Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 17 (Second Proviso) & Section 13(1)(b)

 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 17 (Second Proviso) & Section 13(1)(b) — Investigation of Disproportionate Assets — Order of Superintendent of Police — Preliminary Enquiry — The second proviso to Section 17 mandates that an investigation into an offence under Section 13(1)(b) (disproportionate assets) requires an order from a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP) — However, this provision does not explicitly require the SP to conduct a separate preliminary enquiry before issuing such an order — While a preliminary enquiry in corruption cases is desirable (Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1), it is not mandatory.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

Vs.

SRI CHANNAKESHAVA.H.D. AND ANOTHER

Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 91 & 92 — Interpretation of Written Agreements (Deeds)

 Evidence Act, 1872 — Sections 91 & 92 — Interpretation of Written Agreements (Deeds) — Exclusion of Oral Evidence — The terms of a written contract, grant, or disposition of property must primarily be ascertained from the document itself — Oral evidence contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from the terms of such a written instrument is inadmissible between the parties, unless the situation falls within the specific exceptions provided in the Provisos to S. 92 (such as fraud, mistake, illegality, want of execution, separate oral agreement on a silent matter, condition precedent, subsequent modification, usage/custom, or relating language to existing facts) — Evidence to show that there was no agreement at all is admissible, but not evidence to vary the terms of an admitted agreement.

ANNAYA KOCHA SHETTY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS

Vs.

LAXMIBAI NARAYAN SATOSE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

Service Law — Recruitment — Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 — Reservation — OBC

 Service Law — Recruitment — Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 — Reservation — OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS — Cut-off Date for Eligibility — Certificate Validity — The eligibility of a candidate claiming reservation benefits under categories like Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) [OBC-NCL], Most Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) [MBC-NCL], or Economically Weaker Section [EWS], whose status is dynamic and dependent on current socio-economic criteria, must be established as existing on the cut-off date for the recruitment process — In the absence of a specific date mentioned in the recruitment advertisement or rules, the last date for submission of applications (31.08.2021 herein) is the determinative cut-off date — Candidates must possess a category certificate valid as per the applicable rules and government circulars as of this cut-off date to be considered eligible under the reserved category

SAKSHI ARHA

Vs.

THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 149 (pre-amendment 2019

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — S. 149 (pre-amendment 2019) — Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 — R. 9 — Driving Licence — Endorsement for Hazardous Goods — Breach of Policy Condition — Pay and Recover — The absence of a specific endorsement on the driver's transport vehicle licence, certifying completion of the training course prescribed under Rule 9 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, for driving a goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods, constitutes a fundamental breach of the insurance policy conditions when the driver operates such a vehicle — This breach justifies an order directing the insurer to pay the compensation to third-party claimants and recover the same from the insured owner, particularly where the accident resulted from the driver's rash and negligent driving

M/S. CHATHA SERVICE STATION

Vs.

LALMATI DEVI AND OTHERS

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR/Chargesheet — Scope of Power — The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and with caution — The court cannot embark upon an inquiry into the reliability, genuineness, or veracity of the allegations made in the FIR or chargesheet, nor conduct a ‘mini-trial’ — The allegations must be taken at face value to determine if they prima facie constitute an offence and make out a case against the accused.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deductibilit

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deductibility — Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Financial assistance received or receivable by dependents of a deceased government employee under the Haryana Rules of 2006, specifically under the head equivalent to ‘pay and other allowances’ last drawn by the deceased, must be deducted/excluded while computing compensation for loss of income/dependency under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — This is to avoid double payment towards the same component of loss.

Only Bombay HC Should Hear Cases Related To New Bombay HC Land : Supreme Court Transfers Cases From Other Courts

 Only Bombay HC Should Hear Cases Related To New Bombay HC Land : Supreme Court Transfers Cases From Other Courts

In the suo moto case involving the issue of additional land allotment for Bombay High Court's new complex, the Supreme Court was informed today that out of an area of 4.09 acres, which was to be handed over by March 31, 1.94 acres has been handed over and the remaining (2.15 acres) shall be transferred by April 30.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih heard the matter and posted it to July, while appreciating the efforts made by the state government towards expediting handing over of the possession of the land for construction of the new building.

Considering that there may be multiple proceedings over the remaining tranche of land, thus protracting transfer of its possession, the bench further directed consolidation of all proceedings related to the subject matter before the Bombay High Court.

"[Dr. Saraf] submits that out of an area of 4.09 acres, the possession of which was to be handed over for the construction of the High Court, an area of 1.94 has already been handed over. He submits that insofar as the remaining area of 2.15 acres is concerned, since there are a large number of slums [...], efforts have been taken by the Slums Rehabilitation Authority...he submits that by April end, the state would be in a position to allot vacant possession of the said land also for the construction of the High Court.

...It is informed that there are 21 [cases] pending before the High Court with respect to the subject matter. We therefore request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to assign all the matters which are already pending with regard to the said issue and which may be filed in future to one and the same bench so that they can be decided expeditiously. we further direct that no other court, except the High Court, shall entertain any other proceedings with regard to any issue pertaining to the [...] construction of the High Court. In the event any such proceedings are pending before any of the Courts or Tribunals, the same are directed to be transferred to the High Court",

 IN RE: HERITAGE BUILDING OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND ALLOTMENT OF ADDITIONAL LANDS FOR THE HIGH COURT

No Bail For Offence Under S.447 Companies Act 2013 Without Fulfilling Twin Conditions

 No Bail For Offence Under S.447 Companies Act 2013 Without Fulfilling Twin Conditions

The Supreme Court held that bail, including anticipatory bail, cannot be granted for an offence under Section 447 (punishment for fraud) of the Companies Act 2013 unless twin conditions are satisfied.

Section 212(6) (investigation into affairs of Company by Serious Fraud Investigation Office) of the Companies Act states that the offences covered under Section 447 are cognisable in nature and no person can be released on bail unless he satisfies the twin conditions, that are: (1)that a Public Prosecutor should be given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; (2)where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.

The Supreme Court while cancelling their bail, noted that the High Court, in its impugned judgments, failed to note the conduct of the accused persons who refused to cooperate with the authorities.

In these cases, there is a brazen attempt made on the part of the respondents-accused to stall the criminal proceedings initiated against them, in respect of the serious economic offences allegedly committed by them, by not respecting the summons/warrants issued by the Special Court from time to time and thereby causing obstruction in the administration of justice.

Case Details: SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE v. ADITYA SARDA|

Accused Who's Absconding Or Obstructing Warrant Executions Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail

 The Supreme Court held that an accused person, who is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is absconding from trial proceedings, is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail.

"When after the investigation, a chargesheet is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or warrant is issued to the accused, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious economic offences or heinous offences,"

Accused Who's Absconding Or Obstructing Warrant Executions Not Entitled To Anticipatory Bail

The Supreme Court held that an accused person, who is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is absconding from trial proceedings, is not entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail.

"When after the investigation, a chargesheet is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or warrant is issued to the accused, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious economic offences or heinous offences,"

The Supreme Court, while cancelling their bail, noted that the Respondents have avoided the execution of non-bailable warrants even after their anticipatory bail applications were rejected latest in 2022. It was only in 2023 that they were granted bail by the High Court. It held that in cases where a warrant of arrest is issued or proclamation proceedings are initiated, the extraordinary power to grant bail cannot be invoked.

In view of this observation, the Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Respondents to surrender within 1 week.

Granting anticipatory bail is certainly not the rule. The respondent accused, who have continuously avoided to follow the due process of law, by avoiding attendance in the Court, by concealing themselves and thereby attempting to derail the proceedings, would not be entitled to the anticipatory bail. If the Rule of Law is to prevail in the society, every person would have to abide by the law, respect the law and follow the due process of law.

A bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and PB Varale, which pronounced the judgment, further noted:

The law aids only the abiding and certainly not its resistants. When after the investigation, a chargesheet is submitted in the court, or in a complaint case, summons or warrant is issued to the accused, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. If he is creating hindrances in the execution of warrants or is concealing himself and does not submit to the authority of law, he must not be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, particularly when the Court taking cognizance has found him prima facie involved in serious economic offences or heinous offences.

The Court noted that the High Court passed orders utterly disregarding the mandatory conditions of Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, which lays down twin conditions on bail and the conduct of the Respondents. It also noted that in none of the orders passed by the High Court, it bother to look at the orders passed by the Special Court, such as issuing non-bailable warrants and proclamation proceedings etc for securing the presence of the Respondents.

It cannot be gainsaid that the judicial time of every court, even of Magistrate's Court is as precious and valuable as that of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The accused are duty-bound to cooperate with the trial courts in proceeding further with the cases and bound to remain present in the Court as and when required by the Court. Not allowing the Courts to proceed further with the cases by avoiding execution of summons or warrants, disobeying the orders of the Court, and trying to delay the proceedings by hook or crook, would certainly amount to interfering with and causing obstruction in the administration of justice.

In this case, allegations of economic offences were made against the Respondents, Companies of Adarsh Group, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs directed the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) to investigate them for the various offences under the Companies Act, 1956 and 2013.

Upon investigation, it was found that funds to the tune of Rs.1700 crores were given by the Adarsh Credit Cooperative Society Limited (ACCSL), a Multi-State Credit Cooperative Society, as illegal loans to its own controlled 70 Adarsh Group of Companies (CUIs) and certain other companies belonging to the other groups of persons.

It was found contrary to settled the position that a company could not be a member of a multistate credit cooperative society and therefore loans could not have been given to such companies by the ACCSL. These loads were obtained on the basis of forged financial documents.

Case Details: SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE vs ADITYA SARDA

Supreme Court Lays Down Guidelines For Interpretation Of Deeds & Contracts

 The Supreme Court observed that when the language of a deed is clear and unambiguous, there is no justification for judicial intervention to interpret it differently. It added that applying the literal rule of construction, the words must be given their plain and natural meaning, as they are presumed to convey the true intent of the parties.

“the court must look at the words used in the contract unless they are such that one may suspect that they do not covey the intention correctly. If the words are clear, there is very little the court can do about it. In constructing a deed, looking at the surrounding circumstances and subject matter is legitimate only if the words used are doubtful.”, the court observed upon placing reliance on the case of Provash Chandra Dalui and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another, (1989) Suppl 1 SCC 487.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and SVN Bhatti laid down the guiding tools for the construction of contracts and deeds, which are:

1. The contract is first constructed in its plain, ordinary and literal meaning. This is also known as the literal rule of construction.

2. If there is an absurdity created by literally reading the contract, a shift from literal rule may be allowed. This construction is generally called the golden rule of construction.

3. Lastly, the contract may be purposively constructed in light of its object and context to determine the purpose of the contract. This approach must be used cautiously.

Further, relying on Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court reiterated that when an agreement is reduced to writing, oral evidence cannot be introduced to contradict its terms unless the case falls under specific exceptions such as fraud or mistake mentioned under proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act.

“Unless and until the case falls under one or the other exceptions enabling receipt of oral evidence on a written document, the court is precluded from entertaining oral evidence. The document or deed interpreted in a particular case is not relied upon, but the subject deed is construed on well-established principles. The law recognises both ownership and possession of an owner of a property. A lease recognises the outcome of a rightful separation of ownership and possession between lessor and lessee. Section 108 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with the rights of the lessor and lessee. Under the said section, one of the conditions is that the lessor is bound by lessee's request to put lessee in possession of the property.”, the court observed.

“In the case on hand, admittedly, defendant no. 1 is in possession of the property from defendant no. 2. Whereas the Agreement of Conducting business does not deal with the possession so enjoyed by defendant no. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. The absence of such a crucial clause in the agreement dated 16.08.1967 is a vital circumstance in construing the subject matter of 18 the said agreement. This is an added circumstance to hold that what has been entrusted is to run the business in the plaint schedule but not occupying the plaint schedule under leave and licence. In the case on hand, the terms of the agreement dated 16.08.1967 are clear that the entrustment to the plaintiff is the ownership of the hotel business of the first defendant and not the tenancy right of the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff.”, the court added.

Thus, the Court held that the 'conducting agreement' was not a leave and license agreement but an agreement for operating a hotel.

ANNAYA KOCHA SHETTY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VERSUS LAXMIBAI NARAYAN SATOSE SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS & OTHERS