Appeal Maintainability – The appeal, filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenges the judgment of a learned single Judge who refused to quash proceedings in C.C. No.290/2022 on jurisdictional grounds, argued through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the CrPC. The Bench examined the maintainability of the appeal based on the prayers and the jurisdiction exercised by the single Judge in the impugned judgment. [Para 1-6]

Jurisdictional Challenge – The appellants contended that the Magistrate Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed, urging for the quashing of all proceedings in the said complaint, arguing the dispute to be of civil nature arising from an agreement, and advocated for the matter to be handled through mediation and arbitration as provided in the agreement. [Para 9]

Section 5 of Kerala High Court Act – Emphasis on the provision which allows an appeal to a Bench of two Judges from a judgment or order of a Single Judge exercising original jurisdiction, with appellants asserting that the learned single Judge failed to exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226. [Para 11-12]

Exercise of Inherent Powers – Discussion on Section 482 of the CrPC, wherein the High Court may exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. The appellants sought the exercise of these inherent powers to quash the criminal case against them. [Para 13-14]

Prayers and Nomenclature – The Supreme Court’s precedent in Pepsi Foods Ltd. And Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others highlighted, indicating that the nomenclature under which a case is filed is irrelevant, and what is pertinent are the prayers made by the petitioners. [Para 16, 24]

Precedents on Appeal Maintainability – Examination of various precedents concerning the maintainability of an appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, distinguishing between the exercise of original jurisdiction and inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 17-23]

Dismissal on Grounds of Maintainability – The appeal was dismissed solely on the grounds of maintainability without delving into the merits of the case, aligning with the precedent set in Abubacker Kunju v. Thulasidas, that no appeal would lie against an order passed by a learned single Judge under Section 482 of the CrPC. [Para 23, 25]

Miscellaneous Appeal – Motor Vehicles Act – Appeal filed by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.) challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favor of injured claimant. [Para 1]

Parties – Respondent No.1 is the injured claimant; Respondent No.2, the driver of the offending bus, not a necessary party. [Para 2]

Issues – Claims Tribunal framed three key issues: 1) Whether injuries were due to rash and negligent driving; 2) Entitlement to compensation; 3) Quantum of relief. [Para 4(b)]

Negligent Driving – Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the bus driver, supported by driver’s own admission in a prior criminal case. [Para 8]

Compensation – Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.6,47,000 as total compensation under various heads including medical expenditure, pain and suffering, and permanent disability. [Para 4(d)]

Permanent Disability – Tribunal granted Rs.1,00,000 for permanent disability despite no certificate from a Medical Board; appellant’s objection overruled given strong medical evidence. [Para 10-12]

Rate of Interest – Claims Tribunal awarded 9% interest per annum; appellant failed to show why this rate was excessive. [Para 14]

Decision – Appeal dismissed; Claims Tribunal’s award of compensation and interest upheld. [Para 15]

Civil Appeal – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Summary Suits – Appeal against Trial Court's judgment and decree awarding ₹16 lakhs to the respondent-plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the CPC – Issue surrounding the service of summons and validity of loan transaction – Trial Court's decree upheld. [Para 1, 8, 13]

Loan Agreement – Financial Transaction – Respondent-plaintiff claimed loan of ₹16 lakhs given to appellant-defendant – Appellant disputes nature of transaction, attributing it to a financial committee both parties participated in – Trial Court decreed in favor of respondent due to unchallenged claims. [Para 2, 5, 6]

Summons – Service and Address Verification – Central issue being whether summons were duly served on appellant-defendant – Trial Court and High Court affirm proper service based on documents showing defendant resided at the address where summons were delivered – Unrebutted evidence weighed against appellant's claims of not residing at the mentioned address. [Para 10-13]

Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the CPC – Maintainability – Appellant's application initially under Order IX Rule 13 – Re-characterized by Trial Court under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the CPC due to relevancy – Application dismissed based on merits and proper service of summons. [Para 6, 7]

Alternative Dispute Resolution – Failed Settlement Attempt – Defendant's expressed interest in settling the matter – No progress made in the settlement, leading to adjudication on merits. [Para 8]

Burden of Proof – Balance of Probabilities – Appellant failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the truth of his claims concerning separate residence and nature of the financial transaction – Multiple documents and lack of rebuttal weighed against appellant. [Para 12, 13]

Consistency in Address – Memo of Parties – Appellant’s address mentioned consistently in legal documents including the memo of parties in the appeal – Undermines appellant's claim of not residing at the given address where summons were served. [Para 13]

Appeal to High Court – Appeal under Rule 3 of the High Court of Meghalaya (Jurisdiction over District Council Courts) Order 2014 and Section 100 CPC against orders from District Council Court regarding an eviction suit concerning a property known as ‘Sweety Studio’ in Shillong. The appeal, initially a Second Appeal, is treated as a Civil Revision Application upon appellant’s request. [Para 1-6]

Maintenance of Status Quo and Restraint Order – Issuance and review of status quo order by the Trial Court, leading to a restraint order against the respondent preventing entry and business operation in the premises until final hearing on injunction. [Para 2-4]

Examination of Impugned Order – Examination of impugned order dated 20.05.2022 by the Lower Appellate Court, with the High Court noting that the main eviction suit was kept in abeyance while miscellaneous proceedings were pursued aggressively. [Para 7-8]

Directions for Restoration of Electricity and Expedited Disposal – Upholding of electricity restoration to the premises, allowing respondent’s business operations during pendency of eviction suit. Direction to the Trial Court for expedited disposal of the main eviction suit, disregarding unrelated findings from the impugned order. [Para 9-9(iii)]

Final Disposal and No Order as to Costs – Final disposal of the Revision Application with no order as to costs, and instructions for immediate transmission of lower court records back. [Para 10-12]

Service Law - Out of Turn Promotion - Discriminatory Denial: Petitioner sought 'Out of Turn Promotion' to the rank of Head Constable based on exemplary service, akin to a colleague who was promoted. Initial denial attributed to a pending criminal case against the petitioner, which was later quashed. Discriminatory denial of promotion, despite parity in service merits with Constable Joginder Singh, observed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 13, 14, 15, 17]

Judicial Precedence - Parity and Discrimination: References to past judgments where 'Out of Turn Promotion' or similar benefits were granted, showcasing courts intervening to rectify discriminatory practices in line with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 12]

Criminal Proceedings - Impact on Promotion: The judgment emphasizes that criminal proceedings against the petitioner initially impeded promotion prospects. However, post-quashing, no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner to deny 'Out of Turn Promotion.' The quashing of proceedings was acknowledged as rendering a person acquitted for all intents and purposes, negating adverse implications on promotion eligibility. [Para 14, 17]

Competent Authority - Reasonable and Fair Consideration: The judgment highlights the mandate of the Competent Authority to act reasonably, fairly, and in the public interest while considering promotion cases. It also underscores the requirement for such considerations to withstand the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14, with the Tribunal/Courts poised for intervention in instances of discernible discrimination. [Para 17]

Decision - Tribunal's Directive - Upheld: The judgment upholds the Tribunal's directive to grant 'Out of Turn Promotion' to the petitioner from the date of filing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as opposed to the date when Constable Joginder Singh was promoted. The court directed implementation within four weeks, dismissing both writ petitions by the petitioner and respondents. [Para 17]

Contempt of Court - Serious allegations of misconduct against a judge, government officials, and institutions - Frivolous and vexatious litigation - Judgment dismissing the writ petitions and imposing costs - Contemnor's vilification of the court, government authorities, and the judiciary - Contempt proceedings initiated. [Para 1-5]

Abuse of Legal Process - Frivolous Litigation - Need to address frivolous litigation and its impact on the judicial system - Imposition of costs as a deterrent against filing unfounded litigation - Balancing the right to access the court with deterring abusive litigation - Court's resolute stance against frivolous litigation. [Para 5-8]

Contempt of Court – Derogatory allegations and disrespectful language used by the Contemnor against the learned Single Bench and the judiciary – Contemnor found guilty of contempt – Sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed – Default in payment of fine to result in an additional 7 days of imprisonment – Contemnor has no remorse for his actions and stands by his allegations. [Para 13-17]

Arrest and Custody – Contemnor directed to be taken into custody immediately by HC Vinod (Naib Court) and handed over to Tihar Jail, Delhi – Arrest and committal warrants to be prepared by the Registry – Contemnor granted permission to go to his hotel to check out before being taken to Tihar Jail. [Para 18-20]

Bail Application – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Seizure of contraband tablets from parcels sent by the applicant – Challenging the seizure and alleging fabrication of secret information – Discrepancies in weight mentioned in invoices and seizure – Doubts raised regarding applicant's presence during the raid – Phone records and employee statements contradicting the prosecution's version – Lack of money trail connecting the applicant to co-accused – Applicant's role portrayed as that of a carrier – Reference to a similar bail order in another case – Lengthy incarceration of the applicant – Satisfactory jail conduct and absence of previous involvement in offenses – Arguments against applicant's guilt and request for regular bail. [Para 10-44]

Lengthy incarceration of the applicant – Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 – Prima facie satisfaction of the court regarding the accused's guilt – Consideration of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Relevant Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of liberty and reasonable satisfaction of the court – applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail in light of undue delay in trial and overcrowded jails. Bail Allowed. [Para 45-57]

Challenge to SARFAESI Proceedings - Petitioner contests proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) initiated by respondent Bank following a default in repayment of loan availed, leading to classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.11.2019. Petitioner’s request for reference to MSME Committee for devising a Corrective Action Plan pursuant to Master Circular No. RBI/2015-16/338 FIDD.MSME & NFS. BC. NO. 21/06.02.31/2015-16 dated on 17.03.2016 denied by respondent Bank. [Para 2]

Petitioner’s Submissions - Contends that:

The respondent Bank should have referred the matter to the MSME Committee for a Corrective Action Plan.

The classification of loan account as NPA without adhering to the mandates in Master Circular is against procedures laid down by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act.

Without following procedures in Master Circular, respondent Bank cannot resort to provisions of SARFAESI Act. [Para 4]

Respondent’s Submissions - Argues that:

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED Act) does not override SARFAESI Act.

Master Circular by RBI in context of MSMED Act does not overshadow legislative mandate in SARFAESI Act.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is unmaintainable as petitioner has alternative remedy. [Para 5]

RBI Circular’s Statutory Force - Petitioner asserts RBI Circulars hold statutory force and are binding on banks, but are only regulatory in nature and cannot affect statutory mandate of SARFAESI Act. [Para 9]

Alternative Remedy & Maintainability of Writ - Court observes SARFAESI Act as a complete code providing effective remedy for persons aggrieved by proceedings initiated under Section 13. Emphasizes the well-established principle of exhausting alternative statutory remedies before invoking jurisdiction under Article 226, except in well-defined exceptions. Finds writ petition unmaintainable as it does not fall within any of the exceptions allowing for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. [Para 10-11]

Judicial Precedent & MSMED Act’s Precedence Over SARFAESI Act - Reference to Kotak Mahindra case where it was held that recoveries under SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets prevail over recoveries under MSMED Act to recover amounts under award/decree passed by Facilitation Council. [Para 8-11]

Interim Bail – Medical Grounds - Petitioner, a 73-year-old individual under judicial custody since 10.09.2023, seeks interim bail for medical examinations and treatment due to deteriorating health conditions including Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy. Petitioner emphasized undertaking necessary medical tests and treatment under the supervision of his personal physician, accentuating the urgency due to existing ailments and new health complications. [Para 1-2, 6-7]

Medical Examination Reports - Series of medical examinations and reports underscored the petitioner’s fragile health condition. The medical reports elucidated a necessity for a range of tests and possible surgeries, including an imminent cataract surgery for the petitioner’s right eye, highlighting the inadequacy of medical supervision and facilities in jail that potentially exacerbate the petitioner’s health. [Para 9-16]

State’s Response to Bail Application - The Respondent-State refuted the claims of severe health deterioration, arguing that the petitioner’s health was being adequately managed within the prison facilities, and contended that no grave chronic ailment was presented. The State emphasized on the gravity of the alleged offenses and the prima facie case against the petitioner, arguing against the grant of interim bail. [Para 3, 8, 16-17]

Judicial Discretion on Humanitarian Grounds - The Court, emphasizing the preservation of human life and the right to receive comprehensive and effective medical care, inclined towards granting interim bail on medical grounds. It was underscored that custody during the investigative phase should not be punitive and individuals with serious health issues should have access to adequate medical treatment. The Court also recognized the petitioner’s significant societal standing and deemed there was no flight risk. [Para 24-29]

Interim Bail Grant - Interim bail granted to the petitioner for four weeks to undergo necessary medical examinations and treatment, subject to certain conditions including furnishing a bail bond, getting examined/treated at a hospital of his choice, and surrendering post the interim bail period. The Court stressed the importance of immediate, effective, and comprehensive treatment for the petitioner, especially regarding the required cataract surgery. [Para 30]