1 March 2025 - Legal Updates

1. Article 226 | Mere Existence of Disputed Questions of Fact Won’t Affect Writ Court’s Jurisdiction to Grant Relief: Supreme Court

• Case- M/S A.P. Electrical Equipment Corporation vs. The Tahsildar & Ors.
• Date of Order- February 27, 2025
• Bench- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan

High Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226:

• The Supreme Court observed that High Courts generally avoid adjudicating disputed questions of fact in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• However, the existence of disputed factual questions does not preclude High Courts from granting relief if justice demands it.

Case Background:

• The appellant, a manufacturer of power transformers, purchased land for a manufacturing unit. This land became a subject of dispute under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act.
• The appellant filed a declaration for utilizing excess land, leading to government exemptions that were later withdrawn.
• After an inquiry, the Competent Authority determined a surplus of 46,538.43 sq. meters and directed its surrender within 30 days.

Disputed Possession:

• A panchnama was prepared by authorities to document possession of the surplus land. The appellant claimed this was symbolic possession and that actual physical possession remained with them.
• The appellant challenged this panchnama in a writ petition, which was allowed by a single judge. However, a division bench overturned this decision, citing that writ jurisdiction is unsuitable for adjudicating disputed facts.

Supreme Court's Findings:

• The Supreme Court held that treating disputed facts as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction would render Article 226 ineffective.
• It emphasized that courts must investigate facts if disputes are raised solely to reject petitions unjustly.
• The issue of possession was deemed a mixed question of law and fact, requiring legal and factual analysis.

Precedents Cited:

• State of U.P. & Anr. v. Ehsan & Anr. (2023): Courts can determine possession based on evidence and draw adverse inferences against the State for procedural lapses.
• Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah: Highlighted property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Outcome:

• The Supreme Court restored the single-bench judgment, criticizing the division bench for unwarranted interference.
• It concluded that the single judge's decision was well-reasoned and reinstated it while allowing the appeal.

2. Courts Cannot Grant Compensation to Accused for Wrongful Confinement in Bail Applications Under Section 439 CrPC: Supreme Court

• Case- Union of India Thr. I.O Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Man Singh Verma
• Date of Order- February 28, 2025
• Bench- Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manmohan

Scope of Section 439 CrPC:

• The Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is limited to granting or refusing bail during a trial.
• Courts do not have the authority to award compensation for wrongful confinement while exercising bail jurisdiction.

Background of the Case:

• In January 2023, the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) seized 1,280 grams of brown powder from the accused. However, forensic tests revealed no narcotic substances in the samples.
• Based on these results, the NCB filed a closure report in April 2023, leading to the release of the accused.
• Despite this, the Allahabad High Court continued adjudicating the bail application and, in May 2024, directed the NCB to pay ₹5 lakh as compensation for wrongful confinement.

Supreme Court's Decision:

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, stating that it had overstepped its jurisdiction by awarding compensation in a bail matter.
• The Court emphasized that once the accused was released following the closure report, the bail application became infructuous and should have been closed.

Reference to Precedents:

• The respondent cited cases such as Rudal Sah v. State of Bihar, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, where compensation was awarded for illegal confinement.
• The Supreme Court clarified that those cases involved writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, not bail proceedings under Section 439 CrPC.

Observations on Remedies:

• While setting aside the compensation order, the Court noted that wrongful confinement is an affront to personal liberty but remedies must be sought through appropriate legal avenues.
• It clarified that its judgment does not preclude the respondent from pursuing other remedies as per law.

Union of India's Submission:

• The Union of India argued that awarding ₹5 lakh as compensation was beyond legal authority, which the Court accepted.

Outcome:

• The Supreme Court allowed NCB's appeal and annulled the High Court's direction to pay compensation.

3. Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Husband’s Divorce Decree Against Wife Who Forced Him to Live Separately From His Parents

• Case- X vs. Y
• Date of Order- February 28, 2025
• Bench- Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur

Divorce Decree Upheld:

• The Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the Family Court's decision granting divorce to the husband on the ground of cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Grounds for Divorce:

• The husband alleged that his wife pressured him to live separately from his family and used abusive language against him.
• The wife allegedly harassed her in-laws by filing criminal complaints, leading to the suicide of her father-in-law. However, she and her father were acquitted in a criminal case under Sections 306 and 34 IPC.

Court's Observations on Cruelty:

• The Court emphasized that cruelty can be physical, mental, or both, and must make it impossible for one spouse to live with the other.
• Acts of cruelty should logically lead to the conclusion that reconciliation is not possible.
• It noted that there is no fixed formula to determine cruelty; each case must be examined based on its facts and circumstances.

Evidence Considered:

• The husband provided evidence supporting his claims of cruelty, including the wife’s behavior and actions.
• The wife did not appear as a witness to rebut the husband’s evidence, which weakened her defense.

Precedents Relied Upon:

• The Court referred to Ramchander v. Ananta (2015), highlighting that cruelty is not explicitly defined in law but must be assessed based on behavior that impacts the complainant spouse.

Conclusion:

• The Court found no illegality in the Family Court's findings and held that the wife failed to substantiate her counterclaims.

It dismissed the wife's appeal and upheld the divorce decree granted on grounds of cruelty.