Abuse of Process of Law – Prolonged Litigation – Appellant engaged in a series of frivolous legal actions to delay compliance with a financial award – Failed to procure promised lands after collecting funds – Court emphasized the duty to disclose material facts and avoid abusive litigation tactics – Appeal dismissed; costs imposed [Paras 1-7].

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Tribunal admitted appeal filed six years after the award, keeping limitation issue open – Court held that delay must be condoned before an appeal can proceed – Tribunal’s approach was deemed impermissible and erroneous [Paras 5.2-5.3.3].

Finality of Judgments – Doctrine of Res Judicata – Award became final after appellant failed to meet writ petition conditions – Subsequent appeal barred by res judicata – Tribunal’s jurisdiction to entertain the appeal was questioned and found to be without basis [Paras 5.5-5.9.1].

Award Execution – Failure to Deposit – Appellant did not deposit the required sum of Rs. 2 crores, resulting in the award becoming final and executable – Appellant’s various litigations were deemed attempts to forestall execution and avoid liability [Paras 5.1-5.1.5].

Doctrine of Finality – Award attained finality with enforceable rights for the cooperative society – Appeal to Tribunal after six years was barred – Tribunal acted without jurisdiction by admitting the appeal [Paras 5.7-5.9.1].

Costs for Frivolous Litigation – Appellant’s conduct characterized as abuse of process – Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 for abuse of legal process, payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee [Para 6].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Award and previous orders upheld – Costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed on appellant for abuse of legal process.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Second FIR – Principle of Single FIR – Petitioners challenged the legitimacy of the second FIR on the grounds of it being based on the same set of allegations as the first FIR – The court held that a second FIR is not maintainable if it pertains to the same offence and set of facts as the first FIR – Applied the principles established in TT Anthony and Amit Shah cases – Second FIR quashed [Paras 1-27].

Duplicate FIRs – Investigation Continuity – Use of Documents from First FIR – CBI admitted to using documents seized during the investigation of the first FIR in the charge sheet of the second FIR – Court emphasized that this practice indicates the investigations are linked and should be consolidated – Second FIR declared void [Paras 18-23].

Further Investigation – Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Proper Procedure – Court clarified that the CBI is allowed to conduct further investigation and submit additional evidence under the original FIR, without filing a new FIR for each subsequent piece of information or related offence – Ensures adherence to procedural requirements and prevents abuse of the investigative process [Paras 21-23, 27].

Application of Supreme Court Precedents – TT Anthony and Amit Shah – Court referenced the Supreme Court’s rulings to underline the illegality of multiple FIRs for the same offence – Reinforced the legal position that supplementary or additional charge sheets are permissible under the original FIR [Paras 19-20, 23].

Fundamental Rights – Protection Against Repeated Prosecution – Article 21 – Court noted that allowing multiple FIRs for the same set of facts infringes upon the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Highlighted the need to protect individuals from repetitive and redundant legal actions [Paras 20, 23].

Decision:

CRR allowed – FIR No. RC No. 010/2014A/0015 dated 14^th June 2014, charge sheet dated 31^st March 2016, and subsequent order taking cognizance quashed – CBI permitted to submit supplementary or additional charge sheet in accordance with the law under the original FIR RC No. 0102012A/002 dated 10.01.2012 [Paras 26-27].

Tender Process – Evaluation of Technical Bid – Clause 21.5 of ITB – Petitioner’s bid declared L1 after a lottery draw – Bid subsequently cancelled due to alleged submission of a false tax invoice for a “Wet Mix Plant” – Clause 21.5 only applicable during technical evaluation, not after financial bid opening – Cancellation deemed arbitrary and without proper verification – Principles of natural justice violated by lack of opportunity for petitioner to defend against allegations [Paras 1-11].

Cancellation of Bid – False Document Allegations – Petitioner accused of submitting a fake tax invoice – Allegations based on an email from the alleged supplier denying issuance of the invoice – Supplier’s email not authenticated during proceedings – Authority’s action found to be unjustified and lacking legal scrutiny – Decision to cancel bid quashed for procedural irregularities and failure to provide a fair hearing [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Cancellation of bid under Clause 21.5 of ITB found to be erroneous – Authority’s order quashed – Emphasized need for proper verification and adherence to natural justice in tender evaluations [Para 12].
 

Jurisdiction – Small Causes Court – Eviction and Possession – Small Causes Court has jurisdiction over disputes involving landlord and tenant, including suits for recovery of possession – Claims arising out of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act fall within exclusive jurisdiction of Small Causes Court – Civil Revision Applications dismissed – High Court upheld the jurisdictional competence of the Small Causes Court to entertain suits related to tenancy rights and eviction [Paras 1-43].

Tenancy Rights – Legal Heirs – Declaration and Possession – Legal heir of original tenant filed suit for tenancy rights and possession – Alleged wrongful dispossession by landlord and new tenant – Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court declared plaintiff as tenant and ordered possession to be handed over – Judgment upheld by High Court – High Court reiterated that tenancy rights can only end through an eviction decree or a deed of surrender [Paras 18-26, 37].

Procedural Aspects – Evidence and Cross-examination – Evidence led by parties included cross-examination of witnesses – Trial Court dismissed suit; Appellate Bench reversed decision, finding plaintiff proved tenancy rights – High Court emphasized importance of following due process and proper documentation in tenancy disputes – The significance of cross-examining all key witnesses was underscored, and the proper procedure for admitting and evaluating evidence was highlighted [Paras 8-12, 20-23].

Notice of Termination – Rent Receipts and Tenancy Agreements – Lack of proper documentation for tenancy agreements and rent receipts led to doubts about the landlord’s claims – Rent receipts produced by new tenant dated years after alleged tenancy creation without signatures from original landlord – High Court found discrepancies in the rent receipts and absence of tenancy agreements critical in deciding against the landlord [Paras 19-20, 32-33].

Limitation and Timeliness of Suit – Suit filed within limitation period as knowledge of dispossession claimed to have arisen only in April 2009 – High Court supported Appellate Court’s finding that the suit was filed timely and that dispossession without due process is unlawful – The claim of limitation defense raised by the landlord was dismissed as unsubstantiated [Paras 29, 40-41].

Decision:

Held – Civil Revision Applications dismissed – Small Causes Court’s decision declaring tenancy rights and ordering possession affirmed – High Court mandates adherence to procedural requirements and proper documentation in tenancy matters – Defendants’ arguments on jurisdiction and procedural grounds rejected [Paras 43-44].

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 52A(2) – Bail Application – Appellant convicted for possession of 610 gms of smack under Section 8(C) read with 21(c) of the NDPS Act. Bail application based on alleged non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 52A(2) of the Act, which requires the presence of a Magistrate during the sampling and certification of seized contraband – Appellant argued that non-compliance vitiated the trial, making conviction unsustainable – Respondent claimed compliance with procedural requirements – Court found prima facie non-compliance with Section 52A(2), warranting bail [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Custody and Sentence – Non-compliance Impact – Appellant in judicial custody since the date of conviction (30.08.2022) and sentenced to 15 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 – Appellant argued that almost three years in custody and procedural lapses in the trial justified bail – Court granted bail without expressing final opinion on appeal’s merits, emphasizing that bail decisions do not affect the final outcome of the appeal [Paras 4-15].

Decision – Bail Granted – Bail application allowed – Appellant to be released on executing personal bond and two sureties – Observations made are for bail application disposal only, without affecting the criminal appeal’s merits – Listed for final hearing in due course [Paras 13-16].
 

Trusts and Estates – Development Agreement – Originating Summons for Opinion – Plaintiff sought court’s opinion on executing a Development Agreement concerning Raghunath Chatterjee Street property for the benefit of deities – Agreement to include adult male descendants as confirming parties – Court affirmed benefit for deities and consent from family members – Deities’ safety considered paramount, proposals for property development approved [Paras 1-20].

Maintenance and Security of Deities – Funds Insufficiency – Plaintiff highlighted financial challenges in maintaining properties and deities – Proposal by defendant no. 13 for property development included financial benefits for deities and allocation of ground floor – Court approved proposals ensuring safety and upliftment of deities, considering current financial state and property conditions [Paras 7-19].

Procedural Aspects – Compliance with KMC Regulations – Court directed compliance with Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) rules for property development – Proposals modified in accordance with FAR and permissible construction area – Court emphasized adherence to municipal guidelines and proper planning [Paras 13-20].

Decision: CSOS 1 of 2023 disposed of – Court affirmed the benefit of executing Development Agreement for deities – Approved proposals ensuring deities’ safety and financial upliftment – Confirming parties from family directed to join Agreement [Para 21].
 

Commercial Law – Additional Documents in Commercial Suits – Petitioners sought to place additional documents on record which were allegedly in possession of previous counsel – Dismissal of the application by the Commercial Court upheld – Requirement for strict adherence to timelines and procedural rigour under Commercial Courts Act emphasized – Petitioners failed to establish a reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing suit [Paras 1-27].

Reasonable Cause under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Court highlighted the need for demonstrating reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents within prescribed time – “Reasonable cause” must be beyond control of petitioner, not due to negligence or oversight – Previous consultation with multiple advocates does not justify non-filing of documents with plaint [Paras 19-26].

Strict Interpretation of Commercial Courts Act – Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents mandate strict interpretation of procedural requirements to ensure expeditious resolution of commercial disputes – Liberal interpretation would defeat the purpose of the Act [Paras 20-21, 25].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Findings of Commercial Court on non-allowance of additional documents upheld – Strict compliance with procedural norms under Commercial Courts Act reaffirmed [Paras 27-28].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 139 – Dishonour of Cheque –

Petitioner sought to file appeal against acquittal of respondent – Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between petitioner and respondent involving business transaction – Cheque issued by respondent towards part-payment of legally enforceable debt – Dishonour of cheque due to “Stop Payment” instruction – Petitioner argued failure of respondent to rebut presumption under Section 139 of the Act – Respondent claimed payments made to petitioner were not credited – Court emphasized that grant of leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is not a matter of routine, must be on just and equitable basis.

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Acquittal – Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. –

Grant of leave to appeal is discretionary – Requires careful scrutiny of materials – Presumption of innocence in favour of acquitted person – Petitioner failed to demonstrate perversity or miscarriage of justice in trial court’s findings – In absence of legally enforceable debt for entire cheque amount, Section 138 not attracted – Petition dismissed.

Decision:

Criminal Original Petition dismissed – No infirmities warranting interference with acquittal – Criminal appeal rejected at the SR stage itself [Paras 1-25].

Income Tax – Characterization of Receipts – Settlement Agreement – Rs. 32.42 crores received by ITC from ELEL under a settlement agreement related to disputes over a hotel operating license agreement – Issue of whether the sum is capital or revenue receipt – ITAT held it as a long-term capital gain – High Court reversed, determining it as a revenue receipt, taxable as business income [Paras 1-32].

Licenses and Trading Contracts – Legal Nature – Examination of the operating license agreement dated May 3, 1986, between ITC and ELEL – Agreement found to be a trading contract with no right, title, or interest conferred on ITC – Termination and subsequent settlement considered part of ITC’s ordinary business activities – Held that the sum received is a revenue receipt [Paras 14-21].

Evidentiary Considerations – Treatment of Receipts – Analysis of the purpose and nature of the settlement payment – Reliance on precedents distinguishing capital from revenue receipts – Court concluded that the settlement was compensation for the termination of a trading contract, thus revenue in nature [Paras 24-29].

Legal Precedents – Application of Judicial Principles – Cited Supreme Court judgments to distinguish between capital and revenue receipts – Compensation related to trading operations generally considered revenue receipts unless related to loss of a source of income – Settlement for termination of trading contracts treated as revenue receipts [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – ITAT’s finding reversed – Rs. 32.42 crores held to be revenue receipt and taxable accordingly – High Court’s judgment upheld [Para 32].