Family Law – Maintenance and Marriage Expenses – Appeal against the judgment and decree of trial court awarding Rs. 2,000 per month towards maintenance and Rs. 5,00,000 towards marriage expenses under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Plaintiff, the daughter of the defendant, sought maintenance and marriage expenses, claiming that the defendant, her father, neglected her – Defendant contended that the plaintiff was not his daughter and that her mother was a concubine – Trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff [Paras 1, 2, 3, 6, 7].

Paternity Dispute – The defendant disputed the paternity of the plaintiff – Evidence, including the plaintiff's SSC certificate and appointment order, mentioned the defendant as her father – The court found sufficient evidence to establish the defendant’s paternity, rejecting the defendant’s claim that he was not obligated to maintain the plaintiff after she attained majority – The court held that the defendant was legally obligated to maintain the plaintiff as per Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act [Paras 9, 12, 16, 18].

Modification of Maintenance – During the appeal, it was revealed that the plaintiff had secured a government job as a Deputy Tahsildar in 2009 – Considering her employment and the defendant’s old age (91 years), the court reduced the maintenance from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1,000 per month, applicable until September 2009, when the plaintiff secured employment – The arrears of maintenance were adjusted against Rs. 41,000 already paid by the defendant [Paras 19, 20, 21].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Monthly maintenance reduced to Rs. 1,000 from the date of the suit until September 2009 – Other aspects of the trial court’s judgment, including the marriage expenses, remain unchanged – Each party directed to bear their own costs in the appeal [Paras 20, 21].

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the NI Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act, contending that the cheque was issued as part of a housing loan agreement, and unauthorized amounts were withdrawn from his account by the respondent. The petitioner argued that the cheque was dishonoured due to a breach of trust and collusion by the bank manager. Held: The petitioner's arguments based on statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC had no merit, as such statements hold limited evidentiary value. The jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC cannot be invoked to quash proceedings under a special statute like the NI Act without compelling evidence of misuse of process [Paras 9, 10, 11].

Statements under Section 161 CrPC – Limited Evidentiary Value – No Ground for Quashing – The petitioner relied on statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC during police inquiry to claim that no offence under Section 138 NI Act was made out. Held: Statements under Section 161 CrPC are not substantive evidence and cannot be the sole basis for quashing proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court reiterated that these statements can be used only for contradiction purposes during trial [Paras 7, 9].

Special Code – NI Act Provisions Override CrPC – The High Court affirmed that the Negotiable Instruments Act, being a special statute, overrides provisions of the CrPC. The special code for cheque dishonour cases under Sections 142 to 147 of the NI Act aims to expedite trials and prevent delay, thereby limiting the scope of Section 482 CrPC in such matters [Paras 8, 10].

Decision: The petition under Section 482 CrPC was dismissed, and the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act were upheld. The Court found no grounds for interference, as the petitioner failed to present any compelling evidence of abuse of process. The trial was directed to continue in the JMFC, Aron District Guna, without further delay [Paras 10-11].

Customs Act – Pre-Arrest Bail – Dismissal of Bail Applications – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC for alleged involvement in smuggling gold under the Customs Act, 1962 – Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) intercepted a smuggling gang and seized gold and foreign currency worth Rs. 2.60 crore – Petitioners argued DRI had no jurisdiction to investigate, citing prior animosity – Prosecution countered that Section 3 of the Act, amended by the Finance Act 2022, confers investigative powers on DRI – Court found the investigation crucial and held that anticipatory bail was premature – Bail applications dismissed with the observation that any arrest would require the DRI to substantiate belief of the petitioners’ involvement in offences under Sections 135, 135A, 136, and 137 of the Act [Paras 1-7, 16].

Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) – Investigative Powers – Petitioners contended that DRI lacked authority to investigate under the Customs Act – Court rejected the argument, referring to the amended Section 3 of the Customs Act (via Finance Act, 2022) and notification dated 31.03.2022, which grants DRI officers powers equivalent to Customs officers – Held: DRI officers are competent to issue notices under Section 108 of the Act and to summon the petitioners for recording statements [Paras 9-11].

Statement Under Section 108 of the Customs Act – No Pre-arrest Bail – Court reiterated legal precedents, including Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal [(2008) 13 SCC 305], which clarified that Section 108 statements differ from police statements under CrPC – The petitioners, summoned for recording statements under Section 108, cannot seek anticipatory bail at this stage as it obstructs the investigative process – Precedents also indicate that anticipatory bail is premature when summons for statements are issued under this section [Paras 12-14].

Customs Act – Precedents on Investigative Powers – Referred to various rulings by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such as Ramesh Chandra Mehta v. State of West Bengal [AIR 1970 SC 940] and Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramachandani v. Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani [2022 KHC Online 8031], affirming that Customs authorities can investigate and that anticipatory bail cannot obstruct statutory powers [Paras 12-15].

Decision: Bail applications dismissed – Observed that arrest, if conducted, must follow the competent authority’s belief of the petitioners' involvement in offences under Sections 135, 135A, 136, and 137 of the Customs Act [Paras 16].

Professional Misconduct – Chartered Accountants – Referral to Disciplinary Committee – The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, challenged the Board of Discipline’s decision to refer a matter for further inquiry regarding alleged misconduct related to auditing companies without proper compliance with RBI regulations – The High Court held that the Board was within its powers under Section 21A of the Chartered Accountants Act to disagree with the prima facie opinion of the Director (Discipline) and refer the matter for a detailed inquiry – The petition was dismissed as the Board’s decision was found to be in accordance with law [Paras 3, 10-12, 18].

Power of the Board of Discipline – Rule 9(3)(b) of the Chartered Accountants Rules – The petitioner argued that the Board did not have the authority to refer the case without further investigation by the Director (Discipline) – The court rejected this argument, citing Rule 9(3)(b) and Section 21A, which empower the Board to refer a case for inquiry even without further investigation if it disagrees with the Director’s findings – The referral for disciplinary action was valid [Paras 15-17].

Scope of Judicial Review in Disciplinary Proceedings – The court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters, emphasizing that courts do not act as appellate authorities over the findings of the Board of Discipline – The review is confined to checking for compliance with natural justice, statutory rules, and the reasonableness of the decision – The Board’s decision did not suffer from any illegality or procedural irregularity, and thus, the petition was dismissed [Paras 19-21].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed – The High Court upheld the decision of the Board of Discipline to refer the petitioner’s case to the Disciplinary Committee for further inquiry under the provisions of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, and the Rules, 2007 [Paras 22-24].

Section 138 N.I. Act - Forensic Examination – Application for Further Examination Denied - The petitioner, accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, sought to send the disputed cheques for a second forensic examination by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory after receiving an unfavorable report from the State Forensic Science Laboratory. The Court upheld the Magistrate's decision, rejecting the request as an attempt to delay the trial. It was held that repeated requests for expert examination without justification could not be entertained [Paras 9-12].

Summoning Private Expert – Application Dismissed – Evidence Not Substantive - The petitioner also sought to summon a private handwriting expert to testify regarding the signature on the cheques. The Court ruled that the opinion of a private expert, especially when obtained without court intervention, is not substantive evidence and thus the Magistrate was justified in declining to issue summons to the private expert [Paras 13-14].

Request for Document Production – Dismissed Due to Irrelevance - The petitioner requested the production of certain documents related to chit transactions. The Court held that the documents were irrelevant to the defense of discharge since the petitioner had already admitted to receiving the chit amount. The Magistrate's decision to deny the production request was upheld [Paras 15-16].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Delay Tactics Not Permitted - The High Court dismissed the petitions, noting that the petitioner’s actions were aimed at delaying the trial. The trial court was directed to expedite the disposal of the case without further delays [Paras 17-19].
 

Civil Law – Probate of Will – Two competing Wills – Probate granted in favor of respondent based on 1993 Will – Trial court dismissed claim on 1995 Will – Appellants challenged the genuineness of the 1993 Will, alleging suspicious circumstances, including mention of deceased wife who was alive at the time of the Will's execution – Held: The 1993 Will was suspicious due to discrepancies, and the probate granted in favor of the respondent is set aside – Appellants’ claim regarding the 1995 Will was also rejected for lack of credibility [Paras 1-4, 35-56].

Proof of Will – Execution and Attestation – Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Respondent proved the execution of the 1993 Will through attesting witnesses – However, the court found suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including false statements about the wife’s death, leading to doubts about the testator’s true intention – A mere compliance with legal requirements is insufficient where suspicion exists – The court must be satisfied that the Will truly reflects the testator's intentions [Paras 22-31, 57].

Suspicious Circumstances – Mention of Wife’s Death – The 1993 Will stated that the testator’s wife was dead, although she was alive at the time of its execution – No provisions were made for the wife in the Will – This inconsistency raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the Will – The court held that such unexplained abnormalities indicated that the Will was not a genuine document, even though it was attested by witnesses [Paras 34-37, 52-55].

Revocation of Earlier Will – 1995 Will – Appellant’s claim of a 1995 Will revoking the 1993 Will was rejected by the trial court – Evidence provided by the appellants, including testimonies and documents, failed to substantiate the revocation or cancellation of the earlier Will – The court agreed with the trial court’s decision that the 1995 Will was not credible, pointing out discrepancies in the signatures and overwriting in the document [Paras 9, 39-47].

Decision: Appeal F.A. No. 185 of 2015 allowed – Probate granted in favor of the respondent for the 1993 Will is set aside due to suspicious circumstances – Appeal F.A.T. No. 302 of 2015 dismissed – 1995 Will also held not genuine – Appellants’ applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC rejected – Trial court judgments modified accordingly [Paras 58-59].

Criminal Procedure – Discharge Application – Rejection – Accused, Gurendra @ Golu, sought discharge on the grounds of alibi, claiming presence at the High Court Photo Identification Centre, Allahabad, on the day of the incident – Trial court rejected the discharge application, which was challenged through revision – Held: Trial court’s decision was justified as the accused failed to provide the photograph to the investigating officer during the investigation, and the allegations of manipulation in the photo verification process require independent inquiry [Paras 3, 12].

Criminal Law – Plea of Alibi – Accused contended he was at the High Court Photo Identification Centre, Allahabad, 700 kilometers away from the crime scene at the time of the incident – Complainant alleged that the photo was manipulated, citing involvement of persons at the Identification Centre who could alter dates for a fee – Held: Given the seriousness of the allegations, the Court directed an independent inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to determine the authenticity of the documents and the validity of the alibi claim [Paras 4, 12, 13].

Judicial Inquiry – Manipulation of Evidence – Allegations of backdated photo verification at the High Court Photo Identification Centre – Complainant claimed involvement of a gang that manipulated verification dates for money – Held: CBI directed to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations of manipulation and report back to the Court before the next hearing [Paras 5, 12, 13].

Decision: Inquiry ordered – CBI to conduct an investigation into the accused’s plea of alibi and the complainant’s allegations of manipulated photo verification – The case is listed for further hearing on 04/11/2024 – Interim order dated 15/04/2024 is not extended [Paras 13-19].

Contract Law – Bank Guarantee – Defective Invocation – Appeal Dismissal – Appellant, GAIL India Ltd., sought recovery of the amount under a performance bank guarantee (BG) from Respondent No. 1, UCO Bank, after alleging that Respondent No. 2 (Harisons Industries) failed to extend the BG – Single Judge rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, as the invocation of the BG by the appellant did not comply with the contractual terms – The High Court held that the invocation letter did not mention any breach of contract by Respondent No. 2, which was a pre-condition for invoking the BG under Clauses 1 and 3 of the BG agreement – Appellant's claim that the BG was unconditional was rejected by the court, as the terms clearly linked BG payments to contractual defaults [Paras 7, 17, 18, 21].

Bank Guarantee – Conditional vs. Unconditional Guarantees – Appellant argued that the BG was payable "on demand" under Clause 6, thus suggesting unconditional payment – Court ruled that Clause 6 had to be read alongside Clauses 1 and 3, which required a contractual breach for invocation – Reliance placed on Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court held that a BG invocation must strictly comply with the terms specified in the BG contract – The court found that since no default by Respondent No. 2 was stated in the invocation letter, the invocation was invalid [Paras 18, 20, 21].

Invalid Invocation – No Cause of Action – Appellant's plaint was dismissed as it failed to disclose a cause of action – Court noted that the plaint did not allege any contractual breach by Respondent No. 2, focusing solely on the assumption that the BG was unconditional – Therefore, no cause of action arose for the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, justifying the rejection [Paras 22, 23].

Procedural Law – Scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Appellant contended that the rejection of the plaint based on the invalidity of the invocation letter went beyond the scope of Order VII Rule 11 – Court disagreed, holding that the invocation letter's compliance with BG terms was crucial to deciding the maintainability of the suit – The court referred to a prior order that had raised doubts on the invocation’s validity and found the rejection under Order VII Rule 11 to be appropriate [Paras 10, 24, 27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The court upheld the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – No merit in appellant's argument that non-extension of the BG itself constituted a default – No breach of contract or payment default by Respondent No. 2 was alleged, making the invocation invalid – All pending applications were disposed of [Paras 30, 31].

Civil Law - Specific Performance of Contract – Validity of Agreement – The appellant challenged the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell, claiming the agreement was fraudulent and executed to secure a loan – Held: The plaintiff proved the execution of the agreement to sell, including receipt of earnest money. The appellant’s defence of fraud and forgery was not substantiated by evidence, and the Courts below correctly decreed specific performance [Paras 4, 6].

Additional Evidence in Appeal – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – The appellant sought to introduce additional evidence in the second appeal, claiming the need to examine his son as a witness – Held: The application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC was dismissed as the evidence was available during the trial, and the appellant deliberately withheld it. The Court found no justification to allow additional evidence at the appellate stage [Paras 7, 8].

Readiness and Willingness – Performance of Contract – The plaintiff demonstrated his readiness and willingness to perform the contract by proving the payment of earnest money and his presence at the Sub-Registrar’s office on the appointed date. The Courts below rightly found in favour of the plaintiff on this issue [Para 8].

Decision: The second appeal and the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC are dismissed. The decree of specific performance passed by the Courts below is upheld [Paras 9, 10].