Taxation Law - Indirect Tax – SVLDRS – Litigation vs. Arrears Category – Petitioner filed declaration under Litigation category under Section 124(1)(a) of Finance Act, 2019 – Tribunal’s remand order dated 30.12.2010 had relegated proceedings to show cause notice stage – Final quantification of duty remained pending as on 30.06.2019 – Held: Petitioner’s case falls under Litigation category, not Arrears – Impugned Form SVLDRS-3 issued under Section 124(1)(c) quashed [Paras 34–44, 47–48].

Indirect Tax – Pre-deposit Adjustment – Petitioner paid Rs.10 lakhs as pre-deposit under Tribunal’s directions – Respondents had themselves adjusted this amount in Form SVLDRS-2 – Held: No dispute regarding pre-deposit – Adjustment mandated under Section 124(2) – Objection to pre-deposit benefit untenable [Paras 20–21, 36, 46].

Statutory Interpretation – SVLDRS Scheme – Litigation category requires pendency of appeal or SCN as on 30.06.2019 – Requantification pending under remand means tax dues not finalized – Reference made to coordinate bench decisions in UCN Cable Network and Morde Foods – Held: Scheme must be interpreted to preserve benefits conferred and avoid rendering it unworkable [Paras 37–39, 45].

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petitioner rightly invoked Article 226 to challenge arbitrary classification of case under incorrect SVLDRS category – Court finds application of mind lacking in issuance of Form SVLDRS-3 – Exercise of writ jurisdiction justified [Paras 21–22, 48–49].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Form SVLDRS-3 dated 12.03.2020 quashed – Respondents directed to recompute dues under Litigation category with 70% relief – Exercise to be completed within two months – No costs awarded.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Acquittal – State challenged judgment acquitting respondents of offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 307/34 IPC – Held: Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that injuries were caused by accused – Acquittal justified [Paras 1, 17, 20].

Evidence – Identification of Accused – Absence of Test Identification Parade – Injured and alleged eye-witness did not know accused earlier – Accused identified for first time in Court – Occurrence took place at night and assailants were standing in darkness – Held: Dock identification without prior TIP is weak and unreliable – Identity of accused not established [Paras 12-13].

Evidence – Injured Witness – Contradictions – Injured stated in police statement that assailants were unknown and standing in dark – Subsequently identified accused in Court – Identification held improbable as injury was inflicted from behind and injured became unconscious – Testimony not trustworthy [Paras 12-13].

Witness Testimony – Presence of Eye-Witness – PW5 Kartar Singh claimed to be present – Injured did not name or refer to PW5 either in FIR or evidence – PW5 closely related to injured – Did not take injured to hospital – Held: Presence of PW5 at spot doubtful and possibility of being introduced witness cannot be ruled out [Para 14].

Circumstantial Evidence – Recovery – Shoe allegedly recovered from spot on third day and another from accused – Place of occurrence was busy thoroughfare – Held: Recovery highly improbable and unreliable [Para 15].

Motive – Absence – Though motive not mandatory in every case – In facts of present case absence of motive weakened prosecution case – Failure to establish reason for accused to attack complainant [Para 16].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal – Appellate Court to interfere only in case of perversity or illegality – No infirmity or perversity found in trial Court judgment – Acquittal upheld [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment dated 27.11.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Faridkot acquitting respondents upheld – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Delay in Lodging FIR – FIR registered in 2024 for alleged fraudulent dilution and transfer of shares between 2010–2011 – Allegations surfaced during arbitration in 2024 – Held: Delay of 14 years in raising grievances without pursuing civil remedies casts doubt on urgency and requires trial to determine knowledge and intent [Paras 17–20].

Forgery and Corporate Misconduct – Role of Director – Allegations of backdated share allotments, forged AGM records, and illegal share transfers by applicant – Investigation ongoing – Evidence includes presence of deceased persons in AGM attendance and statements of shareholders denying consent – Held: Whether applicant played a culpable role is a matter of trial and not for pre-arrest stage [Paras 6–12, 21–22].

Criminal Procedure – Custodial Interrogation – Not Necessary – Applicant cooperated with investigation on multiple occasions under interim protection – Allegations based on company records, ROC filings, and share certificates – No evidence of tampering or absconding – Custodial interrogation not warranted [Paras 23–27].

Anticipatory Bail – Conditions and Safeguards – Applicant granted bail with stringent conditions – Required to cooperate with investigation, not contact witnesses, and remain within jurisdiction – Held: Arrest not punitive and bail justified in absence of threat to investigation or risk of flight [Paras 31–33].

Decision: Anticipatory bail granted – Applicant to be released on bail in event of arrest on furnishing personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties – Directed to cooperate with investigation and adhere to conditions – Observations not to affect trial on merits.

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus - Preventive Detention – Live and Proximate Link – Delay Vitiates Detention – Alleged occurrence on 11.06.2025; arrest on 22.06.2025; detention order on 21.07.2025 – State failed to satisfactorily explain delay – Mere calendrical narration in affidavit insufficient – Applying Anand Prakash (AIR 1990 SC 516) and Sushanta Kumar Bainik (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333), Court holds live and proximate link snapped; detention vitiated [Paras 6–9].

Detaining Authority Must Consider Custody Status – Non-Application of Mind – Detaining authority failed to record that detenu was already in judicial custody at Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa on date of detention order; subjective satisfaction regarding imminent likelihood of release on bail absent – Violative of principles in Khudiram Das (1975) 2 SCC 81 and reaffirmed in Ameena Begum (2023) 9 SCC 587 – Detention unsustainable [Paras 10–11].

Subjective Satisfaction – Limited Judicial Review – Court reiterates Khudiram Das doctrine that subjective satisfaction is reviewable on grounds such as non-application of mind, irrelevant considerations, improper purpose, incorrect factual assumptions – Detention order failed these tests as detaining authority ignored crucial factual data [Paras 10–11].

Distinction from Dimple Happy Dhakad (2019) 20 SCC 609 – DH Dhakad applies where detaining authority considers custody and likelihood of bail but records no explicit finding – Present case more severe: detaining authority completely omitted fact of custody, hence order vitiated on a more fundamental ground [Para 11].

Default Bail – Impact on Preventive Detention Justification – Lone FIR forming basis of detention saw detenu granted default bail on 08.10.2025 due to State’s failure to file final report – Though not the sole ground for quashing, it underscores inconsistency in State sustaining preventive detention while allowing lapse in regular criminal process – Court notes Ram Manohar Lohia’s concentric circle principle distinguishing law and order, public order, security of State [Paras 12–13].

Detention Order Quashed – Procedural & Substantive Violations – Delay unexplained; custody status ignored; subjective satisfaction not in conformity with settled constitutional standards – Detention order, approval and confirmation all set aside – Detenu ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case [Paras 14].

Decision:

Writ of Habeas Corpus allowed – Preventive detention order dated 21.07.2025, its approval dated 31.07.2025 and confirmation dated 22.08.2025 quashed – Detenu Longjam Boy Singh @ Khaba directed to be released immediately, if not required in other case(s) – No order as to costs.

[Paras 14]

Constitutional Law – Writ of Quo Warranto – Appointment of Additional Advocate General challenged on ground of insufficient experience and violation of State Litigation Policy, 2018 – Held: A writ of quo warranto lies only where appointment is contrary to statutory rules – Litigation Policy, 2018 does not have statutory force – It is merely a guideline and not enforceable in law – No statutory violation shown – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 1-3, 27-28]

Public Office – Nature of Post – Whether Additional Advocate General holds a 'public office' – Held: Unlike Advocate General (a constitutional post under Article 165), the position of Additional Advocate General is a professional engagement without statutory tenure or defined service rules – Appointment is at discretion of State – Thus, writ of quo warranto not maintainable against such post [Paras 4, 17]

Policy and Executive Instructions – Enforceability of State Litigation Policy – Clause 14.8 permits appointments by competent authority based on expertise – Notification of clause in Gazette does not elevate it to a statutory rule – Gazette publication under Part I Section 1 denotes non-statutory nature – Litigation Policy is not framed under proviso to Article 309 or Article 209 and hence lacks enforceable character [Paras 18, 22, 24-26]

Judicial Review – Limits in Appointment of Government Counsel – Held: Courts cannot interfere in appointment of government counsel unless the appointment violates statutory provision or is vitiated by mala fides – Choice of legal representative lies with the State, especially where post is of professional character without statutory backing [Paras 15-16, 21]

Practice and Procedure – Dismissal of Writ Petition Challenging Government Appointment – State has discretion to decide qualifications and appointment criteria of legal counsel – Experience may guide selection but is not an inflexible mandate – Judicial interference unwarranted where no illegality or arbitrariness established [Paras 28-29]

Decision: Special appeal dismissed – State Litigation Policy held non-enforceable – Appointment of Additional Advocate General not contrary to law – Writ of quo warranto not maintainable – No illegality or arbitrariness in the appointment – Pending applications also disposed of.

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegations of cruelty by wife not established – Appellant-husband alleged wife refused to cook, misbehaved, and pressured him to live separately from parents – Trial Court found no credible evidence of cruelty – Held: No perversity in Family Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1–9, 22, 54–56]

Family Law – Cruelty – Legal Standard – Reiterated: Cruelty includes physical and mental suffering causing reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful to live with the spouse – Mere marital discord or incompatibility does not amount to cruelty – Allegations must be grave and substantiated. [Paras 26–34]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Desertion implies intentional abandonment without reasonable cause and without consent – Requires factum of separation and animus deserendi – Respondent-wife was ousted from matrimonial home – No voluntary desertion – No ground made out. [Paras 35–46, 50–52]

Family Law – Appreciation of Evidence – No perversity – Evidence of both parties considered by Family Court – Allegations of cruelty and desertion found unproved – Court also considered wife’s willingness to resume matrimonial life – Held: No interference warranted in appeal – Appellate Court not to re-appreciate evidence without perversity or legal error. [Paras 18–23, 47–53]

Family Law – Pending Proceedings – Fact that respondent-wife had filed criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC – Does not per se constitute cruelty – Needs to be established that such proceedings were false and malicious. [Paras 16, 49]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Impugned judgment of Family Court upheld. No element of perversity found. Pending applications also disposed of. [Paras 55–57]

Criminal Law – Robbery – Conviction under Section 397 IPC – Reversed – Appellant convicted for robbery and stabbing under Sections 394/34 and 397 IPC – Trial court sentenced him to concurrent imprisonment of 3 years and 7 years – Complainant identified appellant at police station, but no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted – Held: Dock identification in absence of prior TIP, where accused is a stranger, is weak and unreliable – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Identification – TIP Not Conducted – Fatal Flaw – Accused was a stranger to the complainant – Identification first made at police station – No judicial TIP held – Supreme Court precedents reaffirmed that TIP is crucial investigative tool in such cases – Dock identification alone cannot form basis of conviction without prior TIP – Held: TIP omission vitiates prosecution case [Paras 15–16].

Witness Testimony – Improvement and Contradictions – Complainant made material improvements in Court testimony including number of knives, request for matchbox, and additional items allegedly robbed (power bank, headphone) – MLC did not mention all injuries as per final testimony – CCTV footage failed to capture incident – Held: Inconsistent narrative weakens prosecution case [Paras 9, 17].

Recovery of Stolen Items – Inconsistent Prosecution Case – Power bank recovered from appellant marked as robbed item despite no mention in original complaint or initial witness accounts – Mobile phone recovered from co-accused – Questionable chain of custody and post-arrest introduction of evidence – Held: Serious doubt cast on credibility of recovery [Paras 11, 14].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – Serious gaps in prosecution case including absence of independent eye-witnesses, contradictory testimonies, and flawed identification – Court held that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted – Ordered to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Petroleum Dealership – Eligibility Criteria – Joint Land Ownership – Lease Deed Requirement – IOCL Brochure Clause 4(vi)(a) mandates that on the date of application, lease deed must be executed by all co-owners; failure renders application invalid – Petitioner submitted lease from only one co-sharer and relied on preliminary decree of partition – Held: Preliminary decree is insufficient; only final decree separating shares by metes and bounds establishes exclusive title – Rejection of application upheld [Paras 8–14, 20]

Partition of Land – Preliminary vs. Final Decree – Under Sections 116–117 of U.P. Revenue Code and Rules 108–109, preliminary decree merely declares shares; final decree alone identifies exact land allotted to each co-sharer – At stage of preliminary decree location of allotted land may change – Applicant must furnish final decree if relying on partition in joint property – Petitioner lacked final decree on date of application [Paras 12–14]

Administrative Law – Commercial Decision of IOCL – Judicial Review – Selection for retail outlet dealership is contractual and commercial – Writ Court will not interfere unless action is arbitrary or irrational – IOCL acted as per Brochure; decision neither arbitrary nor unreasonable – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 17, 20–21]

Precedents – Identical Issues – Earlier judgments in Rahul Singh (Writ C 7354/2024, decided 06.03.2024) and Amarjeet (Writ C 11586/2024, decided 06.05.2024) applied – Both held that in joint ownership cases absence of lease from all co-owners on date of application is fatal – Applied squarely to present case [Paras 15–19]

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No infirmity in IOCL’s rejection order; no relief granted – No order as to costs [Paras 20–21].

Arbitration – Scope of Judicial Interference – Award upholding investor’s claim for indemnity from CDSL under Section 16 of Depositories Act – Tribunal held DP (BRH) acted negligently and fraudulently while transferring and pledging investor’s shares – Court held findings plausible, reasoned, and not perverse – Petition under Section 34 dismissed [Paras 1, 75–78].

Depository Liability – Negligence by DP – BRH, acting as DP of CDSL, fraudulently transferred investor’s shares using Power of Attorney and pledged them to HDFC Bank – Held: Since BRH acted at least partly as DP, CDSL liable to indemnify under Section 16 – CDSL cannot escape liability by attributing acts solely to role of broker [Paras 20–24, 36–47].

Power of Attorney Misuse – Composite Fraud – No underlying trades justified share transfers – Transfers effected solely to engineer fraudulent pledge – Tribunal found Petitioner liable for permitting DP to transfer and pledge shares of 9493 clients – Held: Entire transaction was composite fraud facilitated by CDSL’s DP, attracting vicarious liability [Paras 40–44, 48–50].

Investor Protection – SEBI Regulatory Framework – SEBI Circulars (pre- and post-incident) required adequate monitoring, early warning mechanisms, and supervisory oversight – CDSL failed to prevent DP’s misuse of POA – Court held that investor compensation is independent of specific regulatory violations; Section 16 creates strict liability on depository for DP’s negligent acts [Paras 53–62].

SEBI Circular of 25.07.2023 – No Bar to Depository’s Liability – Circular cannot override statutory liability under Section 16 – Tribunal correctly held that responsibility for DP’s misconduct lies with CDSL and not with NSE – Attempt to shift burden to NSE rejected [Paras 63–70].

Equity Jurisdiction – Tribunal Not Acting as Amiable Compositeur – Though Tribunal used terms like ‘ends of justice’, award was based on findings of statutory negligence – Tribunal did not invoke equity jurisdiction under Section 28(2) of Arbitration Act – No illegality found [Paras 73–74].

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Arbitral Award upheld – CDSL held liable to indemnify Respondent No.1 for value of lost shares (Rs. 86,02,768/-) – No costs awarded – Interim Application also disposed of [Paras 75–79].