Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ in Contractual Matters - Guarantor’s Petition:Writ under Articles 14, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India—Maintainability of writ petition by a guarantor in contractual matters—Extension of time under OTS Scheme by the Bank/secured creditor—Held, no absolute bar on entertaining a writ petition in contractual matters—Court can take cognizance of subsequent events and allow hearing of writ filed by guarantors—One Time Settlement is not cloaked with rigorous principles that prohibit extension of period to pay the balance settlement amount—In deserving cases where substantial amount is deposited and willingness to pay the remaining amount is shown, extension can be granted—Petition allowed. [Paras 35, 45]

Banking Law - One Time Settlement - Extension of Time:One Time Settlement Scheme—Bank’s refusal to extend time for payment under OTS challenged—Held, OTS policies of certain banks contain provisions for extension—Courts, in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226, can extend the settlement period—Willful defaulters and fraudsters not entitled to such extension—In case of bona fide borrowers who deposited substantial amounts within the stipulated period and proved bona fides, court can grant extension to achieve the settlement's ultimate aim. [Paras 54-57]

Legal Principles and Guidelines - Grant of Extension under OTS:

Guidelines for Extension—Factors considered for extension of time under OTS:

Original time provided in the settlement.

Extent of payments already made under the settlement.

Reasons leading to delay in payment.

Acceptance of payments by the bank after the stipulated date.

Bona fide intent of the borrower to pay the remaining amounts.

Reasonableness of the time period demanded for clearing the remaining settlement amount.

Attending factors such as COVID-19, natural calamities, etc.

Irreparable loss and injury to the applicant if extension not granted.

[Paras 59-60]

Decision:Extension of OTS Period—Court extends the period of settlement as originally provided in the OTS letter—Petitioner directed to pay a minor additional interest amount due to delay—Bank ordered to issue No Due Certificate upon receipt of the remaining amount—Bank’s actions found arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A—Petition allowed. [Paras 80, 101]

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Petitioner in Custody – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – FIR registered under Sections 363, 366-A IPC, later including Sections 376, 506, 120-B IPC, and Section 4 of POCSO Act – Petitioner is mother of the main accused and not directly involved in sexual assault – In custody for over 15 months – Court grants bail noting the prolonged custody and that the petitioner’s culpability would be determined at trial.

Regular Bail – Prolonged Custody – Analysis – Held – Considering the petitioner’s age, lack of direct involvement in the sexual assault, and extended period of custody, bail is granted – Little possibility of an early trial conclusion cited as a reason for release.

Decision – Bail Granted – The petitioner is granted regular bail on furnishing appropriate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Observations made are not to influence the trial’s merits.

Criminal Procedure – Regular Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – FIR under Sections 363, 366-A IPC – Sections 376, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 4 POCSO added later – Petitioner a middle-aged lady, mother of the accused – In custody over 15 months – Not accused of sexual assault – Culpability to be determined at trial – Bail granted due to low likelihood of early trial conclusion. [Para 5]

Bail Consideration – Analysis – Petitioner not directly involved in sexual assault – Custody period of over 15 months – Prima facie culpability remains contestable – Testimonies of key witnesses do not support prosecution case – Medical and DNA reports inconclusive – Bail warranted. [Para 5]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Observations not to influence trial merits. [Para 5]

Minority Educational Institutions - Declaration and Jurisdiction – Appeal against the order of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) declaring St. Kabir Public School as a minority educational institution – NCMEI accepted the complaint by the school against the show cause notice issued by Chandigarh Administration – Held, institution not established as a minority institution nor originally intended for the benefit of any minority community – Original memorandum of association proclaimed it to be secular – Appeal allowed, declaration set aside. [Paras 1-23]

Jurisdiction and Competence of NCMEI – Analysis – NCMEI lacks jurisdiction to entertain application for minority status declaration directly without first approaching competent authority under Section 10 of the 2004 Act – Declaration by NCMEI found to be without jurisdiction – Direct approach by school unsustainable. [Paras 2-6, 27]

Constitutional Mandate - Article 30(1) – Establishment and Administration – Essential criterion for minority status – Must be established and administered by a minority – St. Kabir Public School not established by minority at inception – Later amendments to memorandum of association insufficient to alter original secular character. [Paras 8-12, 32-34, 44]

Delay and Laches in Filing Writ Petition – Legal Principle – Absence of limitation period under Article 226 does not preclude court’s jurisdiction – Delay explained and petition entertained on merits considering public interest – Learned Single Judge rightly entertained writ on merits despite delay. [Paras 24-26]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – NCMEI's order declaring St. Kabir Public School as minority institution and restraining imposition of reservation set aside – School’s claim of minority status rejected as institution originally established as secular. [Paras 38, 46-47]

Constitutional Law - Delay and Laches - Right of Voluntary Employees to be Recalled – LPA challenging the dismissal of writ petitions seeking re-employment as Home Guards – Petitioners were volunteers and not temporary, ad hoc, or daily wagers – Held, Article 14 does not imply negative equality and a wrong benefit cannot be allowed to multiply – No legal right to be recalled after two decades – Petitioners had absented on their own account and were duly discharged – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-24]

Employment Law - Volunteers vs. Regular Employees – Analysis – Petitioners served as Home Guards volunteers – Volunteers cannot claim continuous employment rights – Petitioners' services terminated after prolonged absence – No provision for reinstating discharged volunteers – Petitioners' claims rejected. [Paras 10, 21-23]

Judicial Review - Stale Claims - Re-examination – Consideration of stale claims after decades – Courts should not revive dead claims or allow claims barred by delay and laches – Direction to consider such claims may lead to judicial overreach and unintended revival of stale causes. [Paras 12-15]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed – No legal right to claim re-employment after prolonged absence – Petitioners' discharge upheld – State's appeal allowed, writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 23-24]

Criminal Law - Negotiable Instruments Act - Stay of Proceedings under IBC:Criminal Misc. Petition—Section 482 CrPC—Petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act due to pendency of insolvency resolution under Section 94 IBC—Petitioner, a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor, filed for insolvency resolution—Court held that proceedings under Section 138 NI Act are to be automatically stayed during the interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC—Proceedings stayed. [Paras 1-23]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - Personal Guarantor:Automatic Stay under Section 96 IBC—Held, personal guarantor to a corporate debtor cannot independently initiate insolvency proceedings unless the corporate debtor is already under such proceedings before NCLT—Section 96 moratorium applies to all debts and legal actions, including those under Section 138 NI Act, irrespective of the nature of the debt—Application under Section 94 IBC includes all debts, personal and corporate—Petition allowed, Section 138 proceedings stayed. [Para 23-38]

Negotiable Instruments Act - Interpretation of "Debt" and "Legal Action":Scope of Section 96 IBC—Term "any debt" under Section 96 IBC has a broad interpretation—Does not exclude debts subject to Section 138 NI Act—Term "any legal action" includes criminal proceedings under NI Act—Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act stayed despite the petitioner's insolvency application—Further delays in Section 138 proceedings acknowledged but necessary under IBC's automatic stay provisions. [Para 38]

Decision:Stay of Proceedings—Held, the interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC applies to proceedings under Section 138 NI Act initiated against the petitioner—Stay granted on proceedings under Section 138 NI Act during the pendency of the insolvency resolution process under Section 94 IBC—Petition allowed. [Para 38]

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction of Children's Court vs. NIA Special Court – Petition seeking transfer of trial – Respondent juvenile tried as an adult – FIR under UAPA and Explosive Substances Act – Jurisdiction vested in Children’s Court – Non-obstante clause in JJ Act, 2015 – Overriding effect on other laws – Held, Children's Court has jurisdiction.

Held: When an FIR is registered under a Scheduled Act prescribed under the NIA Act and a juvenile is directed to be tried as an adult by the Children’s Court, the jurisdiction lies with the Children’s Court and not the Special Judge under the NIA Act. The JJ Act, 2015 contains non-obstante clauses that give it an overriding effect over other laws. [Paras 1-42]

Applicability of JJ Act, 2015 – Overriding effect – Section 1(4) of JJ Act, 2015 gives it an overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force. Hence, jurisdiction is vested in Children's Court even when the offense is under the UAPA. [Para 40]

Special Legislation – Interpretation – NIA Act, 2008 and JJ Act, 2015 – Conflict between special laws – Later law prevails – JJ Act, 2015 being later, prevails over NIA Act, 2008 for cases involving juveniles tried as adults. [Para 41]

Decision – Transfer of trial to NIA Special Court refused – Jurisdiction affirmed with Children's Court – Petition dismissed, interim order vacated. [Para 42]

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Non-compliance with NDPS Act Procedures - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. - Allegation of possession and sale of 20,000 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride - Petitioner argues non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act - Held, total non-compliance with Section 42 is impermissible; delayed compliance acceptable with satisfactory explanation - Prima facie satisfaction recorded under Section 37 of NDPS Act that petitioner not guilty and unlikely to commit offence while on bail - Petitioner granted regular bail subject to conditions [Paras 1-18].

Non-compliance with Mandatory Provisions - Analysis - Held - Delayed compliance with Section 42 acceptable if satisfactorily explained; total non-compliance impermissible - Proper recording and communication of secret information required under Section 42 - Case law reviewed indicating bail can be granted if mandatory provisions not followed even for commercial quantity recoveries [Para 13, 14].

Decision - Grant of Regular Bail - Court orders release of petitioner on bail subject to satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, with conditions to ensure compliance and non-interference with prosecution evidence - Petitioner to appear before police station monthly until trial concludes - Non-compliance with bail conditions to result in potential cancellation of bail [Paras 15-18].

Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Criminal Revision Case - Maintainability - Interlocutory order - Order under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Deposit of compensation/fine amount - Whether revision against such order maintainable - Held, the order passed under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is an interlocutory order and not subject to revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - The order does not determine the final rights of the parties and is merely a procedural matter - Non-passing of such order does not culminate the proceedings - Revision dismissed as not maintainable - However, liberty granted to approach the court under the inherent power of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.