Appeal Against Arbitral Award – The appellant, NPCC, appealed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the judgment partially setting aside an arbitral award dated 29 August 2016 concerning liquidated damages payable by the appellant to the respondent, M/S AAC India Pvt. Ltd. [Para 1, 2]

Factual Background – The appellant and respondent entered into an agreement for the installation of a Fire Protection System. The project faced delays, leading to arbitration and the award dated 29 August 2016. [Para 2-3]

Arbitral Award and Challenge – The Arbitrator partially granted the reliefs claimed by the respondent. The award was challenged under Section 34 of the A&C Act, and the learned ADJ partially set aside the award. [Para 4-7]

Grounds for Appeal – The appellant contended that the learned ADJ misconstrued evidence and placed an erroneous construction on the contract provisions. [Para 8]

Scope of Section 34 and 37 of A&C Act – The High Court emphasized the limited scope of Section 34 and 37, stating that an award can only be set aside on limited grounds and there is no power to modify an award under Section 34. [Para 10-13]

Contractual Clauses and Liquidated Damages – The Court found that the learned ADJ misconstrued evidence and correspondence, erroneously concluding that the imposition of LD was only being negotiated. [Para 14-19]

Decision – The High Court set aside the order dated 22 March 2021 to the extent it struck down the award dated 29 August 2016 regarding payment of LD and upheld the award in its entirety. [Para 21]

Customs Clearance - Import of "Lithium Ion Cell" - Challenge to detention and non-clearance of goods under specific bills of entries - Compliance with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) marking requirements - Violation of principles of natural justice - Issuance of show cause notice - Confiscation and penalty imposed - Customs Act, 1962, Section 124 - BIS Regulations, 2018 - Public Notices No. 136/2008 and 157/2018 - Interpretation of labeling requirements - Promotion of electric vehicles and environmental considerations - Clearance of goods - Consumer safety concerns - Circular No. 35/2017 - Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities. [Para 1-13]

Release of Goods - Application for release of goods in question - Examination of the facts and circumstances - Admitted facts regarding the consignment of "Lithium Ion Cell" - Similarity with other consignments released for home consumption - Justification for not releasing the goods by the respondents examined. [Para 14-16]

Compliance with BIS Standards - Dispute regarding the affixing of BIS mark on the product - Manufacturer's role in affixing the mark - Examination of the 2018 Regulation, Schedule II, and relevant provisions - Application of Public Notice No. 136 of 2018 - Departure from the requirements of the 2018 Regulation by the respondents - Clarification through Public Notice No. 157/2018 - Affixing of the standard mark on the package. [Para 17-22]

Decision - Unjustified Detention of Goods - Evaluation of the department's stand - Misapplication of regulations - High-handed approach of customs officers - Inconsistent treatment of goods compared to other consignments - Absence of seizure or physical possession of goods - Show cause notice issued - Need for independent proceedings on the show cause notice - Conclusion regarding the illegal detention of goods and partial allowance of the petition. [Para 23-31]

Commercial Taxes – Recovery Notice Challenged: Petitioner challenges recovery notice seeking Rs.11,63,24,233/- for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, alleging non-receipt of assessment order and issues with electronic filing. [Paras 2-5]

Cyber Crime Allegation and FIR - Allegations of unauthorized use of the petitioner’s login ID, resulting in fraudulent transactions. Complaint registered with the Cyber Crime Cell, leading to an FIR. [Paras 6, 14]

Respondents’ Position: Justification for non-interference with recovery notice. Petitioner’s non-participation in assessment proceedings noted, along with continuation of business under new ID post-GST, and eventual cessation in 2018. [Paras 7-9]

Judicial Analysis and Precedent Reference: Reference to a similar case involving misuse of login ID (W.P.Nos.37044 & 37045 of 2016, M/s.Hansa Enterprises). Direction for investigation by Commercial Tax Officer and Cyber Crime Wing. [Paras 12-13]

Interim Court Orders: Impleadment of Cyber Crime Cell Inspector for investigation. Suspension of revenue recovery pending investigation, with a deadline of 18 months. Asset attachment to continue. [Paras 15-17]

Decision: Writ petition disposed with specific directions for investigation and interim asset attachment. [Para 19]

Dowry Death – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC set aside – Lack of evidence of cruelty or harassment connected with dowry demand – Death within seven years of marriage and under abnormal circumstances established, but no proximate link between cruelty and death. [Para 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

Cruelty – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC upheld – Evidence of cruelty by the appellant towards the deceased, including mental torture, as indicated in the letter Ext.4 written by the deceased to her father. [Para 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

Marital Dispute – Evidence of domestic problems and assault, but no conclusive proof of dowry-related harassment – Letters and statements fail to establish dowry demand as a motive for cruelty. [Para 5, 6, 7, 8]

Judicial Analysis – Appreciation of circumstantial evidence and letters – Importance of analyzing evidence in its entirety to ascertain the truth in dowry death cases. [Para 8, 9]

Decision – Conviction U/S 304-B set aside  –  found guilty u/s 498-A IPC - Appellant has already served the sentence for the offence under Section 498-A IPC – No further custody required. [Para 10]

Criminal Writ Petition – Rejection of application for handwriting expert – Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by the Sessions Court allowing the respondent-accused's revision application – Original rejection by the Magistrate for handwriting expert based on the impossibility of scientifically determining ink age – High Court reiterates the futility of such scientific tests and restores Magistrate's order. [Para 2, 5, 9, 13]

Right to Fair Trial – Accused's right to fair trial and defense considered – High Court acknowledges the right but emphasizes the futility of exercises with a predetermined outcome, such as determining the age of ink when no scientific method is available. [Para 4, 5, 8]

Expert Opinion – Reference to various judgments stating the absence of a scientific method to determine the age of ink – Assistant Director of Forensic Science Department confirms the lack of such methods, invalidating the respondent's request for a chemical test of ink age. [Para 6, 7, 8]

Judicial Vigilance – Courts urged to be vigilant against applications for evidence that would not yield any benefit – High Court's emphasis on avoiding futile exercises in the judicial process. [Para 5, 11]

Restoration of Magistrate’s Order – High Court sets aside Sessions Court's judgment that reversed Magistrate’s decision – Reinstates Magistrate’s rejection of application for ink age test, upholding the rationale of scientific impossibility and futility. [Para 12, 13]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Reversal of conviction by the appellate court challenged – Trial court convicted the accused for dishonour of cheque amounting to ₹1,75,000; Appellate court acquitted the accused – High Court finds misappreciation of evidence by appellate court, reinstates trial court's conviction. [Para 1, 18-42]

Delay in Filing Appeal – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Accused's application for condonation of delay erroneously allowed by the appellate court without proper justification – High Court finds accused's conduct and reasons for delay unjustifiable, reverses appellate court's decision on this point. [Para 16-17, 37]

Presumption Under Section 139 of NI Act – Accused admitted to issuing the cheque in question – High Court observed that once signature on cheque is admitted, presumption under Section 139 is in favour of the complainant – Accused failed to probabilize his defence adequately. [Para 20-27, 31-34]

Appeal Judgment Misappreciation – Appellate court's judgment based on conjectures and surmises – High Court finds that appellate court misread evidence and ignored crucial admissions by accused – Appellate court's judgment set aside. [Para 36, 41]

Sentence Restored – Conduct of the accused considered – High Court finds no infirmity in trial court's order of sentence, thereby restoring the same – Accused directed to surrender within 15 days. [Para 43-44]

Decision – Appellate Court's judgment set aside – Trial Court's conviction and sentence order restored – Accused directed to surrender for serving sentence. [Para 42-44]

Service Law - Recruitment Process – Contractual Employment – Age Relaxation – Regular Recruitment – Contractual appointees seek age relaxation for regular recruitment due to delay in process initiation – Various precedents and Government OMs establishing basis for such relaxation analyzed – The plea for age relaxation substantiated in the light of policy mandates by Govt. of NCT of Delhi. [Para 13-20]

Age Relaxation Policy – Legality and Applicability – Government OMs on age relaxation for contractual employees reviewed – Contractual employment deemed neither illegal nor irregular – Age relaxation for regular recruitment considered a fair redress for delayed recruitment processes – Upheld as not in violation of constitutional guarantees under Article 14. [Para 17-19]

Administrative Law - Age Relaxation for Recruitment - Petitioners challenge the denial of age relaxation for recruitment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor - Petitioners contend that they were working as contractual APPs and should be granted age relaxation for the duration of their contractual service - Reference to various judgments supporting age relaxation for contractual employees - Issue of whether age relaxation requires an amendment to the Recruitment Rules - Tribunal directs the Government of NCT of Delhi to clarify its stand regarding the ongoing selection process and potential rule amendments. [Para 7-12]

Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) – Duty and Compliance – The role of UPSC in adherence to Government policies on age relaxation during recruitment reiterated – UPSC's obligation to follow the memorandums/policy directions issued by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi emphasized – UPSC and department's failure to notify the advertisement in terms of said OMs cannot be read adversely against the petitioners. [Para 20]

Contractual Employment – Experience and Legitimacy – Equity in favor of petitioners recognized due to valuable experience gained during contractual tenure – Contention against age relaxation by objector/intervener and respondents found meritless – Distinguished from authorities relied on by objector/intervener Shitize Rao. [Para 21]

Directive to UPSC - Age Relaxation Implementation - Directive to UPSC to release examination results considering age relaxation in accordance with the policy guidelines and subject to the petitioners satisfying other terms and conditions of the advertisement. [Para 22]

Disposition of Writ Petitions - Conclusion of the case with the disposal of writ petitions filed by the petitioners and dismissal of objections raised by the intervener. [Para 22]

HUF Property – Agreement to Sell by Karta – Suit property, acquired from compensation for ancestral property in Pakistan, held to be HUF property since 1947 – Karta (Defendant No.1) lacked authority to sell HUF property individually – Agreement to Sell void to the extent of shares of coparceners except Karta’s share. [Para 68-99, 188]

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff (Defendant No.2) failed to demonstrate readiness and willingness to perform part of the Agreement to Sell – Lacked continuous financial capacity – Suit for specific performance dismissed, but entitled to refund of advance payment with interest. [Para 150-189]

Undue Influence – Agreement to Sell – No undue influence by Plaintiff (Defendant No.2) on Karta (Defendant No.1) established – Agreement not void on grounds of undue influence. [Para 130-144]

Permanent Injunction – HUF Property Management – Karta (Defendant No.1) retains right to manage HUF property, including alienation rights – No permanent injunction granted against Karta for dealing with HUF property. [Para 188]

Refund and Damages – Agreement to Sell – Plaintiff (Defendant No.2) granted refund of advance amount with interest – Claim for damages unsubstantiated and dismissed. [Para 185-186, 189]

Appeal Against Premature Retirement and Pension Denial – Appeal lodged by Punjab National Bank challenging the order of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the Respondent for release of pension post premature retirement – Dispute surrounds the interpretation and application of Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, alongside a Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement signed at industry level allowing a second option to join the pension scheme. [Para 1-3]

Eligibility for Pension upon Premature Retirement – Respondent, prematurely retired in 2004, sought to exercise the 2nd option for pension following a Circular in 2018 – Appellant Bank's refusal based on distinction between "premature retirement" and "compulsory retirement" under Pension Regulations, claiming the Subject Circular for 2nd pension option applicable only to compulsorily retired employees. [Para 4-9]

Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement Interpretation – No distinction made in Joint Note between premature and compulsory retirement regarding eligibility for 2nd pension option – Subject Circular and IBA Circular not to be read restrictively, extending benefits of Joint Note to all qualifying employees regardless of retirement type. [Para 17-19]

Judicial Endorsement of Pension Eligibility – Court holds Respondent met criteria set in Joint Note for 2nd pension option, rejecting Appellant’s restrictive interpretation – Recognizes the Respondent's right to pension benefits, thereby upholding Single Judge's directive for release of retiral benefits to the Respondent. – Appeal Dismissed.[Para 20-23]