Delay in Filing Appeal – Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act – Appeal Dismissed - The appellant, a guarantor for a defaulting loanee, challenged the auction sale of his property. He failed to file an appeal within the prescribed 45 days after being granted liberty by the court to approach the Tribunal. The delay of over five months was not satisfactorily explained – Held: The delay in filing the appeal was unjustified, and the Tribunal and Single Judge rightly rejected the condonation of delay [Paras 17-18].

Condonation of Delay – Casual Approach by Appellant – Rejection Upheld - Despite being informed of the liberty to appeal in 2016, the appellant delayed filing the appeal until mid-2017, citing personal reasons without substantiating the delays. The court found the reasons vague and lacking in material details – Held: The appellant's explanation for delay was unsatisfactory, and no sufficient cause was shown to condone the delay [Paras 4, 17-18].

Auction Sale of Property – Guarantor's Challenge – Appeal Dismissed - The property of the appellant, acting as a guarantor, was auctioned due to the default of the loanee. The appellant failed to take timely steps to challenge the bank's action under the SARFAESI Act. – Held: The appeal lacked merit and was dismissed due to unexplained delay [Paras 2-4].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed.
 

Bail under NDPS Act – No Direct Recovery – The petitioner sought regular bail on the ground that no recovery was made from him and that he was implicated solely based on a disclosure statement by a co-accused – Held: Given the lack of direct recovery and the fact that co-accused in similar circumstances were granted bail, the petitioner was entitled to bail, subject to conditions.

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – The trial has been pending since 2021, with only 6 out of 14 prosecution witnesses examined, and the petitioner has been in custody for over 3 years – Held: Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Court reiterated the principle that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.

Habitual Offender Allegation – The respondent opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s criminal record, including a prior conviction under the NDPS Act – Held: While criminal antecedents are relevant, they do not automatically disqualify the petitioner from bail, especially when no direct recovery is made, and the trial is delayed.

Decision: The bail application is allowed. The petitioner is granted regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The petitioner is directed to comply with all conditions imposed by the court.

Land Acquisition – Continuation of Proceedings under Repealed Act – No Error in Award - The appellants contested the land acquisition proceedings under the repealed Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990, claiming that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 should have applied. The court upheld the validity of the proceedings, stating that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Nisar Ahmed Ganai clarified that the provisions of the 2013 Act do not apply to acquisitions initiated under the 1990 Act. [Paras 9-10].

Per Incuriam Doctrine – Application to Supreme Court Judgment – Not Established - The appellants argued that the judgment in Nisar Ahmed Ganai was per incuriam, as it failed to consider certain provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2019. The court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the Supreme Court had addressed all relevant provisions, and its ruling remained binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. [Paras 10-14].

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court found no merit in the challenge to the writ court's decision. [Para 14].

Arbitration – Extension of Arbitrator's Mandate – Dispute regarding compensation for land acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 – Petitioner challenged the arbitral award from 2018 – Arbitrator's mandate expired due to delay in proceedings without obtaining an extension under Section 29-A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – High Court noted repeated adjournments by the Arbitrator without valid reason – Held: Arbitrator directed to conclude proceedings by 25.03.2025, failing which mandate may be terminated – Petition allowed with directions to expedite the arbitration process [Paras 1-7].

Arbitration Proceedings – Compliance with Statutory Timelines – Court emphasized that statutory timelines under Sections 23(4) and 29-A of the Arbitration Act must be strictly adhered to – Arbitrator had a duty to complete proceedings within the prescribed time, and delays must be justified – Failure to follow the prescribed procedure resulted in the expiration of the Arbitrator's mandate, necessitating judicial intervention to extend the timeline [Paras 5-7].

Extension of Limitation – Supreme Court Precedent – Benefit of exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 due to the COVID-19 pandemic as per the Supreme Court’s direction in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (2022) was applied – This exclusion granted the petitioner additional time to challenge the arbitral award and seek a remedy through the court [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Arbitrator directed to complete proceedings by 25.03.2025 – Court warns Arbitrator of possible termination of mandate if further delays occur – Petition disposed of along with pending applications [Paras 7-9].

Civil Procedure – Appeal Dismissed on Grounds of Limitation – Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioners challenged the dismissal of their appeal, which was filed 8 years and 8 months after the preliminary decree for partition – They argued that they were unaware of their legal rights and alleged fraud on part of the respondents – Held: The petitioners were aware of their legal remedies as they had previously filed applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and objections in the execution proceedings – The plea of fraud was raised for the first time in appeal, and the delay was unjustified – Dismissal of appeal upheld [Paras 6-7].

Fraud Allegation – Raised for the First Time in Appeal – Petitioners argued that the partition decree was obtained by fraud and collusion between the respondents – However, no such plea was raised in their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC or during earlier proceedings – Held: The allegation of fraud was an afterthought and cannot be entertained at this stage [Para 6].

Delay and Laches – Appeal Filed After 8 Years and 8 Months – The appeal was filed with an application for condonation of delay, citing unawareness of legal remedies – Held: The petitioners actively participated in earlier proceedings and were aware of the decrees – The delay in filing the appeal is inordinate and unjustified [Paras 6-7].

Decision: The revision petition is dismissed – The First Appellate Court’s order dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation is upheld – Pending applications, if any, are disposed of [Para 7].

Vicarious Liability – Section 141 of the NI Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition Allowed – The petitioners, wives of the directors of M/s RBT Pvt. Ltd., were summoned for the dishonour of cheques issued by the company. They sought quashing of the complaint on the grounds that they were merely described as managers without any specific averments of their role in the business's functioning. Held: For vicarious liability under Section 141, there must be clear averments regarding the specific role of the accused in the conduct of the company's business. In the absence of such averments, the complaint cannot be sustained. The petitions were allowed, and the summoning orders quashed [Paras 12-15, 19, 21].

Managerial Role – Insufficient Averments – Section 141 NI Act – The court emphasized that a person can only be held liable under Section 141 if they are in charge of and responsible for the company’s business. Merely being named as a manager or being related to the directors is not enough to establish liability. In this case, the complaint did not specify the petitioners' role or involvement in the day-to-day functioning of the company. As such, the complaint lacked sufficient details to invoke vicarious liability [Paras 13, 20-22].

Strict Interpretation of Penal Statutes – Vicarious Liability – The court reiterated the strict construction of penal provisions and vicarious liability under Section 141 of the NI Act. Summoning someone in a criminal case requires a clear link between the accused's actions and the offence. In this case, no direct involvement of the petitioners in the dishonour of cheques was established [Paras 17, 23-25].

Decision:

The petitions were allowed, and the summoning orders dated 26.05.2022 were quashed. The court found that the complaint lacked sufficient allegations to implicate the petitioners under Section 141 of the NI Act. No costs were imposed [Paras 26-28].

Civil Procedure – Application for Rejection of Plaint – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Petitioners (defendants) filed an application seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff (respondent) had not affixed ad valorem court fee on the value of the suit property – The plaintiff sought a declaration that the sale deed and transfer deed executed in favor of the petitioners were null and void due to fraud – Held: The trial court correctly dismissed the application as the plaintiff, being a non-executant of the deed, is not required to affix ad valorem court fee as per the law laid down in Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v. Randhir Singh [2010(12) SCC 112] – Application dismissed [Paras 6-7].

Court Fee – Declaration and Injunction Suits – The plaintiff alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the execution of the sale deed and sought to declare it void – As the plaintiff was not the executant of the sale deed and was in possession of the property, a fixed court fee under Article 17(iii) of the Second Schedule was applicable – Held: The plaintiff is not required to affix ad valorem court fee as she did not seek possession of the property, only a declaration [Paras 6-8].

Fraud Allegation – Non-Executant of Sale Deed – The plaintiff claimed to have paid the sale consideration but the sale deed was executed in the petitioners' name – Held: As a non-executant, the plaintiff is entitled to seek a declaration of nullity without affixing ad valorem court fee, provided she is in possession of the property [Para 7].

Decision:

Revision petition dismissed – The trial court's order dated 24.11.2023 is upheld – The plaintiff is not required to affix ad valorem court fee on the market value of the property – Pending applications, if any, are disposed of [Paras 8-9].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought regular bail for being falsely implicated in the offense of possessing stolen mobile phones – Prosecution alleged that the petitioner was caught near an electricity pole with stolen mobile phones based on a secret informer’s tip – Held: The petitioner has been in custody for over 4 months, and no further recovery is pending – As per the principle of criminal jurisprudence, an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty – Bail granted in light of prolonged detention and unlikelihood of early trial conclusion [Paras 3, 4, 5].

Presumption of Innocence – Article 21 of the Constitution – Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right under Article 21 – Petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a significant period, and delaying bail would violate this constitutional right – Held: Bail should be the rule, and imprisonment the exception, unless there are compelling reasons to deny liberty [Paras 4, 5].

Previous Criminal Record – Relevance to Bail – The State opposed the bail on the ground that the petitioner was involved in nine other criminal cases – Held: Pendency of other cases cannot automatically preclude bail in the present case, as each case must be judged on its merits – The petitioner's criminal history will be considered during the trial, but it cannot be the sole ground to deny bail at this stage [Para 4].

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner to be released on regular bail upon furnishing requisite surety and bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court – The trial court to ensure compliance with bail conditions – Nothing in this judgment should be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case [Para 5].

Education Law – MBBS Admissions – OCI Cardholders' Eligibility – Petitioner, an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI), sought admission under the category reserved for wards of gallantry award recipients – The petitioner was allocated an NRI quota seat but sought admission under the State quota – Held: The petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility requirements under the State quota, as OCI cardholders can only be considered for NRI quota seats as per Clause 17(vi) of the prospectus, and the petitioner failed to challenge this clause earlier [Paras 1.1, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2].

Constitutional Law – Right to Equality – Article 14 – Petitioner argued that OCI cardholders should be treated at par with Indian citizens for State quota seats in medical admissions – Held: Supreme Court decisions and statutory provisions restrict OCI cardholders to NRI seats, and they cannot be treated on par with Indian citizens for admissions under the State quota – The petitioner's reliance on interim Supreme Court orders was found to be misplaced as they only pertain to eligibility for entrance tests, not State quota admissions [Paras 2.3, 3.2, 4.1].

Admissions Process – Failure to Challenge Clause 17(vi) – The petitioner did not challenge the validity of Clause 17(vi) of the prospectus, which restricts OCI cardholders to NRI seats, during the earlier stages of the admission process – Held: The petitioner’s failure to challenge the clause earlier and his subsequent acceptance of an NRI seat negates his current claims for State quota seats, and there is no merit in his petition [Paras 1.5, 3.1].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – The petitioner failed to meet the eligibility criteria for admission under the State quota as an OCI cardholder and did not challenge the relevant clause of the prospectus in time – Clause 17(vi) of the prospectus stands valid [Paras 4.1, 4.2].