Murder and Robbery – Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction Affirmed – Sections 302/394/34 IPC – Both appellants convicted by the Trial Court for murder and robbery of the deceased Dooja Devi on 09.05.1997 – Prosecution relied on a chain of circumstances comprising last seen together, recovery of stolen articles and blood-stained clothes at the instance of accused, and medical evidence – Held: When all the circumstances are taken cumulatively, they form a complete and unbroken chain leading only to the guilt of the appellants – Prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 31, 47].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Governing – For conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, each link must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain collectively must exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused – Each witness's testimony must be meticulously analysed and reasonable inferences explicitly delineated – Finding of guilt must be reached after proper evaluation of all circumstances to determine whether they are compatible with any other reasonable hypothesis [Para 32].

Last Seen Together – Evidentiary Value – Appellants were seen by PW-2 at about 12 noon at the rear door of the house in the company of the deceased and by PW-7 leaving the vicinity shortly thereafter with a grey briefcase – Time gap between last seen and discovery of body was so narrow as to exclude the possibility of intervention by a third person – Appellants admitted presence at the spot in statement under Section 313 CrPC – Absence of any suggestion of prior enmity or false implication renders testimony of PW-2 and PW-7 reliable and creditworthy – Conviction cannot be sustained on last seen evidence alone; prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances [Paras 34, 35, 36].

Recovery of Stolen Property – Presumption under Section 114 Illustration (a) Evidence Act – Recovery of stolen jewellery, suitcase, wristwatch, and camera from both appellants within 4-5 days of the incident at their respective instances – Articles duly identified by PW-1 in Test Identification Parade and in court – Possession of stolen articles of the deceased soon after murder raises a presumption of guilt under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act; such presumption weakens if considerable time has elapsed – Appellants failed to offer any explanation for such possession [Paras 38, 41, 45].

Recovery of Blood-Stained Clothes – Section 27 Evidence Act – Section 106 Evidence Act – Blood-stained clothes of both accused recovered from the house of appellant Surya Narain pursuant to disclosure statement of appellant Anil Kumar – FSL report confirmed presence of human blood – Though blood grouping could not be determined due to degradation over time, such inability does not diminish evidentiary value – Failure to explain the presence of blood on clothes is a fact especially within the knowledge of the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance [Paras 38, 39].

Investigation – Lapses – Effect – Non-examination of the unknown caller, son of the deceased, and SI Atul Kumar Mishra does not create a dent in the prosecution case as nothing turns on their testimonies – Defective investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal when substantive evidence otherwise proves the guilt of the accused – No independent public witness at recovery does not render police witnesses unreliable; there is a presumption that public officials would depose truthfully [Paras 41, 43].

Silence under Section 313 CrPC – In the face of strong incriminating circumstances, failure of the accused to offer any explanation consistent with their innocence in their statement under Section 313 CrPC further reinforces the prosecution case and constitutes a significant circumstance against them [Para 43].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of both appellants under Sections 302/394/34 IPC affirmed – Appellants directed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent within one week.

Child Custody – Interim Custody – Best Interests of Child – Minor child (Aaron Gilgit, aged 6 years, citizen of Portugal) in Kerala with paternal grandparents since July 2025 after mother's death in domestic accident — Child not enrolled in school since arrival in Kerala — Child fluent only in English; paternal grandparents unable to speak English — Father (first respondent) residing in United Kingdom and absent from Kerala for over three months — High Court interacted with child in chambers; child expressed willingness to go with maternal aunt — Held: Continued stay of child in Kerala not in his best interests given educational deprivation, linguistic isolation, age of paternal grandparents and father's residence in United Kingdom — Interim custody granted to second petitioner/maternal aunt [Paras 3–8].

"Child's Welfare is Paramount — Court's Interaction in Chambers" – High Court directly interacted with the minor child, parties and counsel in Chambers on 06.04.2026 and 07.04.2026 — Observed child's limited Malayalam and fluency in English — Child had been attending Rushey Mead Primary School, Leicester, United Kingdom until July 2025; not sent to school after reaching Kerala — Paternal grandparents admitted non-enrolment and inability to communicate with child in English — Father confirmed residing in United Kingdom — Held: Physical, emotional, psychological well-being and educational prospects of child best served by returning him to United Kingdom [Para 4].

"Non-Compliance with Court Directions — Passport and OCI Card" – Court directed first respondent to dispatch original passport and OCI card of minor child by courier on or before 15.04.2026 — Respondent sent documents on 11.04.2026 but documents held up at Delhi International Mail Centre — Court extended time till 25.04.2026 for documents to reach destination — First respondent directed to furnish settlement status of child to second petitioner to facilitate travel abroad [Paras 5–7].

"Structured Interim Custody Arrangement — Weekly Schedule" – First respondent/father agreed to permit second petitioner to take child to United Kingdom — Father granted interim custody every Friday 4:00 p.m. to Monday 4:00 p.m. — Second petitioner to take custody from school premises on Monday — Changes in custody to be on mutually agreed terms — School vacation custody to be shared equally or as mutually agreed — Both families directed to maintain cordial relations and refrain from actions causing distress to child — Neither party to take child outside United Kingdom without mutual consent [Paras 7–9].

Decision: Original petition disposed of — Interim custody of minor child granted to second petitioner/maternal aunt — First respondent granted weekly visitation/interim custody from Friday 4:00 p.m. to Monday 4:00 p.m. — Directions issued for handover of passport and OCI card and for travel formalities to be completed.

Service Law – Salary Stoppage Without Order – Violation of Natural Justice – Articles 14 and 21 – Teachers employed in aided private primary schools had their salaries stopped from March 2025 without any prior notice, order or show cause notice — teachers continued to discharge duties including election and census work without remuneration — Held: Stoppage of salary without passing any order and without affording any opportunity of hearing is patently illegal, erroneous and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India — petitioners entitled to salary from March 2025 [Paras 3, 25, 29].

Begar – Article 23 – Compelled Work Without Remuneration – State authorities continued to exact work from petitioner-teachers including election duties and census duties even after stopping their salaries — Held: Exacting work without remuneration amounts to Begar prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India — State cannot force any employee to work under the yoke of unpaid labour [Para 25].

Shalarth ID – Cancellation of Approval Orders – Show Cause Notice – Must Be Specific – Vague Show Cause Notices Unsustainable – Show cause notices issued to petitioners contained no specific charge of irregularity, no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the individual teachers — batches of 150 employees directed to appear on a single day and fill in cyclostyled questionnaire forms, without being afforded any personal hearing — incumbent and former Education Officers whose conduct was under scrutiny were absent from hearings — Held: Show cause notices lacking specificity are insufficient to afford a meaningful opportunity to respond — enquiry and cancellation orders passed without proper hearing are unsustainable — approvals restored [Paras 13–14, 16–17, 21–22, 27–28].

Approval Orders – Cannot Be Cancelled Unless Fraud or Misrepresentation Established – Irregularities Attributable to Management, Not Teachers – Even if Education Officer granted approval erroneously, such error cannot be a ground to cancel the approval order and Shalarth ID, unless fraud, misrepresentation or suppression is established — where alleged irregularities relate to non-following of roster reservation, absence of TET qualification or failure to seek prior permission, these are attributable to the Management and not to the teachers — teachers who have served for 10 to 15 years should not be subjected to cancellation of approvals for condonable irregularities committed by Management [Paras 18, 22, 28, 31–34 of Hemant Baliram Deore (adopted)].

Shalarth Portal – Teachers Have No Role in Issuance of Shalarth IDs – Under the GR dated 07/11/2012, responsibility for verification, certification and issuance of Shalarth IDs lay exclusively with the Education Officer — the school management's role was limited to data entry — teachers had no control over issuance or non-issuance of Shalarth ID orders — flaws in the Shalarth system cannot be attributed to teachers [Paras 5.1, 20, 22].

Natural Justice – Pendency of Enquiry – Salary Cannot Be Withheld – Even during a pending enquiry into pre-appointment or service conduct, salary cannot be withheld in absence of a statutory provision authorising such stoppage — non-payment of salary during enquiry places the employee in a worse position than one facing regular departmental proceedings who is at least entitled to subsistence allowance [Para 9.1].

Decision: Writ petitions partly allowed — impugned show cause notices and cancellation orders quashed and set aside — Shalarth IDs and approval orders of petitioner-employees restored — respondents directed to release withheld salary from March 2025 and continue paying the same — respondents at liberty to issue fresh specific show cause notices indicating fraud or misrepresentation if desired, confined to Management for irregularities not attributable to teachers — no order as to costs.

Education Law – Review Jurisdiction – SSLC Examination – Grading System – Draft Rules – The State of Karnataka filed a Review Petition against the order directing it to conduct valuation for SSLC 2025-2026 as per the Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025 – State sought review on the ground that a Draft Notification dated 10.04.2026 for introduction of a grading system under the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board Act, 1966 had not been placed before the Court at the time of disposal of the Writ Petition – Held: The SSLC examination had already been conducted from 18.03.2026 to 02.04.2026 before the Draft Rules were notified on 10.04.2026; the Draft Rules being yet to be promulgated in accordance with law, there is no error apparent on the face of the record – Review Petition disposed of [Paras 6, 8, 10].

Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Scope – A Draft Notification yet to be published by the competent authority and not having attained the force of law cannot constitute an error apparent on the face of the record for the purposes of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – It is always open to the State Government to take decisions in accordance with law in future, which lies within its domain, unless challenged before the Court [Para 8].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Scope – Power of judicial review under Article 226 is to interfere with the decision-making process and not with the decision itself – The court's order should not curtail the power of the State Government to take lawful decisions in future – The second part of paragraph 8 of the impugned order clarified accordingly [Para 9].

Decision: Review Petition disposed of – Valuation for Academic Year 2025-2026 to be conducted as per Revised Circular dated 28.10.2025 – State Government's power to take future decisions in accordance with law preserved.

Criminal Contempt – Section 2(c) – Scandalising the Court – YouTube Videos – Banners Targeting Judicial Officers – Respondent No. 2 operated a YouTube channel "Fight 4 Judicial Reforms" and uploaded videos with banners naming specific judicial officers, imputing that litigants before them should abandon hope of justice, and using abusive and derogatory language against the Supreme Court and the entire judicial system – Held: While campaign for audio-video recording of court proceedings and generalised criticism of the judicial system would not amount to contempt, personally attacking named judicial officers and imputing absence of justice in their courts – without verifying facts from the judicial record – went beyond fair criticism and was intended to scandalize and lower the authority of the courts; the act constitutes criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – The plea of bona fides and public interest rejected as the intent was mala fide and the content was res ipsa loquitur [Paras 48–52].

Fair Criticism vs. Criminal Contempt – Right Under Article 19(1)(a) – Distinction – Fair and reasonable criticism of judicial acts, made in good faith in public interest without imputing improper motives, is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and does not amount to contempt – Criminal contempt is committed when the publication is calculated to lower the authority of the court or to create apprehension in the public mind about the integrity and fairness of the Judge or to deter litigants from relying on the court's administration of justice – Proof of actual interference is not necessary; it is sufficient if the publication is likely or tends in any way to interfere with the proper administration of law – Contempt jurisdiction must be exercised with economy, great care and restraint, and only where silence is no longer an option [Paras 39–47].

Respondent No. 1 in Both Cases – Unconditional Apology – Discharge – Respondent No. 1 in Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 3/2025 (Mr. Shiv Narayan Sharma) and Respondent No. 1 in Cont.Cas.(Crl.) 4/2025 (Mr. Deepak Singh) tendered unconditional and unqualified apologies, appeared in person, and undertook not to repeat such conduct – Court found the apologies genuine and accepted the same – Both respondents No. 1 discharged from their respective contempt cases [Paras 4, 11, 56].

Decision: Respondent No. 2 (Mr. Gulshan Pahuja) found guilty of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Notice issued to him under Rule 13(1) of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court) Rules, 2025 for submissions on punishment under Section 12 of the Act within two weeks – Respondent No. 2 directed to remain personally present on 12.05.2026 – Respondents No. 1 in both cases discharged – Copy of judgment to be translated into Hindi and supplied to Respondent No. 2.

Specific Performance – Contingent Contract – Sale Agreement – Property of Statutory Body – Where a sale agreement stipulated that the vendors would first obtain a sale deed from the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board in respect of the non-residential portion of the suit property within three months and only thereafter execute a conveyance in favour of the purchaser, the contract as regards that portion was contingent within the meaning of Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Since the statutory authority had not conveyed the non-residential portion to the vendors even as on the date of the judgment, the contingency had not occurred and the contract remained unenforceable in respect of that item – Held: The decree for specific performance as regards Item No. 2 (non-residential portion) is set aside; the contract, to that extent, cannot be specifically enforced [Paras 22, 27, 32].

Sections 43 TPA and 13 SRA – Inapplicability – Imperfect Title – Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applies only where a person fraudulently or erroneously represents himself to be authorised to transfer property and subsequently acquires an interest therein – In the present case, the vendors made no false representation regarding title; the sale agreement itself expressly acknowledged that conveyance of the non-residential portion was yet to be obtained from the statutory authority – Similarly, Section 13(1)(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 has no application where the vendor did not misrepresent title and never in fact acquired title to the second item – Section 13(1)(b) equally inapplicable since the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, a statutory body, was under no obligation to execute a conveyance of the non-residential portion, the Act not providing for allotment of commercial plots – Held: These provisions do not assist the purchaser in the circumstances of the present case [Paras 23, 24, 25].

Mandatory Injunction – Statutory Authority – Bar under Section 14(d) SRA – The trial Court's direction compelling the vendors to obtain a sale deed from the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board within a fixed time and thereafter execute a conveyance in favour of the purchaser was unsustainable – The Slum Clearance Board is a statutory body constituted for eradication of slum conditions and provision of residential accommodation; its Act and Rules contain no provision for allotment of non-residential or commercial plots – The Board cannot be compelled to convey the non-residential portion, and equally the vendors cannot be directed to procure such conveyance – The grant of such mandatory injunction would also require continuous supervision by the Court, which is expressly barred under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Held: Mandatory injunction to obtain sale deed from statutory body set aside [Paras 25, 26, 28].

Part Performance – Section 53A TPA – Unregistered Agreement – Defendant Tenant – The defendant was admittedly a tenant in the non-residential portion of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,730/- – His plea that possession stood transformed into that of an agreement holder in part performance of the contract upon payment of Rs. 50,000/- on 15.06.2006 is untenable – For Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to apply, the agreement must be in writing, registered (as required by the amendment introduced by Act 48 of 2001 w.e.f. 24.09.2001), and must contain a recital evidencing delivery of possession in part performance – The sale agreement dated 15.12.2005 was unregistered and contained no clause regarding delivery of possession – A tenant cannot unilaterally alter his status into that of a purchaser in possession – Held: Defendant's possession of Item No. 2 referable only to his tenancy; claim of part performance unsustainable [Paras 30, 31].

Partial Specific Performance – Order XLI Rule 33 CPC – Complete Justice – The suit property being divisible, Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 permits grant of specific performance in respect of part of the contract – Decree for specific performance of the sale agreement confirmed as regards Item No. 1 (residential portion) in respect of which the vendors held clear title – Decree in respect of Item No. 2 set aside – Since the defendant had already deposited the entire agreed sale consideration of Rs. 24,50,000/- and a court-executed sale deed had been obtained for Item No. 1 treating the full consideration as referable thereto, and since the defendant had occupied Item No. 2 for nearly two decades without payment of rent, this Court invoked Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to do complete justice – Held: The amount attributable to Item No. 2 stands adjusted towards arrears of rent and occupation charges; defendant to continue as tenant in respect of Item No. 2 from the date of judgment; plaintiff's rights as landlady, including for enhanced rent and eviction, kept open [Paras 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39].

CMP No. 5647 of 2023 – Additional Evidence – The defendant sought to mark as additional evidence a sale deed executed by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board dated 28.09.2015 to demonstrate that the Board was not incapable of executing sale deeds – On perusal, the document related to a residential plot and not to a non-residential portion as averred – Application filed on an incorrect factual premise – Held: CMP No. 5647 of 2023 dismissed in limine [Para 19].

Decision: AS No. 638 of 2018 dismissed — judgment and decree in O.S. No. 6773 of 2015 confirmed — relief of return of title deeds infructuous as defendant became owner of Item No. 1 — AS No. 637 of 2018 partly allowed — decree of trial Court in O.S. No. 6774 of 2015 confirmed insofar as it relates to Item No. 1 of the suit property and set aside insofar as it relates to Item No. 2 — suit dismissed as regards Item No. 2 — defendants in O.S. No. 6774 of 2015 entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited together with accrued interest — defendant to continue as tenant in respect of Item No. 2 — CMP No. 5647 of 2023 dismissed — no order as to costs [Para 41].

Service Law – Termination – Simultaneous Acquisition of Qualifications – Absence of Statutory Prohibition – Teacher appointed in 1997 as untrained Assistant Teacher, completed in-service training in 1999, and granted regular pay scale in 2000 – Served continuously for 29 years without adverse record – Services terminated vide order dated 11.12.2025 on the ground that petitioner had simultaneously obtained Certificate in Physical Education and passed Intermediate Examination during academic session 1993-94, and had concealed this fact at the time of appointment – Held: In the absence of any statutory provision, rule, or regulation prohibiting simultaneous pursuit of two courses, this ground cannot constitute a valid basis for disqualification or termination – Impugned order quashed – Writ petition allowed [Paras 43-52].

Natural Justice – Termination Without Departmental Inquiry – Procedural Infirmity – No regular departmental inquiry conducted as mandated under the U.P. Basic Education (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 read with the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 – Termination effected merely on the basis of notices, without formulation of charges, without adducing evidence, and without affording meaningful opportunity of hearing – Held: Such course of action is in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice [Para 48].

Long Continuance in Service – Absence of Fraud – Equitable Bar Against Annulment – Petitioner rendered nearly three decades of continuous and unblemished service – Impugned order bereft of any categorical finding of fraud, misrepresentation, or submission of forged documents – Earlier inquiry reports dated 03.03.2021 and 27.07.2024 both recorded that complaints were unsubstantiated – Educational qualifications, including High School Certificate (1991), Certificate in Physical Education (1993-94), and Intermediate Certificate (1995), never cancelled or invalidated by any competent authority – Held: Drastic consequence of termination in such circumstances wholly disproportionate and legally unsustainable [Paras 45-49].

Defiance of Court Order – Salary Withheld Despite Interim Direction – This Court in Writ-A No. 15556 of 2025 had directed completion of inquiry within two months and payment of current salary – Despite the said order, salary not paid and services terminated by order dated 11.12.2025 – Court noted this conduct while quashing the impugned order [Paras 23-24].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Gautam Budhh Nagar, quashed.

Adoption Law — Intercountry Relocation — HAMA Adoption — NOC by CARA — Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 — Adoption Regulations, 2022 — Petitioner no. 1 (minor) adopted by petitioners nos. 2 and 3 under HAMA, 1956 by adoption deed dated 08.02.2021 — Petitioners sought relocation of the child to Canada, a Hague Convention signatory — District Magistrate, Ferozepur furnished a Verification Report under Regulation 22B(1) and Schedule XXXIII — CARA, instead of issuing an NOC, issued merely a 'Support Letter' and marked the application as "rejected" on the portal with the remark "matter cannot be taken up as it is related to HAMA" — Held: Chapter IV-A of the 2021 Regulations is expressly titled to govern adoptions concluded under HAMA, 1956 where parents seek to relocate the child abroad — Upon receipt of verification report, CARA is mandated under Regulations 22B(2) and 22E(1) to ensure compliance with Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention — The obligation to pursue and facilitate this compliance rests on CARA, not on the adoptive parents — CARA's abdication of its responsibility by issuing a mere support letter is untenable — Petition disposed of with directions [Paras 17–27, 34–35].

Hague Convention — Articles 5 and 17 — Central Authority's Obligation — Cooperation Between States — CARA and Canadian Authorities — Article 7(1) of the Hague Convention mandates cooperation between Central Authorities of the State of origin and the receiving State for the welfare and protection of the child — CARA proceeded on a misconception that the matter could not be taken up as the adoption was under HAMA — No objection by CARA as to the validity of the adoption — Held: CARA is directed to liaise with Canadian authorities, convey the statutory and regulatory position, and thereafter issue an NOC upon conclusion of the exercise under Articles 5 and/or 17 [Paras 28–35].

Best Interest of Child — Paramount Consideration — Adoption Regulations Cannot Be Construed to Leave Validly Adopted Children Without Relief — A construction that precludes parents who have effected a valid HAMA adoption from obtaining relocation approval under the 2021 Regulations would be contrary to the express wording of those Regulations and the paramount principle of the best interest of the child — Such construction is not acceptable [Paras 14, 25, 30].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of — CARA directed to liaise with Canadian authorities and convey the regulatory and statutory position — CARA further directed to issue NOC to petitioners upon conclusion of the exercise under Articles 5 and/or 17 of the Hague Convention — Pending applications disposed of.

Customs Law – Export Incentives – RoDTEP Scheme – Sugar Exports – Denial of Benefit – Petitioners engaged in export of white refined sugar (ITC(HS) Code 17011490) availed duty credit under RoDTEP Scheme – Export policy of sugar amended from "free" to "restricted" by Notification No. 10/2015-20 dated 24 May 2022, with exports permitted under specific permission of Directorate of Sugar – Revenue denied RoDTEP benefit treating such exports as ineligible "restricted" exports under Notification No. 76/2021-Customs (N.T.) – Held: Sugar exported with specific permission under prescribed conditions cannot be treated as a totally restricted or prohibited item so as to deprive petitioners of RoDTEP benefits – Petitioners entitled to duty credit under the Scheme [Paras 3-4, 9, 22].

Export Policy – Restricted vs. Prohibited Exports – RoDTEP Ineligibility – Item No. 1 of Table 1 to Notification No. 76/2021 excludes from RoDTEP duty credit goods "restricted or prohibited for export" – Revenue contended that sugar, post-Notification dated 24 May 2022, became blanketly ineligible – Held: The said notification does not impose a total embargo; it permits export with specific permission and prescribed quota – Characterising quota-permitted exports as "restricted/prohibited" is a misreading of the notification – Revenue's position contrary to the policy conditions set out in the notification itself [Paras 19-22].

Precedent – Finality of High Court Decision – Uniform Policy – Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd. and M/s. Satyendra Packaging Ltd. held that RoDTEP benefit cannot be denied to sugar exporters acting under specific Government permission – Department's SLP dismissed by Supreme Court on 26 April 2024 – Department's own communications accepted finality of the Gujarat High Court orders and proceeded to grant benefit to those petitioners – Held: Once an issue has attained finality in view of an authoritative pronouncement by a High Court, the department ought not to re-agitate the same before other High Courts; doing so invites conflicting interpretations and judicial chaos – Principle of inter-High Court comity and uniform policy on Central legislation affirmed following Maneklal Chunilal & Sons Ltd. and Jayantilal Ramanlal & Co. [Paras 23-25].

Relief – Refund with Interest – Petitioners who were not granted RoDTEP benefit directed to be granted the same – Where benefit was already granted but subsequently recovered from petitioners, refund of amount so recovered directed within four weeks along with interest at 6% per annum – No coercive recovery action to be taken where benefit has been granted [Paras 26-27, Order clauses (i)-(iv)].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Petitioners held entitled to RoDTEP benefit – Respondents directed to grant rebate under the Scheme to petitioners who exported sugar under specific permission – Petitioners from whom benefit was recovered directed to be refunded with 6% p.a. interest within four weeks – No coercive action for recovery to be taken – Rule made absolute. No costs.