Bail Application – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), 1985 – Accused seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC for offenses under NDPS Act – Petitioner has a significant criminal history – Bail considered in light of Section 37 of NDPS Act, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities of narcotic drugs. [Para 1-6]

Principle of Bail – Role of Criminal Antecedents and Section 37 NDPS Act – While considering bail, courts to assess the accused's role in the current case, not merely rely on criminal history – Section 37 NDPS Act requires satisfying twin conditions: opportunity for Public Prosecutor to oppose bail and the court's satisfaction of reasonable grounds for believing the accused's innocence. [Para 7-10]

Admissibility of Confessional Statements – Supreme Court Precedents – Confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act held inadmissible in evidence for trial of offences under the Act – Impact on the present case where the petitioner's criminal history not strictly considered as a factor for denying bail. [Para 11]

Bail Conditions – Ensuring Compliance and Non-Repetition of Offence – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions – Restrictions on possession of firearms, maintaining a single mobile number, and other specific conditions imposed to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure the accused’s presence during trial. [Para 12-24]

Bail Order Applicability – Inclusion of Additional Offenses – If additional sections with similar or lesser severity are added to the FIR, the bail order to extend to these new sections – For more severe offenses, separate notice and legal recourse required. [Para 27]

Judicial Observations and Procedural Directions – Observations made are not comments on the merits of the case and should not influence the trial – Directions for obtaining and authenticating the copy of the order for bail purposes. [Para 28-29]

Decision – Petition for bail allowed with the imposition of stringent terms and conditions as detailed in the judgment. [End of Judgment]

Contract Interpretation – GST Inclusion in Contracts – The petitioner, a successful bidder in tender processes, sought refund for GST payments arguing that the tax regime change post-GST introduction was beyond the contract's contemplation. The court, interpreting the contract, emphasized the necessity of a pragmatic approach, stating that the contract should be interpreted to give efficacy rather than invalidate it. The argument for retrospective application of an oppressive circular was rejected, as the GST was applicable only from its introduction. [Paras 1-4, 20-21, 22, 26-27, 32-33]

Commercial Contracts – Tax Liability – The court held that the GST Act merely subsumed existing indirect taxes like VAT, Sales Tax, etc., without introducing additional taxes. It was found that the petitioner was supposed to bear all indirect taxes as per the contract, which included any similar statutory levies, thus including GST. The petitioner’s liability to pay GST under the contract and statutory obligation as a supplier under the GST Act were affirmed. [Paras 18-19, 24-25, 30-31, 32-33, 35, 37, 38, 43]

Business Efficacy and Commercial Viability – The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding commercial viability and business efficacy. It was stated that the contract's tax clause was clear and unambiguous and that commercial viability does not imply unfair advantages to the contractor. The court emphasized that commercial contracts inherently involve calculated business risks, including tax changes. [Paras 40-43]

Decision – The petitions for refund of GST payments were dismissed, and it was held that the petitioner is liable to pay GST as per the contract and GST Act. The court concluded that no refund direction is warranted in the case. [Paras 45-46]

Amendment of Written Statement – Rejection by Trial Court – Defendants sought to amend their written statement to include new facts challenging the landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff, but the trial court rejected the amendment. The High Court upheld this decision, stating the amendment would change the nature of the defense and dispute previous admissions of the defendants. [Paras 2, 4, 7, 21]

Original Tenancy and Subsequent Legal Proceedings – The defendants, legal heirs of the original tenant, were involved in various legal proceedings challenging eviction suits and lease agreements with the plaintiff. These included cases before the Supreme Court and the High Court, which influenced the current litigation. [Paras 5, 6, 14]

Legal Principles on Amendment of Pleadings – Discussed the applicability and limitations of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of pleadings. Emphasized that amendments should not introduce new facts that change the fundamental nature of the original pleadings or contradict previous admissions. [Paras 8-12, 18-20]

Effect of Previous Admissions and Lease Agreements – The Court found that the defendants’ previous admissions regarding their landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff and the established legal history between the parties precluded the acceptance of the proposed amendment to the written statement. [Paras 13, 16, 17, 19, 20]

Decision and Direction for Expeditious Trial – The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirmed the trial court’s order, and directed the trial court to expedite the conclusion of the long-pending suit without unnecessary adjournments. [Paras 22, 24]

Bail Application – Regular Bail in Multiple FIRs – Petitioner seeks regular bail in four FIRs (No. 42/2019, No. 33/2019, No. 10/2019, and No. 43/2019) under IPC Sections 420/406/120B related to allegations of cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust by Amrapali Group's directors in residential projects – Charges yet to be framed. [Para 1, 3, 4]

Allegations and Investigations – Accusations of stalled or incomplete residential projects despite payment by homebuyers – Misrepresentation of obtaining requisite permissions – Financial irregularities highlighted through ROC data and forensic audit ordered by the Supreme Court. [Para 2, 5, 7]

Applicant's Role and Arrests – Applicant, a director in accused companies with limited involvement in financial affairs – Arrest dates in respective FIRs detailed – Chargesheets filed, but charges not framed. [Para 6, 8, 9, 13, 18]

Legal Proceedings and Bail History of Applicant – Regular bail granted in other FIRs – Cooperative conduct in investigations – Prior judicial custody since 9th October 2018 in other FIRs. [Para 12, 16, 17]

Supreme Court's Involvement and Asset Recovery – Supreme Court overseeing project completion and homebuyer possession – Recovery of Rs. 8.36 crores from applicant and family as per Supreme Court order. [Para 21, 22]

Bail Considerations and Principles – Documentary nature of evidence reduces risk of tampering – Bail viewed as a rule, not exception, emphasizing personal liberty and right to speedy trial. [Para 23, 25, 26, 27]

Decision and Bail Conditions – Bail granted with conditions including Rs. 1,00,000/- bond, court appearance, investigation cooperation, and no contact with witnesses or involvement in criminal activities. [Para 27, 28, 29, 30]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 37(1) Appeal – Challenge against order passed by ADJ dismissing application under Section 34 of A&C Act – Appeal dismissed, affirming Sole Arbitrator’s award. [Para 1, 6, 25]

Arbitration Agreement – Enforcement and interpretation – Arbitrator’s jurisdiction encompassed disputes arising from all relevant invoices and bills, despite initial notices referencing a limited period – Arbitrator’s interpretation upheld. [Para 16-23]

Contractual Dispute – Claim for outstanding payments and interest on supplies between parties – Arbitrator’s calculation of dues based on running account and mutual agreements – Appellant’s challenge on invoices considered beyond the scope of arbitration, dismissed. [Para 2, 4, 5, 22]

Arbitration Award – Assessment of interest on outstanding amount – Award of 7.5% p.a. simple interest from due date to realization date, justified and upheld. [Para 5, 14, 24]

Legal Principles – Scope of judicial interference in arbitration awards – Limited to ensuring no patent illegality or decision beyond the scope of submission – Court upholds principle of minimal interference in arbitral awards. [Para 12-14, 17, 24]

Decision – Dismissal of appeal against ADJ’s order – Sole Arbitrator’s award on disputes of payment and interest, upheld in entirety. [Para 25, 26]

Bail Application – Medical Grounds – Petitioner’s Daughter’s Mental Health: Petitioner seeks interim bail due to his daughter’s mental health condition, particularly Paranoid Schizophrenia and suicidal tendencies. Recent incidents of acute anxiety and suicidal behavior by the daughter cited as grounds for bail. [Para 1-4]

Respondent’s Argument – Enforcement Directorate (ED): ED opposes the bail application. Emphasizes that the daughter’s medical supervision does not necessitate the petitioner’s presence. References petitioner’s past conduct, including frequent changes of mobile phones, to argue against bail. [Para 5]

Court’s Analysis and Decision: The Court recognizes the mental health struggles of the petitioner’s daughter but notes the availability of her mother and other relatives for support. Acknowledges the importance of familial support for the child but considers the petitioner’s criminal involvement and ongoing judicial custody. Denies interim bail but allows video conferencing between petitioner and his daughter for emotional support. [Paras 6-19]

Final Order: Interim bail application denied. Directions given for video conferencing between petitioner and daughter. Court acknowledges the psychological impact on the child and the need for parental support but balances it against the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner. [Paras 16-20]

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Alleged disobedience of final order and decree in C.S. (Comm.) No. 182/2017 – Petitioner company seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for non-compliance with settlement agreement – Contempt not established due to financial constraints of respondents. [Para 1-17]

Lease Agreement – Non-payment of Rent – Lease agreement expired, but respondent company continued possession on a month-to-month basis – Claim for arrears of rent and interest due to non-payment since October 2015. [Para 2-3]

Settlement Agreement – Compliance – Allegation of respondents’ failure to vacate premises and pay outstanding dues as per settlement agreement – Respondents vacated premises late and failed to honor payment commitments due to financial difficulties. [Para 4-7, 15-16]

Respondents’ Financial Position – Impact on Compliance – Respondents’ financial difficulties acknowledged – Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against respondent company impacting ability to comply with settlement terms. [Para 9, 15]

Judicial Analysis – Determination of Wilfulness in Contempt – Examination of whether non-compliance was willful – Factors considered include respondents’ understanding of obligations, financial situation, and legal proceedings. [Para 11-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Contempt Petition – Non-compliance attributed to compelling financial circumstances of respondents – Petition for initiation of contempt proceedings dismissed. [Para 16-17]

Railways Act, 1989 – Compensation Claim – Train Accident Death – Appeal against dismissal of compensation claim by Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) – Deceased died in train accident, appellant sought compensation under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989. [Para 1]

Evidence and Witnesses – Credibility of witnesses in proving deceased was a bona fide train passenger – RCT's dismissal based on disbelief of witness' testimony, but High Court found testimony credible and consistent. [Para 3, 7-12]

Contradiction in Testimony – Apparent contradictions in testimony regarding deceased's luggage – High Court noted these contradictions were not decisive to defeat the claim. [Para 12]

Post-Mortem Report – Injuries consistent with accidental fall from train – Post-mortem report confirmed nature of injuries, supporting claim of untoward incident. [Para 13]

Final Decision – Compensation Awarded – High Court concluded deceased was a bona fide passenger, met with an untoward incident as defined in The Railways Act – Compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with 9% interest per annum from incident date awarded. [Para 14-15]

Directive to Railway Claims Tribunal – RCT directed to deposit compensation within four weeks, failing which interest would accrue from judgment date. [Para 16]

Decision – RCT's judgment set aside, appeal allowed, and compensation awarded to appellant. [Para 15-17]

Probate of Will - Petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Grant of probate for Will dated 27.09.2012 of late Ms. Kanval Dhillon - Testatrix's Will contested by her sisters (Respondents 2 and 3) - Petitioners (executors) are close friends of the testatrix - Authenticity and validity of the Will challenged due to overwriting and cuttings. [Para 1-3]

Testamentary Suit - Issues regarding the authenticity and legal validity of the Will - Consideration of whether the Will, as propounded by the petitioners, is the last valid Will of the deceased - Examination of the impact of factual mistakes, cutting, overwriting, and other alleged suspicious circumstances on the validity of the Will. [Para 5]

Evidence and Witness Testimony - Analysis of evidence presented by petitioners and respondents - Examination of seven witnesses by petitioners, including themselves and the attesting witness - Respondents' counter-evidence through six witnesses, including family friends and domestic help - Testimony of Ms. Seema Bansal (PW4), the attesting witness, crucial in establishing the execution of the Will. [Para 6-7]

Legal Arguments and Court's Analysis - Detailed discussion of legal submissions by counsel for both parties - Consideration of legal principles and precedents regarding execution and attestation of Wills - Court's interpretation of Section 63 of the Succession Act and the requirement of the testator's acknowledgment of the Will's execution - Evaluation of the mental state and intentions of the testatrix at the time of Will execution. [Para 8-23]

Decision on Probate - Court's conclusion on the validity of the Will in its original form - Disregard of unsigned cuttings and overwriting as per Section 71 of the Succession Act - Grant of Letters of Administration to the petitioners with respect to the Will dated 27.09.2012 of late Ms. Kanval Dhillon, subject to necessary legal formalities. [Para 24-36]

Judicial Reasoning - Emphasis on the intention and mental state of the testatrix - Recognition of the testatrix’s sound mind during Will execution - Analysis of the relationships between the testatrix, petitioners, and respondents - Acknowledgment of minor changes in the Will as not impacting its overall validity and intent. [Para 17, 22, 32-34]