Criminal Law – Inclusion of POCSO Charges – Petitioner challenged the rejection of her application for addition of Section 12 of the POCSO Act – Case initially filed under Sections 363 and 366A IPC for enticement of minor daughter – Trial Court dismissed inclusion of POCSO charges citing lack of sufficient material – High Court upheld the dismissal, confirming no evidence supporting POCSO charges [Paras 1-9].

Criminal Procedure – Section 216 Cr.P.C. – Court’s Power to Alter Charges – The Court may alter or add charges at any time before judgment – Requirement for material evidence to justify such alterations emphasized – High Court found no materials warranting the addition of Section 12 POCSO charges, supporting the Trial Court’s decision [Paras 6-8].

Facts of the Case – Victim enticed by accused, later married and living together – State submitted that the couple now leads a conjugal life – Victim was 13 years old at the time of offense – High Court noted lack of material evidence to support POCSO charges – Current charges under Sections 363/366A IPC deemed appropriate [Paras 2-4, 8].

Decision – Revision Application Dismissed – High Court dismissed the application for addition of POCSO charges – Directed return of case diary to the State’s counsel – No interference with lower court’s order required [Para 10-14].

Defamation – Social Media Posts – Plaintiff, a renowned journalist, alleged Defamation by Defendants via social media – Plaintiff sought injunction for removal of defamatory posts – Court directed Defendants to remove posts and make videos private within seven days [Paras 50-51].

Right to Reputation vs. Free Speech – Court acknowledged higher threshold for public figures but stressed individual dignity – Distinguished between permissible public criticism and defamation [Paras 40-41].

Ex Parte Injunction – Granted under exceptional circumstances – Court emphasized factors for consideration, including irreparable harm and balance of convenience – Noted prima facie case of defamation [Paras 36-49].

Decision – Application for interim injunction allowed – Defendants directed to remove defamatory content and make videos private pending final decision in the suit [Paras 50-51].

Criminal Procedure – Bail – Considerations for Grant: Petitioner sought regular bail for offenses under Sections 308, 341, 354B, 506, 509 IPC. The court considered the delay in FIR registration and the gravity of allegations. It highlighted factors such as prima facie case, severity of punishment, and potential to tamper with evidence. The application was dismissed on grounds of severity of charges and apprehension of influencing witnesses [Paras 1-14].

Evidence Tampering – Allegation of Suppression: The petitioner was accused of formatting his mobile phone before seizure, indicating potential evidence tampering. Selective CCTV footage was handed over by the petitioner’s office, raising concerns about evidence suppression. The court emphasized the need for thorough investigation [Paras 7-13].

Prima Facie Case – Consideration of Facts: The delay in FIR registration was explained by the complainant’s trauma and position. The court found no motive for false implication. Allegations of unprovoked assault in a high-security area were taken seriously. The court noted the complainant’s status and the petitioner’s influence in the office [Paras 12-14].

Security Breach Report – Investigation Pending: A report by Deepak Dikshit, Assistant Section Officer at the Chief Minister’s residence, about the complainant’s unauthorized entry was not included in the police investigation. The court observed that any serious security breach should have been immediately reported to the police, apart from sending a report to senior officers [Para 13].

Criminal History and Threats: The petitioner had a prior case (FIR No.102/2007 under Section 353 IPC) and was accused of making threatening statements to the complainant. The court considered these factors in denying bail [Para 9].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Pending applications disposed of. The court emphasized thorough investigation and protection of witnesses [Para 14].

Bail Application – Regular Bail – Appellants accused of drug smuggling and financing terrorism – Held in custody for nearly four years – High Court granted bail emphasizing the constitutional right to speedy trial and personal liberty – Bail granted with strict conditions despite stringent provisions under UAPA and NDPS Act [Paras 1-29].

Constitutional Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Appellants detained for four years without trial – Supreme Court’s precedent cited to reinforce the right to speedy trial and personal liberty – Detention exceeding substantial part of potential sentence considered [Paras 12-15, 26].

Statutory Interpretation – Sections 37 of NDPS Act and 43D of UAPA – Twin conditions for bail – Reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty and unlikely to commit offense while on bail – High Court found compliance with these conditions, facilitating bail grant [Paras 17-19, 23].

Case Specifics – Role of Appellants – Charges against appellants varied, with different sets of offenses under IPC, NDPS Act, and UAPA – Detailed examination of charges, role in alleged crimes, and lack of recovery of drugs or proceeds of crime for some appellants [Paras 8-10, 20-22].

Decision – Bail Granted – Held – Appellants directed to be released on bail with stringent conditions – Conditions include furnishing substantial sureties, surrender of passports, regular court appearance, and prohibition from involvement in criminal activities or tampering with evidence [Paras 27-29].

Income Tax – Transfer Pricing Adjustments – Royalty Payments – The ITAT deleted the TP adjustments of INR 1,99,57,161/- related to royalty payments made by Samsung India to its parent company – ITAT found that Samsung India operates as a full-fledged licensed manufacturer and not as a contract manufacturer – Royalty payments were made for technical know-how and expertise provided by Samsung Korea – ITAT’s order upheld by High Court – No evidence of royalty payments being unreasonable or not at arm’s length [Paras 1-38].

Contract Manufacturer vs. Licensed Manufacturer – ITAT and High Court found that Samsung India was not acting as a contract manufacturer for Samsung Korea – Manufacturing operations and sales to associated enterprises (AEs) driven by open market conditions – Samsung India independently negotiated sales contracts with AEs and third parties – OECD Guidelines referenced to support findings [Paras 22-33].

Role of Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) – TPO’s scope of authority limited to examining appropriateness of method and comparables for determining ALP – TPO cannot question commercial expediency or genuineness of royalty payments – High Court affirmed that the TPO exceeded authority by disallowing royalty payments on grounds of alleged contract manufacturing [Paras 20-21, 35].

Arms’ Length Principle – High Court emphasized the need to respect commercial arrangements and agreements between associated enterprises – Adjustments to TP should be made only when transactions deviate significantly from what independent enterprises would agree upon – No evidence of profit shifting through royalty payments [Paras 28-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – ITAT order upheld – No TP adjustments warranted for royalty payments – ITAT’s determination that Samsung India operates as a licensed manufacturer and not as a contract manufacturer accepted – High Court highlighted the importance of respecting commercial transactions and agreements between associated enterprises [Para 39].

Administrative Law – Repatriation – Absorption – Petitioner, initially on deputation as Deputy Registrar, was absorbed by University’s Executive Council (EC) resolution – Later repatriated by Registrar’s order claiming she was still on deputation – Petitioner challenged repatriation – Court held petitioner was validly absorbed and became permanent employee – Registrar’s order set aside as it lacked jurisdiction and violated statutory provisions [Paras 7.1-7.4].

University Governance – Authority and Jurisdiction – Executive Council (EC) as Chief Executive Authority – Registrar and Vice-Chancellor overstepped jurisdiction in repatriating petitioner – Absence of quorum for EC meetings not justified – EC’s decisions binding until formally modified or recalled [Paras 7.3-7.4].

Costs – Litigation Costs – Petitioner awarded ₹1,00,000 as costs due to illegal actions by University officials – Costs to be borne by Registrar and Vice-Chancellor personally [Para 9].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned repatriation order dated 01.03.2024 set aside – Petitioner to be treated as Deputy Registrar with effect from 02.03.2021 – Respondent University directed to relieve petitioner from her current posting within three days to enable her to join the University [Para 8].

Arbitration – Challenge to Award – Interest on Claims – VAT Claims – Challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against an award allowing claims for unsupplied items and VAT components – Held that the arbitrator acted beyond jurisdiction by granting claims contrary to contractual terms – Clause 15.4 of the tender document precluded any interest claims against the purchaser – Arbitrator’s award of interest despite contractual bar was beyond his jurisdiction – VAT claims for unsupplied items and post-delivery period precluded by contractual terms – Award set aside [Paras 1-44].

Contractual Terms and Jurisdiction of Arbitrator – Arbitrator bound by contract terms – Section 28(3) of the Act mandates consideration of contract terms – Short closure clause within the tender terms justified non-purchase of balance items – No breach of contract by petitioner railways – Arbitrator’s award disregarding contract terms vitiated by illegality and perversity – Section 34(2)(a)(iv) and Section 34(2-A) of the Act invoked [Paras 22-29, 35-41].

Interest Award – Clause 15.4 of bid document barred interest claims – Section 31(7) of the Act permits interest only if not otherwise agreed by parties – Arbitrator’s award of interest beyond contract terms held illegal and beyond jurisdiction – Judgments cited reinforcing arbitrator’s inability to grant interest in contradiction to contract [Paras 37-40].

Decision – AP No.105 of 2021 allowed – Arbitral award dated September 24, 2020, set aside – No order as to costs – Directions for urgent certified copies issuance upon compliance [Paras 44-46].

GST Law – Show Cause Notice – Issuance of Notice under Section 73 – Petitioner challenges the show cause notice for non-compliance with Rule 1A of Rule 142 of GST Rules – Mandatory requirement to communicate details in Part A of Form GST DRC-01A not fulfilled – Court examines procedural compliance and jurisdictional aspects – Concludes that procedural requirements were adhered to and petitioner was provided adequate opportunity to respond [Paras 1-14].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability Despite Alternative Remedy – Principles for exercising writ jurisdiction despite availability of alternative remedy – Court holds that petitioner has not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting bypass of statutory remedy – References precedents for maintaining writ petitions under such conditions [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner directed to avail alternative remedy of statutory appeal. Court clarifies that proper procedural steps were followed in the issuance of the show cause notice and corrigendum, ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice. Liberty granted to file an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if the appeal is time-barred [Para 13-16].

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Application for bail by the accused implicated in a narcotics case – Accused has been in judicial custody for 190 days – No final report filed – Entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 1-12].

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Commercial Quantity – Accused found in possession of 84.290 grams of MDMA and 18.070 grams of hashish – Petitioner arrested and in custody for more than 180 days without completion of investigation – Statutory right to bail due to prosecution’s failure to file charges within stipulated time [Paras 6, 12].

Statutory Bail – Indefeasible Right – Provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 36A(4) NDPS Act – Right to bail arises if chargesheet not filed within 180 days – Supreme Court’s interpretation in Sanjay Dutt and Uday Mohanlal Acharya cases reaffirmed – Conditions for bail specified [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner to be released on executing a bond with conditions – Emphasis on compliance with statutory provisions and safeguarding investigation process [Para 12].