Facts:

The appellant, Mysore Urban Development Authority, filed a civil suit against the respondent for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding a specific land.

The trial court decreed the respondent's suit against the appellant.

The appellant filed a first appeal, which was dismissed in default due to the non-appearance of their counsel.

The appellant sought the restoration of the appeal under Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code, but the Appellate Court dismissed the application.

The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 227 before the High Court, challenging the order of the Appellate Court.

Issues:

Whether the Appellate Court and the High Court were justified in dismissing the application (M.A.No.77/2014) filed by the appellant-Authority and refusing to restore their first appeal.

Held:

The dismissal of the first appeal in default attracted the provisions of Order 41 Rule 19 of the Code, allowing the appeal to be re-admitted only on making out a sufficient cause preventing the appellant from appearing.

The order of refusal to readmit the appeal under Order 41 Rule 19 is expressly appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(t) of the Code to the High Court.

The appellant's remedy was to file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(t) of the Code against the order of the Appellate Court, which dismissed their application.

The High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition, as it should have allowed it, giving the appellant the opportunity to have their appeal heard on merits.

The Courts should have recognized the value of the appellant's right to prosecute their appeal on merits and considered imposing costs instead of depriving them of this right.

Facts:

The ICICI Bank filed a complaint against a company, alleging a conspiracy to submit false bills of entry and transfer substantial sums through Hawala to Dubai and Hong Kong. The respondent's name did not initially appear in the FIR, but subsequent investigations implicated him.

Issues:

Whether the High Court erred in scrutinizing the case as a simple matter of forged bills of entry rather than a complex economic offense.

Another issue was the validity of the magistrate's satisfaction in issuing process against the accused.

Held:

The Court emphasized that at the process-issuing stage, the magistrate is primarily concerned with the allegations and need not explicitly state reasons for satisfaction.

Cognizance was based on a police report, and the magistrate's reliance on the charge sheet and materials provided was deemed lawful.

The Court clarified that the magistrate does not need to delve into the merits of the case during the issuance of the process.

The High Court's interference at such an early stage was deemed inappropriate.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. It restored the magistrate's order taking cognizance based on the second supplementary charge sheet and issuing process to the respondent-accused.

FACTS:

The incident occurred on 15th January 1998, involving the assault of Guddu @ Shahzad by seven accused while returning from Meenawala Baba's Dargah. The appellant, Pappi @ Mehboob (Accused No.1), and others were charged under various sections of IPC.

ISSUES:

conviction of the appellant, considering the acquittal of co-accused and the credibility of eyewitness accounts.

HELD:

The Trial Court and the High Court both relied on the evidence of Yunus (PW-6) and Rashid (PW-9) in affirming the guilt of the appellant. The Trial Court noted other circumstances, including injuries suffered by the deceased and the recovery of swords, leading to the conviction of multiple accused.( Para 5)

The High Court acquitted co-accused Gyani, Hemu, and Laxman, citing their case similarity to Shamsu and Sabir, despite their names being mentioned in the FIR. The acquittal of Sabir was based on different grounds, including late disclosure by Yunus and the unreliability of a witness.( Para 6)

The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the acquittal of co-accused should lead to his acquittal. It emphasized the sufficiency of evidence against the appellant, particularly the direct evidence from eyewitnesses.( Para 8)

The medical report detailed 67 injuries suffered by the deceased, supporting the prosecution's case. The appellant's role in initiating the assault was established through eyewitness accounts, making a clear connection to the crime.( Para 9)

The Court rejected the appellant's argument questioning which injury was caused by him, emphasizing that the collective evidence pointed to a sustained and brutal assault resulting in the death of the victim.( Para 10)

The acquittal of co-accused based on doubt did not invalidate the otherwise reliable evidence against the appellant. The Court affirmed the finding of guilt against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC.( Para 13)

The Court appreciated the assistance of counsel on both sides.( Para 14)

REFERRED CASES:

Durga Burman Roy v. State of Sikkim, (2014) 13 SCC 35.

Sadananda Mondal v. State of West Bengal, (2013) 15 SCC 293.

Facts:

M/s. Prerana Motors (P) Ltd. is a dealer of Tata Motors.

Sales Tax is paid on the vehicles sold.

Warranty provided for free replacement of parts during the warranty period.

The dealer is obliged to keep a stock of spare parts for replacement.

Sales tax is paid on the stock of spare parts purchased from Tata Motors.

Defective parts sent back to Tata Motors, and credit note may be given for the said parts.

The customer does not pay for the replacement of the defective part.

Issues:

Whether sales tax is liable to be paid on the return of spare parts, considering that they are replaced for free and a credit note is issued.

Held:

The assessment order and the appeal went against the appellant/dealer.

Tribunal held in favor of the appellant/dealer, but High Court set aside the order, relying on Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons case.

The crucial point for consideration is whether, in the case of a warranty for free spare parts replacement, sales tax would be payable on such a transaction based on a credit note.

Mohd. Ekram Khan & Sons case referred to credit notes as consideration for replacement, raising the question of whether credit notes can be treated as a mode of payment.

The matter needs to be considered by a larger Bench to determine if sales tax can be levied on replaced parts when there is no consideration for these parts.

Facts:

The resolution plan for KS&PIPL and IIL was rejected by the Committee of Creditors (CoC) as it did not secure the required 75% approval from financial creditors. The appellant challenged the rejection, leading to a legal dispute.

Issues:

The main issues revolved around the authority of the NCLT to analyze the commercial decisions of the CoC and the justifiability of rejecting a resolution plan by dissenting financial creditors.

Held:

Upon receiving a rejected resolution plan, NCLT is obligated to initiate liquidation under Section 33(1) and lacks authority to scrutinize the commercial decisions of the CoC.

The jurisdiction of NCLT and NCLAT is limited to reviewing the approved resolution plan, not reversing the commercial decisions of dissenting financial creditors.

The amended provision reducing the threshold requirement of voting share to 66% applies prospectively and cannot be retroactively enforced.

NCLAT's conclusion that the resolution plan lacked approval and liquidation was inevitable is upheld.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the rejection of the resolution plan by the CoC.

Facts:

An altercation took place on October 8, 2003, leading to the respondent shooting the victim with a firearm, resulting in bleeding injuries. The complaint highlighted a longstanding dispute between the parties over a love marriage and a disc cable connection business.

Issues:

The nature of injuries and whether they were grievous or life-threatening, impacting the applicability of Section 307 of the Penal Code.

Held:

The judgment emphasizes that proof of grievous or life-threatening hurt is not essential for an offense under Section 307. It cites various precedents, including State of Maharashtra v Balram Bama Patil, to establish that the intention of the accused can be deduced from surrounding circumstances, not solely relying on the severity of injuries.

Decision: The High Court's judgment is set aside, and the Trial Court's order of conviction under Section 307, along with a sentence of three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1000, is restored. The appeal by the State is allowed, and the respondent is directed to surrender to serve the sentence.

Facts:

Appellant filed a private complaint alleging the commission of an offence under Section 193 of the IPC against respondents based on false affidavits filed in a contempt case.

Magistrate took cognizance, and the High Court set aside the order, stating the need for prior court complaint as per Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.

Issues:

Whether the Magistrate's cognizance based on a private complaint under Section 193 of the IPC was valid?

Applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. in the context of forgery committed outside the court.

Held:

The offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are distinct. The former relates to false evidence and offences against public justice, while the latter pertains to offences concerning a document produced in court.

Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. mandates prosecution under Section 195(1)(b) to be initiated only with the sanction of the court under whose proceedings the offence was allegedly committed.

Private complaints are barred in cases under Section 193 IPC, and the procedure under Section 195 Cr.P.C. is mandatory.

The case falls under Section 195(1)(b)(i), and the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance based on a private complaint.

The High Court rightly set aside the Magistrate's order, and the appeal is disposed of.

Facts:

The plaintiffs alleged attempted encroachment by the defendants on their land. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court remitted additional issues for finding on the encroachment, directing the Trial Court to appoint a Local Commissioner for demarcation.

Issues:

Whether the Local Commissioner's failure to follow applicable instructions for demarcation justifies the High Court's dismissal of the entire suit?

Held:

The Court emphasizes that irregularities in the Local Commissioner's report should result in discarding the report and necessitate a fresh one. The flaw itself should not nullify the appointment of the Local Commissioner or lead to the dismissal of the suit.( Para 16)

The Court disapproves of the High Court's approach in dismissing the suit outright after rejecting the Commissioner's report. The plaintiffs presented oral and documentary evidence, overlooked by the High Court.( Para 17)

For a just determination, the Court decides to set aside the High Court's judgment, restore the suit, and issue a fresh Commission. The Trial Court should reconsider the suit, keeping in mind the observations made.( Para 18)

Facts:

On 15 June 2004, MoEF issued guidelines regulating the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes.

On 7 March 2008, the Government of Tamil Nadu approved the diversion of forest land for the construction of an intake well for drinking water purposes.

The National Green Tribunal received a complaint alleging the misuse of water for industrial purposes instead of the approved drinking water purposes.

Issues:

Whether the diversion of forest land for drinking water purposes was misused for industrial purposes.

Compliance with Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and MoEF guidelines.

Held:

The Tribunal directed the TWAD Board to prohibit the use of water for industrial purposes and clarified the prohibition was only for industrial units.

The Court restored the position as per the interim order of the Tribunal, allowing the supply of water for industrial purposes, subject to fully meeting drinking water requirements.

The Collector was directed to monitor the decision to release water for industrial purposes, ensuring no compromise on drinking water and irrigation needs.

A joint meeting of the State Government and TWAD Board was ordered to resolve the proposal under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The appeals were disposed of accordingly.