from date of cross-examination – Court enhanced interest rate to 9% per annum in view of settled precedents and long pendency of claim – Held: Enhanced interest justified [Paras 20-21]

Burden of Proof – Insurance Policy – Insurer claimed no policy issued by Ahmedabad Division – However, failed to deny issuance of cover note or produce evidence of its cancellation – Tribunal rightly rejected insurer’s plea – Held: Burden was on insurer to disprove liability once cover note admitted and not cancelled [Paras 10-12.5, 22.2]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Compensation of ₹1,10,600 upheld – Rate of interest modified from 6% to 9% per annum – Appellant directed to deposit amount within 30 days – No costs awarded.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Confessional Statements under Section 67 – Petitioner accused of being recipient of large consignment of drugs intercepted by NCB – Bail initially denied during investigation – Post-filing of complaint, petitioner seeks bail citing lack of admissible evidence – Prosecution relies on statements recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act and Call Data Records (CDRs) – Held: As per Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, confessional statements under Section 67 made before NCB officials are inadmissible in evidence – Statements of petitioner and co-accused Zahoor Ahmad Shah cannot be relied upon [Paras 13–14].

Evidence – Call Detail Records – Probative Value – CDRs showed that petitioner was in touch with co-accused before drug seizure – No voice recordings or direct link to seized contraband – Held: Mere existence of CDRs without corroborative material not sufficient to establish prima facie guilt in absence of admissible confession – Petitioner entitled to benefit of doubt at bail stage [Paras 15–16].

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Conditions for Bail – Commercial quantity involved invokes bar under Section 37 – Court finds no prior criminal antecedents and no risk of reoffending – Held: Reasonable grounds exist to believe petitioner is not guilty of the offence and unlikely to commit similar offence on bail – Section 37 conditions satisfied [Paras 12–17].

Bail Conditions – Safeguards – Bail granted on condition of two solvent sureties, regular appearance before trial court, non-interference with witnesses, non-indulgence in similar offences, surrender of passport, and restriction on leaving Union Territory without permission [Para 18].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner admitted to bail subject to conditions – Petition disposed of – Observations made in order not to influence trial on merits [Paras 18–20].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Section 37 Bar – Petitioner arrested with 150 bottles of Codeine-based syrup and found in possession of multiple contrabands at co-accused’s premises – Statement under Section 67 NDPS Act reveals trafficking and delivery role – Trial court framed charges under Sections 8, 8-A, 21(c), 22, 27-A, 29 NDPS Act – Petitioner contended low Codeine content, but Court held cumulative quantity recovered from all accused relevant due to conspiracy under Section 29 – Held: Prima facie material supports charges – No reasonable grounds to believe petitioner not guilty – Bail rejected [Paras 14–21]

NDPS Act – Section 27-A – Financing Illicit Trafficking – Petitioner charged with facilitating supply chain – Evidence includes co-accused statements, mobile records, and possession of commercial quantities – Held: Offence under Section 27-A attracts statutory bar under Section 37 – No case made out to overcome the twin conditions – Bail refused [Paras 18–21]

Codeine Content – Manufactured Drug – Petitioner argued that recovered Codeine content was below 2.5% and outside NDPS definition – Court held such argument irrelevant in light of Section 29 conspiracy and joint recovery principles – Commercial quantity proven even excluding petitioner’s personal seizure – Court declined to enter academic debate at bail stage [Paras 15, 20]

Prolonged Incarceration – Not Ground for Bail – Petitioner in custody for over a year – Trial at nascent stage – Court held mere long detention not sufficient for bail in serious NDPS offences involving commercial quantity and financing – Trial court directed to expedite proceedings [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court held bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act is attracted – Petitioner failed to establish reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty – Trial court directed to expedite trial.