(A) Limitation Act (15 of 1877) , S.5— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.100, S.149— Court-fees Act (7 of 1870) , S.4— Condonation of delay - Sufficient cause - Delay of 254 days in filing first appeal - Reason given for delay was paucity of funds to pay court fees - Court fees were paid but belatedly - Appellant was affluent businessman and hotelier - Even assuming that at relevant point of time, appellant did not have funds, he could have filed appeal deficient in court fees and paid court fees within time granted by court under applicable provisions of law - Insufficiency of funds was not sufficient cause for condonation of delay, under facts and circumstance of case - Rejection of application for condonation of delay, proper.

AIR 1971 SC 1374-Relied on(Para9)

(Para 9)

(B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.22— Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act (8 of 1974) , S.118, S.2(2)— Specific performance of agreement to sell - Dismissal of suit for - Challenge against - Agreement originally entered into between a company and an agriculturist for purchase of land - Admittedly company was not agriculturist - A non-agriculturist could purchase land in state of Himachal Pradesh only after obtaining permission from State u/S. 118 of Act of 1974 - Company made assignment in favour of plaintiff agriculturist when it could not obtain such permission - Assignment was not valid as there was no prior consent or approval of the seller before the assignment - Further, merely assigning rights to agriculturist, who will be using land for purpose other than agriculture, would defeat purpose of enactment - Dismissal of suit proper.

(Para 14 16 17)

Competition Act (12 of 2003) , S.19, S.66— Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.21 R.4(1)— Unfair trade practice - Cancellation of allotment of flat made to complainant - Refund of money by developer to complainant - Order directing payment of compound interest to complainant - Pay order was issued by developer towards full refund of payment made by complainant - Amount was deducted from developer's account - Complainant filed pay order before MRTP Commission and it was never encashed by complainant - Complainant did not state before MRTP Commission that original pay order was annexed with pleadings - Once amount in question was paid by developer through instrument issued by bank , its liability would cease - There was no fault on part of developer, on the other hand, complainant did not take steps to protect her interest and seek directions from MRTP Commission regarding Pay order - Developer cannot be fastened with any legal liability to pay interest - Order directing payment of compound interest @ 15% for period after issuance of Pay order by developer , set aside.

Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act (54 of 1969) , S.36— (Paras192026272832)

(Para 19 20 26 27 28 32)

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.482, S.156(3)— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.323, S.384, S.406, S.423, S.467, S.468, S.420, S.120B— Quashing of FIR - Allegations that accused persons had illegally registered trust deed, removed complainant from post of Secretary and when he took step against said incident, accused persons had assaulted him - Allegations were vague and did not carry essential ingredients to constitute alleged offences - Dispute was civil in nature - Civil suit regarding removal of complainant from post of Secretary of school and from trusteeship was already pending which fact was concealed by complainant in his application under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. seeking investigation of matter - Attempt was made by complainant to use criminal proceedings as a weapon of harassment against accused persons - Permitting continuance of criminal proceedings against accused persons would result in abuse of process of Court and also in miscarriage of justice - FIR along with all proceedings, quashed.

C.R.R. No. 2615/2017, D/- 17.05.2022 (Cal)-ReversedAIROnline 2012 SC 724-Followed(Paras91011)

(Para 9 10 11)

Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.376, S.363, S.366— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.3, S.118, S.45— Rape - Proof - Accused allegedly lured victim and enticed her away and committed rape on her - While High School Certificate of victim was not produced in trial, radiological examination and medical examination reports showed that she was a major - As per medical examination report victim was not found to have received any injury - Victim stated that she went with accused out of her own sweet-will and that she loved accused and wanted to stay with him - During period of stay with the accused no effort made by victim to free herself - No plausible explanation for delay of 20 days in lodging of FIR - Accused entitled to benefit of doubt - Conviction set aside

(Para 33 34 35)

Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.376(2)(f), S.376(1)— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.386— Rape - Conviction u/S. 376(2)(f) - Challenge against - FIR and statement of complainant showed the age of prosecutrix to be 14 years at the time of incident - As per ossification test and radiological test, age of prosecutrix was 16 years - Thus, at the time of incident, prosecutrix was above 12 years of age - Conviction under S. 376 (2) (f) was not sustainable - Offence does not travel beyond the purview of S. 376 (1) where minimum punishment of 7 years is envisaged - Moreover, convict had already served the sentence of about 7 years and 10 months - Considering facts and circumstances of case, sentence of R.I. 15 years was reduced to 9 years with all remissions.

AIR 2012 SC 3802-FollowedAIR 2015 SC 398-Followed(Paras212223)

(Para 21 22 23)