Cheque Dishonour – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellant challenged trial court’s acquittal of respondent in cheque dishonour case – Court upheld acquittal noting lack of evidence of goods delivery and accused’s liability – Emphasized need for concrete proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2-6, 12-14].

Presumption and Evidence – Section 138 and 139 NI Act – Court highlighted requirement to prove debt or liability for cheque dishonour cases – Noted failure to provide delivery proof, invoices without acknowledgment, and absence of business records corroborating transaction – Accused’s claim of misplaced cheque book substantiated by timely police report [Paras 10-12].

Scope of Acquittal Appeals – Reappreciation of Evidence – Reiterated principles of limited interference in acquittal appeals – Emphasized prejudice in favour of acquitted accused and necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt for conviction [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Trial court’s judgment well-reasoned and evidence-based – No grounds to interfere with acquittal – Leave to appeal denied [Para 14].

Narcotic Drugs – Admissibility of Samples – Conviction under Sections 20(b)(ii)C and 29 of the NDPS Act challenged – Appellants contended that samples drawn at the scene were not forwarded for chemical examination, violating Section 52A – Court noted failure to forward primary evidence, the samples drawn in presence of Magistrate – Held, conviction and sentence unsustainable [Paras 1-21].

Section 52A NDPS Act – Procedure for Drawing Samples – Statutory requirement for samples to be drawn under Magistrate’s supervision to establish primary evidence – Prosecution’s failure to adhere led to lack of evidentiary value in chemical analysis report – Appeals allowed, appellants acquitted [Paras 10-20].

Decision: Criminal Appeals Allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released unless required in another case [Para 21].

Criminal Law – Bail – Petition for regular bail – Petitioner arrested with counterfeit currency notes – Prosecution case based on secret information and recovery by police – Petitioner claims false implication and non-recovery of counterfeit notes – Petitioner contends that counterfeit notes are toys and not genuine currency – Held – Petitioner in custody for over 9 months – Several other cases against petitioner but on bail in majority – Past cases not a basis to refuse bail in present case – Reference to Supreme Court rulings allowing bail despite pendency of other cases – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-7].

Bail Conditions – Regular Bail – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds – Conditions include non-inducement of witnesses, attendance on court dates, no absenteeism without permission, surrender of passport, and disclosure of residence and mobile details – Imposition of further conditions at trial court’s discretion [Para 7].

Decision: Petition allowed. Petitioner granted regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate/chief judicial magistrate concerned. Specific conditions imposed include non-inducement of witnesses, mandatory court attendance, surrender of passport, and reporting of residence and mobile number changes. Court emphasizes that involvement in any other criminal activity during the trial will be viewed seriously and may lead to bail revocation [Para 7].

Requisition and Compensation – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Enhancement of Rent – Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) challenged the enhancement of rent compensation assessed by the First Land Acquisition Collector – Respondent challenged a letter proposing a fresh inspection – Single Judge upheld the rent assessment but revoked the proposed inspection – Court found the assessment lacked proper measurement and was thus invalid – Directed a fresh determination in line with Division Bench’s previous directives [Paras 1-35].

Administrative Procedure – Requirement for Measurement – Division Bench directed measurement for meaningful determination – First Land Acquisition Collector failed to measure premises before assessment – Issued letter for inspection after final memo – Court found the process flawed and invalidated the assessment – Emphasized proper adherence to directives for accurate compensation [Paras 22-35].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Memo dated 12th August, 2021, along with memos dated 29th December, 2020, and 29th June, 2021, canceled – Directed fresh determination of rent compensation within two months – Letter dated 19th July, 2022, declared infructuous – No order as to costs [Para 34-35].
 

Customs Law – Acquittal and Exit Permit – Petitioner, a Chinese national, was intercepted at Mumbai airport carrying gold bars, subsequently acquitted by the trial court – Customs Department’s appeal dismissed – Respondent No. 2’s failure to challenge acquittal within the statutory period – FRRO’s refusal to issue Exit Permit due to pending LOC initiated by Customs Department – High Court criticizes Customs Department’s conduct as vindictive and an abuse of power – Orders issuance of Exit Permit and compensation for mental agony and trauma [Paras 1-42].

Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to Liberty for Foreign Nationals – Court emphasizes protection of liberty under Article 21 extends to foreign nationals – Highlights procedural failures and humanitarian considerations – Ensures no discrimination against foreign nationals and upholds right to fair treatment and liberty [Paras 34-39].

Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance – Respondent No. 2’s appeal found non-maintainable due to lack of requisite approval as mandated by Circular No. 27/2015-Cus – High Court underscores necessity for compliance with procedural requirements before filing appeals [Paras 23-28].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court directs issuance of Exit Permit within one week – Orders compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 to be paid to petitioner by Union of India, recoverable from salary of responsible Customs official – Emphasizes humane and fair treatment of foreign nationals in accordance with constitutional provisions [Para 42].

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].

Bail – Regular Bail in Suicide Case – Petitioners sought bail in a case under Section 306 IPC, alleging harassment leading to suicide – Court noted petitioners' long incarceration, lack of evidence examination, and Supreme Court’s bail principles – Bail granted considering prolonged detention without trial progression [Paras 1-15].

Suicide Note – Evidentiary Value – Suicide note implicated petitioners – Court awaited forensic report on handwriting – Emphasized bail does not determine guilt but ensures presence for trial [Paras 6, 8, 15].

Principles of Bail – Fundamental Rights – Referenced Supreme Court principles on bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Highlighted right to a speedy trial and presumption of innocence – Emphasized judicial discretion in granting bail to avoid unnecessary incarceration [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Held – Petitioners granted regular bail on furnishing bail bonds – Observations limited to bail decision, not affecting trial merits [Paras 16-18].
 

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].

Co-operative Societies – Redevelopment of Housing Societies – Petitioners challenged the orders of the State Government relating to the redevelopment projects – Contention regarding the inadequacy of the consent obtained from the members and non-compliance with statutory requirements – High Court held the State’s orders to be mechanical and without proper consideration of members’ rights – Orders set aside [Paras 1-35].

Consent of Members – Statutory Requirement – Emphasized the necessity for obtaining the consent of at least 70% of the members as per the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Failure to obtain valid consent renders the redevelopment agreement void ab initio – High Court highlighted the importance of transparency and fairness in obtaining members’ consent [Paras 20-25].

Developer Obligations – Compliance with Regulations – Court scrutinized the obligations of developers under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and the Development Control Regulations – Found significant non-compliance with mandatory disclosures and project timelines – Developers directed to adhere strictly to statutory norms [Paras 26-30].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Orders by State Government set aside – Court mandated strict compliance with statutory procedures for redevelopment, ensuring members’ rights and interests are protected – Directed developers to rectify non-compliance and adhere to timelines and disclosures as per the applicable laws** [Paras 31-35].