Criminal Law - Joinder of Additional Accused - Criminal Law – Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 – High Court’s Dismissal of Appeal Challenging Addition of Accused under Section 319 of Cr.P.C – Court upheld Trial Court’s Order Adding Accused Based on Eyewitness Testimony – Plea of Alibi Considered and Rejected – Appellant’s Presence and Involvement Established through Multiple Witness Statements and CCTV Footage Identification – No Illegality or Perversity Found in Trial Court’s Order – Appeal Dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Section 319 Cr.P.C – Application and Scope – Supreme Court Guidelines Reiterated – Power to Add Accused should be Exercised Sparingly and with Higher Degree of Satisfaction – Evidence Before Court Must be Strong and Reliable, Leading to Conviction if Unrebutted – Court Emphasized Proper Scrutiny of Evidence before Adding Accused under Section 319. [Paras 7-11]

Plea of Alibi – Burden of Proof – High Threshold Required to Prove Alibi – Evidence must Exclude Possibility of Presence at Crime Scene – Mere Probable Presence Elsewhere Insufficient – Accused’s Alibi Unsupported by Corroborative Evidence, thus Rejected by Court. [Paras 4, 6, 9]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal is Dismissed Based on Strong Evidence Against Appellant – Eyewitness Testimony and CCTV Identification Corroborated by Multiple Witness Statements – No Fault in Trial Court’s Decision to Add Appellant as Accused – Trial Court’s Order Affirmed. [Para 15]

Arbitration Law – Arbitral Award – Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appellant challenged arbitral award and Section 34 dismissal – Arbitral award partially allowed claims of claimant based on supplementary agreement – Appellant argued supplementary agreement required state approval, was not granted, and breaches were based on it – Arbitrator’s findings on readiness and willingness, delays, and defaults by both parties upheld – Court found no patent illegality or perversity – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-33]

Contract Law – Time of Essence – Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act – Arbitral award addressed whether time was essence of contract – Despite contractual stipulation, extended delivery period indicated time not essence – Supplementary agreement signed with mutual consent – Claimant’s failure to act per supplementary agreement noted – No basis to invalidate arbitrator's findings. [Paras 17-19]

Judicial Review – Limited Scope under Section 37 – Jurisdiction under Section 37 does not extend beyond Section 34 limitations – Court emphasized minimal judicial interference – Arbitrator’s construction of contract and evidence upheld unless patently illegal or perverse – Appeal did not meet threshold for interference. [Paras 26-32]

Decision: Held: Appeal dismissed – No interference with arbitral award or Section 34 order warranted – Findings of arbitral tribunal supported by evidence and contractual terms – No patent error or illegality established. [Para 33]

Civil Law – Orders for delisting trucks by Ex-Servicemen Corporation – Challenge in Himachal Pradesh High Court against delisting orders due to concealment of re-employment – Common judgment passed for multiple writ petitions - Orders for delisting trucks – Chairman-cum-Managing Director of HP Ex-Servicemen Corporation delisted trucks owned by petitioners – Concealment of re-employment by petitioners at the time of truck attachment – Court upheld the orders based on compliance with Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [Paras 2-5].

Re-employment and Truck Attachment – Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh (supra) dictates non-attachment of trucks if ex-serviceman is re-employed – If re-employed after attachment, the truck must be surrendered – Apex Court upheld this ruling [Para 3].

Final Judgment – Dismissal of petitions – Held – Petitions dismissed based on adherence to previous court directions – Ex-Servicemen Corporation to allow petitioners to ply trucks until new names from waiting list are finalized – Petitioners have no right to ply trucks once new names are finalized [Paras 5-6].

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence – Monthly Allowance and Rented Accommodation – Petition under Article 227 challenging trial court and appellate court orders – Contention of insufficient monthly allowance and non-provision of rented accommodation – Execution proceedings initiated – Initial order directed payment of Rs. 5,000 per month for rent and provision of rented accommodation – Coordinate Bench set aside the Rs. 5,000 rent order – Petition for enhancement of rent dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Article 227 – Judicial Superintendence – High Court's supervisory role – Reaffirmed lower courts' findings – No illegality in trial and appellate court orders regarding compensation and maintenance – Emphasized on proper assessment of financial positions and circumstances [Paras 8-11].

Relief Sought – Petition Dismissed – Held – No ground for setting aside impugned orders or enhancing rent amount – Directed executing court to ensure provision of rented accommodation as per trial court’s order without delay [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Directed executing court to ensure rented accommodation for petitioner without further delay.

Civil Procedure - Execution Proceedings - Challenges to auction sale and procedural irregularities - Petitioner filed multiple CRPs against orders of the Executing Court related to a decree obtained by the respondents due to alleged irregularities in auction sale - CRP No.959 of 2020 challenges dismissal of application to set aside auction sale due to material irregularity and fraud - CRP No.2618 and CRP No.2621 of 2023 challenge orders confirming the auction sale and dismissing application for setting aside auction on deposit of decretal amount, respectively - Interim stay granted by High Court on further proceedings, pending adjudication of these CRPs - Execution court's orders found to be in contravention of interim stay orders, deemed a nullity and set aside - High Court held that CRP No.959 of 2020 against the order under Order 21 Rule 90 is not maintainable as appeal lies against such orders [Paras 1-25]

Decision: CRP No. 959 of 2020 dismissed as not maintainable, remedy by way of appeal suggested. CRP Nos. 2618 and 2621 of 2023 allowed, orders under challenge set aside due to contravention of High Court’s interim stay.

Criminal Law – Application for Judge’s Recusal – De facto complainant, Sheshadri Goswami, requests the recusal of the current bench and reassignment to Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, who previously handled a related matter – Goswami alleges poor handling of a financial fraud case involving a company where he represents 17 victim investors – Initial FIR filed on 14^th August 2015 in Shakespeare Sarani Police Station under various sections of IPC – Final report by police finds no prima facie material against accused, accepted by the Magistrate without hearing complainant, leading to current revisional application – Hon’ble Justice Gupta denies the recusal request, stating judicial procedure and integrity must not cater to parties selecting preferred judges for their cases – Recusal denied based on principles of judicial conduct, impartiality, and maintenance of judicial independence. [Paras 1-26]’

Decision: Recusal Request Denied – Justice Gupta emphasizes the importance of the Chief Justice’s role in assigning cases to ensure fair judicial process and prevent ‘forum shopping’ – Case to proceed under the current bench, with a hearing scheduled post-summer vacation on 12^th June 2024. [Paras 23-26]

Taxation Law - Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer – Assessee challenges jurisdiction of non-jurisdictional AO, who proceeded with assessment in the absence of a valid transfer order under Section 127 – Initial centralization of assessee's case was not properly decentralized or officially transferred as per mandated legal process – Held, actions of the AO without proper transfer under Section 127 are void ab initio due to jurisdictional error – Impugned orders quashed - [Paras 1-32]

Jurisdiction - Transfer of Case under Section 127 – Emphasizes need for valid transfer orders for shifting jurisdiction between AOs – Without such order, any assessment made by non-jurisdictional AO is legally untenable – High Court sets aside both the initial assessment order and subsequent orders up to ITAT due to jurisdictional flaws - [Paras 26, 28, 31]

Administrative Procedures – Assessment under Income Tax – High Court emphasizes the procedural necessity for following statutory requirements in transferring cases between different AOs – Any deviation without compliance with Section 127 leads to jurisdictional errors, making subsequent assessments void - [Paras 12, 27, 28]

Loan Agreement & Settlement – Appellants entered into a Loan Agreement on 19.05.2011 for ₹2,75,00,000 with an interest of 17.67% per annum (flat rate) which amounts to approximately 30.08% on a reducing balance method - Settlement Agreement mediated on 24.01.2014 acknowledged a debt of ₹2,03,00,000, agreeing to repay it with interest at 36% per annum on reducing balance method - Admissions of loan disbursement and document execution found credible by the court [Paras 7-9].

Defence of Misrepresentation and Duress – Appellants' defence claiming misrepresentation and duress in signing loan documents dismissed by the court as unsubstantiated, with documentary evidence contradicting claims - Settlement Agreement execution during mediation proceedings not disputed [Para 11-17].

Jurisdiction & Interest Rate – Contentions regarding jurisdiction under Debt Recovery Acts rejected, as plaintiff not a bank or financial institution eligible under said acts - Trial court reduced interest rate from 36% to 24% per annum without stated reason, accepted by plaintiff [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed; preliminary decree upheld based on admissions and documentary evidence showing binding nature of Settlement Agreement and Loan Agreement - Claims of being misled not substantiated by reliable evidence [Para 20].

Writ - Criminal Law – Offence under Section 304(A) IPC for Causing Death by Negligence – Petition for Return of Seized Driving License – The petitioner, K. Perumal, drove a bus involved in a fatal accident, resulting in the registration of a case under Section 304(A) IPC. The second respondent police seized the petitioner's driving license and handed it to the first respondent, the Regional Transport Officer. Despite approaching the first respondent for the return of his license, no action was taken, prompting the present writ petition [Paras 1-3].

Motor Vehicles Act – Licensing Authority’s Power to Revoke or Suspend License – Court’s Previous Ruling Referenced – The petitioner cited a previous order of the court in W.P(MD) No. 2111 of 2021, which addressed a similar issue. The court reviewed the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allow the licensing authority to disqualify or revoke a driving license, provided that the holder is given an opportunity to be heard, and reasons are recorded in writing. In the present case, the license was seized without following these statutory procedures [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The court directed the first respondent to return the driving license to the petitioner forthwith. The order emphasized the requirement for due process under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the seizure of the license without proper notice and opportunity to be heard was unlawful. The ruling aligns with the principles established in previous judgments, ensuring the protection of procedural rights of individuals involved in road traffic incidents [Para 7].