Interim Bail – Medical Grounds - Petitioner, a 73-year-old individual under judicial custody since 10.09.2023, seeks interim bail for medical examinations and treatment due to deteriorating health conditions including Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy. Petitioner emphasized undertaking necessary medical tests and treatment under the supervision of his personal physician, accentuating the urgency due to existing ailments and new health complications. [Para 1-2, 6-7]

Medical Examination Reports - Series of medical examinations and reports underscored the petitioner’s fragile health condition. The medical reports elucidated a necessity for a range of tests and possible surgeries, including an imminent cataract surgery for the petitioner’s right eye, highlighting the inadequacy of medical supervision and facilities in jail that potentially exacerbate the petitioner’s health. [Para 9-16]

State’s Response to Bail Application - The Respondent-State refuted the claims of severe health deterioration, arguing that the petitioner’s health was being adequately managed within the prison facilities, and contended that no grave chronic ailment was presented. The State emphasized on the gravity of the alleged offenses and the prima facie case against the petitioner, arguing against the grant of interim bail. [Para 3, 8, 16-17]

Judicial Discretion on Humanitarian Grounds - The Court, emphasizing the preservation of human life and the right to receive comprehensive and effective medical care, inclined towards granting interim bail on medical grounds. It was underscored that custody during the investigative phase should not be punitive and individuals with serious health issues should have access to adequate medical treatment. The Court also recognized the petitioner’s significant societal standing and deemed there was no flight risk. [Para 24-29]

Interim Bail Grant - Interim bail granted to the petitioner for four weeks to undergo necessary medical examinations and treatment, subject to certain conditions including furnishing a bail bond, getting examined/treated at a hospital of his choice, and surrendering post the interim bail period. The Court stressed the importance of immediate, effective, and comprehensive treatment for the petitioner, especially regarding the required cataract surgery. [Para 30]

Specific Performance – Execution of Agreement for Sale – Plaintiff alleges execution and renewal of agreements between parties for sale of property – Defendant denies execution and contends trespass and unlawful possession by the plaintiff – Trial Court and Appellate Court reject plaintiff’s claims, disbelieving execution of agreements – Courts below held plaintiff as trespasser, dismissing the suit and granting decree for recovery of possession to defendant. [Para 5-12]

Evidence – Contradictory Testimonies – Evidence of plaintiff and witness regarding place of execution of agreement found contradictory – Failure to examine other attestors to agreements – Courts below find evidence insufficient to prove execution of agreements. [Para 12]

Documentary Proof – Execution of Agreements – Courts below find plaintiff failed to prove execution of Ext.A1 and Ext.A1(a) agreements due to insufficient evidence and contradictory testimonies – Dismisses claim based on unregistered agreements citing Section 17 of the Registration Act. [Para 12]

Limitation – Renewal of Agreement – Finding of appellate court on limitation rebutted by renewal agreement Ext.A1(a) dated 05.09.2003 – Courts below erred in holding claim based on Ext.A1 or Ext.A1(a) agreements as barred by limitation. [Para 12]

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – High Court finds no substantial question of law arises for admitting Second Appeal – Emphasizes mandatory formulation of substantial question of law under Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 2 of the C.P.C. for admitting and maintaining a second appeal – Dismisses appeal finding it meritless without admitting. [Para 13-20]

Review Petition – Grounds for Review: Judgment discusses criteria under which a review petition may be entertained, specifying conditions like discovery of new evidence, errors apparent on record, or any other sufficient reason. [Para 5, 9-19]

SARFAESI Act – Agricultural Land: The review petitioner seeks the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain if the property in question is agricultural land, invoking Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act. [Para 3-4]

Discretion of Tribunal: Directions to the Debts Recovery Tribunal to consider the applications for appointing an Advocate Commissioner and staying proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. [Para 4, 7]

Dismissal of Review Petition: The Court finds that the review petitioner has failed to meet any of the requirements for a review and dismisses the petition. [Para 6]

Stay on Proceedings: While dismissing the review, the Court allows the petitioner to seek a stay on proceedings under the SARFAESI Act till the application for the appointment of Commissioner is considered. [Para 7]

Bail Application – NDPS Act Violation – Petitioner seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC for violations of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as per FIR mentioned. The petitioner has been incarcerated for over three years and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to her and her family. [Para 1, 3]

Criminal History – Consideration for Bail – The petitioner's criminal history is considered, but the court observes that the criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted. The petitioner's custody of more than three years is deemed sufficient for bail eligibility. [Para 2, 6, 7-A]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Measures – The court considers imposing stringent conditions to ensure the petitioner does not influence the investigation or tamper with evidence. The conditions include surrendering of weapons, maintaining only one mobile number, and compliance with other specified conditions. [Para 8, 9, 14, 15]

Decision – Granting of Bail – The court decides to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the terms and conditions imposed, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, compliance with specified conditions, and surrendering of weapons. The court emphasizes that any violation of the conditions may lead to bail cancellation. [Para 11, 16, 19]

Rights of the Accused – The court acknowledges the rights of the accused and mentions that if the petitioner finds the bond amount or conditions beyond reach or violating rights, they may seek appropriate reduction or modification. [Para 17, 19]

Observations – No Merit Commentary – The court clarifies that any observation made in the order is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. [Para 20]

Service Law - Out of Turn Promotion - Discriminatory Denial: Petitioner sought 'Out of Turn Promotion' to the rank of Head Constable based on exemplary service, akin to a colleague who was promoted. Initial denial attributed to a pending criminal case against the petitioner, which was later quashed. Discriminatory denial of promotion, despite parity in service merits with Constable Joginder Singh, observed as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 13, 14, 15, 17]

Judicial Precedence - Parity and Discrimination: References to past judgments where 'Out of Turn Promotion' or similar benefits were granted, showcasing courts intervening to rectify discriminatory practices in line with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. [Para 12]

Criminal Proceedings - Impact on Promotion: The judgment emphasizes that criminal proceedings against the petitioner initially impeded promotion prospects. However, post-quashing, no adverse inference could be drawn against the petitioner to deny 'Out of Turn Promotion.' The quashing of proceedings was acknowledged as rendering a person acquitted for all intents and purposes, negating adverse implications on promotion eligibility. [Para 14, 17]

Competent Authority - Reasonable and Fair Consideration: The judgment highlights the mandate of the Competent Authority to act reasonably, fairly, and in the public interest while considering promotion cases. It also underscores the requirement for such considerations to withstand the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14, with the Tribunal/Courts poised for intervention in instances of discernible discrimination. [Para 17]

Decision - Tribunal's Directive - Upheld: The judgment upholds the Tribunal's directive to grant 'Out of Turn Promotion' to the petitioner from the date of filing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as opposed to the date when Constable Joginder Singh was promoted. The court directed implementation within four weeks, dismissing both writ petitions by the petitioner and respondents. [Para 17]

Contempt of Court - Serious allegations of misconduct against a judge, government officials, and institutions - Frivolous and vexatious litigation - Judgment dismissing the writ petitions and imposing costs - Contemnor's vilification of the court, government authorities, and the judiciary - Contempt proceedings initiated. [Para 1-5]

Abuse of Legal Process - Frivolous Litigation - Need to address frivolous litigation and its impact on the judicial system - Imposition of costs as a deterrent against filing unfounded litigation - Balancing the right to access the court with deterring abusive litigation - Court's resolute stance against frivolous litigation. [Para 5-8]

Contempt of Court – Derogatory allegations and disrespectful language used by the Contemnor against the learned Single Bench and the judiciary – Contemnor found guilty of contempt – Sentence of 6 months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed – Default in payment of fine to result in an additional 7 days of imprisonment – Contemnor has no remorse for his actions and stands by his allegations. [Para 13-17]

Arrest and Custody – Contemnor directed to be taken into custody immediately by HC Vinod (Naib Court) and handed over to Tihar Jail, Delhi – Arrest and committal warrants to be prepared by the Registry – Contemnor granted permission to go to his hotel to check out before being taken to Tihar Jail. [Para 18-20]

Bail Application – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Seizure of contraband tablets from parcels sent by the applicant – Challenging the seizure and alleging fabrication of secret information – Discrepancies in weight mentioned in invoices and seizure – Doubts raised regarding applicant's presence during the raid – Phone records and employee statements contradicting the prosecution's version – Lack of money trail connecting the applicant to co-accused – Applicant's role portrayed as that of a carrier – Reference to a similar bail order in another case – Lengthy incarceration of the applicant – Satisfactory jail conduct and absence of previous involvement in offenses – Arguments against applicant's guilt and request for regular bail. [Para 10-44]

Lengthy incarceration of the applicant – Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 – Prima facie satisfaction of the court regarding the accused's guilt – Consideration of liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Relevant Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of liberty and reasonable satisfaction of the court – applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail in light of undue delay in trial and overcrowded jails. Bail Allowed. [Para 45-57]

Challenge to SARFAESI Proceedings - Petitioner contests proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) initiated by respondent Bank following a default in repayment of loan availed, leading to classification of loan account as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.11.2019. Petitioner’s request for reference to MSME Committee for devising a Corrective Action Plan pursuant to Master Circular No. RBI/2015-16/338 FIDD.MSME & NFS. BC. NO. 21/06.02.31/2015-16 dated on 17.03.2016 denied by respondent Bank. [Para 2]

Petitioner’s Submissions - Contends that:

The respondent Bank should have referred the matter to the MSME Committee for a Corrective Action Plan.

The classification of loan account as NPA without adhering to the mandates in Master Circular is against procedures laid down by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulation Act.

Without following procedures in Master Circular, respondent Bank cannot resort to provisions of SARFAESI Act. [Para 4]

Respondent’s Submissions - Argues that:

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act (MSMED Act) does not override SARFAESI Act.

Master Circular by RBI in context of MSMED Act does not overshadow legislative mandate in SARFAESI Act.

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is unmaintainable as petitioner has alternative remedy. [Para 5]

RBI Circular’s Statutory Force - Petitioner asserts RBI Circulars hold statutory force and are binding on banks, but are only regulatory in nature and cannot affect statutory mandate of SARFAESI Act. [Para 9]

Alternative Remedy & Maintainability of Writ - Court observes SARFAESI Act as a complete code providing effective remedy for persons aggrieved by proceedings initiated under Section 13. Emphasizes the well-established principle of exhausting alternative statutory remedies before invoking jurisdiction under Article 226, except in well-defined exceptions. Finds writ petition unmaintainable as it does not fall within any of the exceptions allowing for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. [Para 10-11]

Judicial Precedent & MSMED Act’s Precedence Over SARFAESI Act - Reference to Kotak Mahindra case where it was held that recoveries under SARFAESI Act with respect to secured assets prevail over recoveries under MSMED Act to recover amounts under award/decree passed by Facilitation Council. [Para 8-11]

Writ Petition – Setting Aside Communication – Petitioner seeks to set aside the communication dated 26.10.2023, stopping the storage of paddy in the petitioner's premises until payment of Rs.7,28,167/- along with interest to respondents No.6-Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. [Para 1]

Custom Milling Policy – Allocation of Paddy – The State formulated a Custom Milling Policy for KMS 2023-24, under which the petitioner applied for the allocation of paddy. The respondent alleged that the petitioner filed a false affidavit regarding the status of the earlier owner of the land where the rice mill is located. [Para 3]

Land Ownership and Arbitration – The land where the petitioner's rice mill is located was previously owned by M/s Rashi Foods. A dispute regarding the delayed supply of rice was pending between the previous owner and respondent No.6. The Arbitrator rejected the claim of respondent No.6, and the matter is now pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. [Para 4]

Custom Milling Policy – Definition of Defaulter – As per the Custom Milling Policy, a mill is considered a defaulter if there's a pending police case/court case/arbitration case against the miller on account of embezzlement, non-delivery of rice, or non-clearance of any dues of any Procurement Agency. [Para 9]

Arbitration Award – Status of Defaulter – The Arbitrator rejected the claim of the respondent against M/s Rashi Foods. Given the absence of a stay by the Objecting Court, it's not reasonable to conclude that an arbitration case is pending between M/s Rashi Foods and respondent No.6. [Para 9-10]

Decision – The demand raised by the respondent from the petitioner regarding the afore-stated litigation is not sustainable. The writ petition is allowed. Observations made by the Court shall not be construed as an opinion regarding the pending litigation between respondent No.6 and M/s Rashi Foods. [Para 12-13]