Criminal Law – Section 311 CrPC – Recalling and summoning of witness – Trial Court rejected prosecution’s application to summon Radiologist whose report formed basis of injury opinion by Medical Jurist – High Court held that rejection solely on ground of delay was unjustified – Application under Section 311 CrPC maintainable at any stage if evidence is essential to just decision – Held: Trial Court erred in ignoring necessity of Radiologist’s evidence to prove grievous injury under IPC Sections 326 and 307 – Absence of Radiologist's testimony would lead to miscarriage of justice – Petition allowed, Radiologist to be summoned and cross-examination permitted [Paras 1, 2.4, 3–5, 7–19]

Evidence – Medical Evidence – Admissibility of X-ray Reports – Doctor (PW-15) admitted giving opinion based on Radiologist's report without conducting X-ray himself – Held: In absence of examination of Radiologist and marking of X-ray plates, medical evidence is incomplete and cannot independently establish grievous injury – Precedents from various High Courts and Supreme Court followed to hold Radiologist’s testimony as essential for proving fracture or grievous injury under IPC [Paras 10–18]

Fair Trial – Judicial Discretion under Section 311 CrPC – Scope and Limits – Summoning of additional witness not to be treated as filling lacuna unless prejudice to accused is shown – High Court emphasized courts' participatory role to elicit truth and avoid miscarriage of justice – Delay or closure of evidence not a bar to exercise of powers under Section 311 CrPC [Paras 7–9.1]

Decision: Revision Petition allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 12.03.2025 quashed – Application under Section 311 CrPC allowed – Radiologist Dr. Son Singh to be summoned and examined – Trial to be concluded within 3 months [Para 19]

Civil Law - Ex Parte Proceedings – Application to Set Aside – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC – Trial Court imposed condition of Rs.25,000/- for permitting cross-examination of PW1 – Defendants failed to comply, application dismissed – Held: Conditional costs excessive – Opportunity must be given to defend case – Conditional order modified to Rs.5,000/- [Paras 5-9].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of Constitution – Scope – High Court intervened where Trial Court exercised discretion arbitrarily in fixing disproportionate costs – Held: Supervisory power rightly invoked to secure ends of justice [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Impugned order dated 04.07.2025 in I.A.No.3 of 2025 set aside – Defendants directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to plaintiff on or before 12.09.2025 – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Matter posted for reporting compliance [Paras 9-10].

Income Tax – Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) – Adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) – Disallowance Upheld – The assessee challenged addition of ₹4.14 crores made u/s 143(1)(a) towards delayed deposit of employees’ EPF/ESI contributions – Held: Relying on Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (2023) 6 SCC 451, the Court upheld that employees’ contributions are distinct from employers’ and must be deposited within the statutory due date, failing which deduction is not allowed – The Court rejected the argument that such additions under Section 143(1)(a) were impermissible, noting that the delay was evident from audit records and not a debatable issue – ITAT was justified in sustaining the adjustment [Paras 35–45].

Prospective vs Retrospective – Explanation 5 to Section 43B – Clarificatory in Nature – Retrospective Effect – The assessee argued that Explanation 5 (inserted by Finance Act, 2021) should apply prospectively – Held: The Supreme Court in Checkmate Services had already clarified the legal position based on pre-existing provisions; Explanation 5 is declaratory and does not introduce a new condition – Hence, it applies retrospectively and supports disallowance even for AY 2019-20 [Paras 37–41].

Binding Precedents – Sub Silentio Argument Rejected – The Court dismissed the claim that Checkmate Services was sub silentio regarding retrospective application – Held: The decision substantively analyzed the relevant provisions (Sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 43B), and clarification in Explanation 5 was unnecessary for its ratio – Checkmate is binding and applicable [Paras 37–41].

National Holiday – Due Date for PF/ESI Deposit – Relief Granted – For a portion of the contribution deposited on 16.08.2018, where due date (15.08.2018) was a national holiday, the Court allowed deduction – Held: Under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, deposit on the next working day is valid where deadline falls on a public holiday – Issue settled by earlier coordinate bench in Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. – Deduction allowed for this part only [Paras 46–47].

Final Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The Court upheld the disallowance of ₹4.14 crores under Section 36(1)(va) but allowed deduction for the amount delayed due to a national holiday – ITAT’s decision affirmed in part and reversed to limited extent – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 45–48].

Civil Liability – Damages - Negligence by Licensing Authority – Non-issuance of Duplicate License – Driver prevented from duty – Appellant, a permanent DTC driver, lost his license in 1996; MLO refused duplicate citing expiry, though DTC records showed validity till 20.12.1996 – Civil Judge in earlier suit (2002) directed issuance of duplicate license, confirming validity till 1996 – Held: Negligence of respondents established; appellant wrongly deprived of duty as driver for 1997–2001 – Loss of salary attributable to negligence of Licensing Authority [Paras 19-24].

Evidence – Public Records – Salary Register – Admissibility – PW2 produced original DTC salary register (Ex. PW2/A), signed by Depot Manager, showing salary appellant would have earned as driver – Court held document admissible under Section 35 Evidence Act – No contrary evidence led by respondents; Trial Court erred in rejecting cogent record – Presumption of correctness applies to official records [Paras 26-33].

Employment – Continuity of Service – Appellant never terminated – Though not assigned driving duty, remained in service; later given desk duty in 2001 until license reissued in 2002 – Salary paid was less than driver’s entitlement – Court held appellant entitled to damages for difference between actual salary paid and driver’s pay for 1997–2001 [Paras 37-44].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Damages enhanced by ₹30,000 (in addition to ₹15,000 awarded by Trial Court) with 9% interest from date of appeal till realisation – Finding of negligence of MLO/MLA final; DTC not liable – Decree modified accordingly [Paras 45-49].

NDPS Act – Sampling Procedure – Section 52A(2) – Mandatory Compliance – Accused found with Buprenorphine and Diazepam injections – Samples drawn by detecting officer at spot without moving application to Magistrate – Held: As per Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) and Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023), samples must be drawn in presence and under supervision of Magistrate; failure vitiates prosecution – Prosecution case not free from suspicion – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 12-15].

Criminal Trial – Evidence Recording – Sections 273 & 276 Cr.P.C. – Invalid Chief Affidavits – Trial court accepted affidavits of PWs 1 & 4 as chief-examination, contrary to Section 276 Cr.P.C. requiring recording in court in presence of accused – Violated accused’s right to object to leading questions – Prejudice caused – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 8-11].

Benefit of Doubt – Doubts in Procedure – Absence of statutory compliance in sampling and defective recording of witness testimony cumulatively rendered prosecution unreliable – Acquittal directed [Paras 16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted and directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case. Acquittal [Para 16].

Bail – Anti-National Facebook Post – Sections 152, 192, 197(1), 353(2) BNS – Bail Rejected – Applicant posted provocative and derogatory content including insult to Indian National Flag and slogans glorifying Pakistan – Cyber investigation traced posts to applicant's verified IP and mobile – Court found conduct detrimental to national integrity and social harmony – No grounds for bail [Paras 2–10].

Cyber Crime – Electronic Evidence – Facebook Post Verified Through IP and Mobile Linking – Meta data and cyber report confirmed the posts were made from applicant's mobile using his SIM and devices – Forensic collection upheld as credible prima facie evidence linking accused to offense [Paras 6(i)-(ii), 8].

National Flag – Insult to National Honour – Bail Denied – Photograph showing dog sitting on Indian Flag uploaded by applicant was termed as deliberate act of dishonour – Court reaffirmed importance of safeguarding national symbols and noted that such acts were punishable and socially corrosive [Paras 7, 9].

Criminal Antecedents – Previous Involvement in Arms Act and Attempt to Murder Cases – Considered in Bail Rejection – Two prior cases including one under Section 307 IPC weighed against applicant's plea for liberty [Para 6(vi)].

Social Media Responsibility – Posts Capable of Inciting Communal Disharmony – Court observed that the content uploaded was capable of disturbing public peace and order – Bail denied due to possibility of larger societal impact [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Prima facie materials against the accused supported by technical evidence and witness statements – Insult to National Flag viewed as serious and non-bailable conduct – Application dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Section 14 – Nature of Magistrate’s power – Ministerial vs. adjudicatory – Powers exercised by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate under Section 14 are purely ministerial – Magistrate not required or empowered to adjudicate disputes between borrower, secured creditor, or third parties – Duty limited to assisting secured creditor in taking possession on compliance with statutory affidavit requirements [Paras 9.1–9.3, 10.1–10.2].

SARFAESI Act – Section 14 – Requirement of notice to borrower – No obligation – Statutory scheme mandates only filing of authorised officer’s affidavit – Magistrate to act within 30 days (extendable to 60 days with reasons) – No requirement to issue notice to debtor or hear objections – Any grievance lies under Section 17 before DRT [Paras 11.3–11.8, 12.4–12.6].

Possession Delivery Warrant – Condition regarding third parties – Impermissible – Once property is a secured asset under SARFAESI, Magistrate cannot restrict possession delivery warrant by saving alleged third-party rights – Such disputes, if any, to be adjudicated under Section 17 before DRT, not by Magistrate under Section 14 [Paras 12.1–12.6, 13.1–13.2].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Observation in impugned order dated 29.04.2025 in Crl. Misc. No.16/2025 (“possession delivery warrant is not binding on 3rd parties, if they are in possession of the property in any capacity”) quashed – Order under Section 14 SARFAESI to be implemented without the said observation [Para 13.3, 26].

Tax Settlement Scheme – Appeal dismissed as non-maintainable after specified date – Assessee held eligible under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 as appeal was pending on 22.07.2024 – Rejection of declaration quashed.

Income Tax – Eligibility under DTVSV Scheme – Appeal pending on specified date but later held non-maintainable – Declaration rejection quashed – Appeal was pending as on 22.07.2024 and hence taxpayer was eligible under Scheme despite subsequent dismissal as non-maintainable – Rejection of declaration on ground of invalidity of appeal not justified [Paras 6–25].

Scheme Interpretation – Applicability of CBDT FAQ No.36 – Circulars binding – Clarifies eligibility even if appeal disposed on merits or dismissed as withdrawn after specified date – Held: FAQ No.36 clarifies scheme covers such cases – Appeal treated as pending on 22.07.2024 [Paras 10–14, 23].

Binding Precedents – Prior decisions on similar schemes applicable – Tushar Agro Chemicals and Atul Roshanlal Gupta relied – Appeals, even if incompetent or irregular, held to be pending for purpose of benefit under tax settlement schemes [Paras 21–22].

Administrative Law – Rejection of benefit on hyper-technical ground – Not permissible when scheme intends to resolve disputes – Reiterated that interpretation should align with object of the scheme to reduce litigation and promote compliance [Paras 21, 23–24].

Decision – Impugned rejection communication dated 11.04.2025 quashed – Respondent directed to process declaration in accordance with DTVSV Scheme, 2024 – Petition allowed [Paras 24–25].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Award – Hearsay Evidence – Rejection of Admitted Documents – Award Set Aside – Arbitral award allowed Respondent’s claim for refund due to allegedly defective packaging – Petitioner contended that the arbitrator relied on hearsay evidence from an expert witness (CW-2), and disregarded two SGS India lab reports that showed no odour or defect in the packaging – Held: Arbitrator wrongly disregarded admitted contemporaneous evidence in the form of SGS India reports and instead relied on CW-2’s report, based on hearsay statements from Respondent's staff in 2016 about goods received in 2013 – Such reliance constitutes a gross procedural error and offends basic notions of justice – Award shocks the conscience of the Court and is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act [Paras 34–40, 47].

Public Policy – Section 34(2)(b)(ii) Arbitration Act – Violation of Basic Notions of Justice – The rejection of reliable and admitted laboratory evidence, coupled with acceptance of uncorroborated hearsay testimony, amounted to a breach of public policy and justice – The Award conflicts with Explanation 1(iii) to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) as it offends the most basic notions of fairness, reliability, and adjudicative reasoning – Held: The conduct of the arbitrator fell foul of judicial standards and vitiated the award [Paras 44–47].

Admissibility and Evidentiary Value – Marking of Documents and Cross-examination – Arbitrator erred in holding that SGS India reports had no evidentiary value for lack of author testimony, despite both parties having marked and admitted the documents – Court held that contemporaneous lab reports should have been preferred over retrospective hearsay-based expert opinion – No obligation on Petitioner to cross-examine when burden of proof not met by Respondent [Paras 36–43].

Decision – Commercial Arbitration Petition allowed – Arbitral Award dated 02/12/2019 set aside – Deposit of USD 165,000 made pursuant to earlier court order permitted to be withdrawn by Petitioner after 4 weeks [Paras 48–52].