Coercive Recovery Proceedings by Bank - Kerala Bank initiated coercive proceedings for recovery of financial advance from the petitioner invoking the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Petitioner challenged the proceedings due to inability to repay due to COVID-19 pandemic. [Para 1]

Financial Transactions and Default - Petitioner received various loans from the Bank between 2011 and 2022 - Default in repayment due to COVID-19 - Petitioner sought to repay overdue amounts in monthly instalments, but the Bank commenced coercive recovery. [Paras 2, 3, 5]

Bank's Stance and Legal Position - Bank denied petitioner's claims - Stated petitioner defaulted deliberately and did not provide any legal basis to stop coercive proceedings - Bank open to allowing repayment if substantial payment made soon. [Paras 5, 6, 7]

Court's Observation and Directions - Court noted petitioner's initial regular repayments and subsequent default due to uncontrollable circumstances - Directed the petitioner to clear dues in 10 monthly instalments, starting 19.02.2024, along with current EMIs - Failure to comply will allow the Bank to proceed with coercive actions. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11]

Quashing – PC Act - Tender Process and Alleged Misconduct – Petitioners, officials in port management, involved in tender process for manual dredging and sale of port sand in Kasaragod district – Alleged preferential treatment to unqualified co-operative societies – Allegations of criminal misconduct and conspiracy [Paras 2-3, 7, 22, 24-25].

Submission by Petitioners – Challenging the basis of allegations – No evidence of obtaining pecuniary advantage or causing loss to the government – Argued irregularities in the tender process do not constitute criminal misconduct [Paras 5.1-5.5].

Prosecution's Stand – Asserted that certain co-operative societies were wrongfully permitted in the tender – Alleged conspiracy and preferential treatment by petitioners [Para 6.1].

Judicial Analysis – The court examined the allegations of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act – Emphasized the requirement of dishonest intention for criminal misconduct – Found that prosecution failed to establish dishonest intention or pecuniary advantage obtained by petitioners [Paras 11-13, 19-24].

Dismissal of Charges – Determined that the allegations pointed to procedural irregularities, not criminal misconduct – No evidence of pecuniary gain or dishonest intention – Proceedings against petitioners quashed, considering no prima facie case established against them [Paras 24-28].

Transfer Petition in Family Court Matters – Jurisdiction and Convenience – Petition for transfer of case from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Manjeri – Petitioner, a mother, citing financial and health constraints and shorter distance to Manjeri – Respondents argue minimal distance difference and minor child's school and Madrassa in Kozhikode – Court considers convenience of mother in guardianship matters and insufficient opposition by respondents. [Para 1-4]

Jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act – Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, confers jurisdiction based on minor's residence – Court notes natural jurisdiction conferred by special statutes in family matters, emphasizing the need to consider mother's convenience in transfer petitions. [Para 4]

Decision – Transfer petition allowed – Case O.P.(G&W) No.720/2023 ordered to be transferred from Family Court, Kozhikode to Family Court, Manjeri – Transferee court instructed not to insist on minor's presence at every court date, except when essential for proceedings. [Para 5]

Criminal Law – Discharge - Conspiracy and Misconduct in Granting Dredging Permits – Accused alleged of forming a criminal conspiracy in granting permits for the disposal of dredged materials from Azheekkal Port – Accused allegedly adopted different criteria for different dredgers, causing a loss of Rs.3,20,000/- to the public exchequer. [Paras 2, 28-33]

Investigation Validity and Competence of Investigating Officer – Major part of the investigation conducted by an Inspector of Police, VACB, Kannur – Validity upheld based on Notification No.12094/C1/88/Vig dated 02.03.1993 authorising Inspectors to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. [Paras 7-12]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Reliance on testimonies of the Wharf Supervisor and other officials – Testimonies and documents indicating differential treatment in granting dredging permits and quantifying the resultant loss to the government. [Paras 14, 29]

Legal Interpretation of Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Court’s consideration for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. – Evaluation of whether charges against accused are groundless, without going into probative value of materials. [Paras 16-27]

Accused's Arguments and Court's Analysis – Petitioners’ arguments on lack of guidelines for dredging and rate fixation under Section 68 of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 – Court's consideration of evidence indicating excess dredging and resultant loss to the government, and involvement of accused in alleged conspiracy. [Paras 31-37]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Charges not groundless, necessitating full trial – Allegations of pecuniary advantage and loss to the government through differential dredging permits substantiated. [Para 41]

Writ - Service Law - Termination of Judicial Probationer – Principles of Article 311(2) – Violation of Natural Justice – Termination Quashed - The petitioner, a probationer in Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch), was terminated following allegations of misconduct based on a complaint by his former wife and the report of the Administrative Judge – No charge sheet was issued or disciplinary proceedings held, and the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to defend himself – Held: The foundation of the termination order was punitive in nature, as the adverse report relied on misconduct allegations without fair opportunity to the petitioner – Thus, the termination is violative of Article 311(2) and principles of natural justice, and is set aside [Paras 3.4, 4.1, 4.2].

Probationer’s Rights – Substantive vs. Procedural Termination - A probationer’s termination, though appearing innocuous, will be scrutinized if it is based on misconduct allegations requiring adherence to Article 311(2) – The substance of the termination order, not its form, is decisive – Foundational reliance on misconduct without inquiry amounts to punitive action, attracting constitutional safeguards [Paras 3.2, 3.3, 3.4].

Doctrine of Motive and Foundation – Shamsher Singh Principles Reiterated - The principles laid down in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831, were reiterated – If termination is based on misconduct allegations (foundation) rather than unsuitability (motive), procedural safeguards under Article 311(2) apply – The Administrative Judge’s report formed the foundation of the petitioner’s termination, making it stigmatic and punitive [Paras 3.2, 3.4].

Reinstatement Ordered – Right to Fair Hearing Affirmed – Directions Issued - The court ordered reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, seniority, and back wages – However, the respondent authority was granted liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if deemed appropriate, in accordance with the law – Held: Writ petition allowed [Paras 4.1, 4.2, 4.3].

Decision: Petition allowed. Petitioner to be reinstated with continuity of service, seniority, and back wages. Respondent authority granted liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if advised.
 

Election Disqualification – Challenging the disqualification of elected members of Supreme Court Bar Association Multi-State Cooperative Group-Housing Society Ltd. by Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Respondent No. 2) – Disqualification for a period of five years from date of order – Petition filed against jurisdiction and procedure of disqualification. [Para 1-2]

Election Procedure – Revision of election programme and publication of final list of candidates by the Returning Officer (Respondent No. 4) – Petitioners' inclusion in final list and objection to their exclusion on the eve of the elections – Allegations of vested interest by complainants in the election. [Para 3-4]

Jurisdiction and Authority – Respondent No. 2's order based on Section 43(2) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 – Role of the Returning Officer in election process and finalization of candidate list. [Para 5-6]

Court's Decision – Recognition of the final list of candidates published by the Returning Officer – Direction for elections to be conducted as per the final list, including the Petitioners – Reservation of rights for Petitioners and Respondents to pursue statutory remedies against the impugned order. [Para 7-9]

Decision – Petition disposed of with direction to conduct elections as per the final list of candidates published on 11.01.2024 – Petitioners allowed to contest the elections despite disqualification order, with rights reserved to challenge the order. [Para 10]

Service Law - Dismissal from Service – Disproportionality of Punishment – Petitioner challenging orders of Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) and Directorate General BSF – Alleged disproportionate dismissal from service for using threatening and insubordinate language towards superior officer and another constable, and conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline – High Court upholding the dismissal considering the seriousness of the charges. [Para 2-4, 6-8]

Disciplinary Proceedings in Armed Forces – Seriousness of Charges – Petitioner, a constable in BSF, found guilty of using threatening language towards a superior officer, insubordinate language, and conduct detrimental to force discipline – SSFC verdict and respondent’s decision to mitigate imprisonment but retain dismissal upheld by the High Court – Emphasis on maintaining discipline in armed forces. [Para 5-6, 8]

Judicial Review – Scope in Disciplinary Cases – High Court’s limited scope in reviewing disciplinary actions in armed forces – Refusal to interfere with SSFC’s decision and Directorate General’s order in petitioner’s case due to the gravity of the offences and the importance of discipline in armed forces. [Para 7-8]

Decision – High Court dismisses the petition upholding SSFC’s and Directorate General’s orders – Dismissal from service maintained considering the nature of charges and the necessity of discipline in armed forces. [Para 8]

Land Acquisition and Ownership – Government’s acquisition of land in Karkardooma, Delhi – Plaintiffs’ claim for ownership and management rights over land – Trial and First Appellate Courts dismissed claim due to government acquisition and lack of legal standing of plaintiffs [Paras 3, 6, 7, 26-33].

Pairokar (Agent) Relationship – Plaintiff’s failure to establish that defendant No.1 was an agent (Pairokar) of his late mother, Smt. Mohro Devi, for managing the suit land – No documentary evidence provided, reliance on self-testimony insufficient [Paras 13-21].

Estoppel Principle – Application of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 – Plaintiff’s claim for relief based on alleged landlord-tenant relationship with defendants not substantiated [Paras 31-32].

Trespass and Encroachment – Clarification that defendant No.1, despite occupying the suit land, does not gain legal rights over it through this judgment – Municipal Corporation of Delhi authorized to act against encroachment [Paras 35-36].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Plaintiff Shiv Prakash’s claim over the suit land rejected due to lack of title and standing after government acquisition. Defendant Mool Chand also recognized as a trespasser with no legal rights to the land.

Cheque Dishonour - Inquiry Prior to Issuance of Process – Discrepancy in judicial opinions regarding whether the amendment in Section 202, sub clause (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory or directory – Larger Bench constituted for resolution – Reference to earlier divergent views of Justices V.M. Kanade and S.C. Dharmadhikari – The amendment concerns inquiry before issuance of process by the Magistrate when the accused resides outside the court’s jurisdiction. [Para 1]

Deferment of Reference and Evolution of Law – Reference to the larger Bench deferred due to pending appeal in Apex Court – The evolution of law and relevant Apex Court judgments, particularly focusing on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and its intersection with Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Apex Court’s Constitution Bench decision in suo motu Writ Petition (CRL) No.2 of 2020 provided clarity. [Paras 2-3]

Constitution Bench Clarification – The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in suo motu Writ Petition (CRL) No.2 of 2020 clarified the mandatory nature of inquiry under Section 202 for complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Emphasized the need for the Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and establish sufficient grounds before issuing summons to the accused residing outside jurisdiction. [Para 4]

Evidence on Affidavit Permissible – Section 202(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure interpretation by Apex Court – In cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, evidence of witnesses for the complainant can be on affidavit, without insistence on evidence on oath – Magistrate may examine documents to decide sufficiency of grounds for proceeding. [Para 4]

Application in Present Case – The issue in the present case, relating to whether an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C is mandatory or directory, was settled by the Apex Court – Magistrates given discretion in pending complaints where accused reside outside their territorial jurisdiction – Reference to the implementation of the Constitution Bench’s orders by the Bombay High Court. [Paras 5-6]

Principles for Magistrate’s Inquiry – Magistrate’s duty to scrutinize allegations and separate unfounded claims before issuing process, especially when the accused is outside jurisdiction – The inquiry should aim at ascertaining the truth of allegations based on the material presented by the complainant. [Para 7]

Avoidance of Frivolous Claims and Vindication of Justice – Summoning of an accused is a serious matter requiring careful examination of allegations and evidence – The Magistrate must ensure the complaint establishes the charge before issuing process, to avoid harassment and uphold justice. [Para 8]