Bail Application – Violation of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Commercial Quantity – Dismissal of Bail – Non-compliance with mandatory search and seizure provisions – Petitioner’s criminal history – Anticipatory injustice – Legislative mandates under Section 37 of NDPS Act – Pre-trial incarceration – Right to speedy trial – Trial court’s directions – Observations on merits and conclusion – Conditions for expediting trial – Dismissal of application but request for speedy trial – Order subject to petitioner’s conduct during trial proceedings.

Criminal Law - Revision Petitions - Setting aside of Charges - Allegations under IPC sections 498A/406/34 - Matrimonial dispute - Misappropriation of stridhan and harassment for dowry - General and omnibus nature of allegations against in-laws - Specific allegations against husband - Court's duty to scrutinize allegations carefully. [Para 10]

Criminal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Concurrent revisional powers of High Court and Sessions Court - Speedy justice in criminal cases - Maintainability of revision petitions in High Court in the interest of judicial efficiency. [Para 5, 6]

Section 406 of IPC - Offence of Misappropriation of Stridhan - Requirement of entrustment of property and dishonest use or disposal of it - Absence of specific allegations against in-laws of husband - Discharge of charges against in-laws. [Para 12]

Section 498A of IPC - Offence of Cruelty to Married Woman - Allegations against husband - Specific allegations of harassment, coercion, and misappropriation against husband - Prima facie case made out against husband. [Para 16]

Misuse of Section 498A IPC - Concerns over indiscriminate implicating of relatives of husband in matrimonial disputes - Need for specific and credible allegations against the accused - Warning against misuse of the process of law - Quashing of charges against in-laws due to lack of specific allegations. [Para 19]

Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Murder case - Evidence based on circumstantial evidence - Absence of motive - Importance of motive in circumstantial evidence cases - Motive not necessary to be proved in detail for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Accused found guilty based on other circumstantial evidence. [Paragraphs 4, 5, 27]

Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Murder case - Confession - Admissibility and value of confession - Appellant's confession recorded in the presence of witnesses - Confession leading to recovery of evidence - Conviction upheld based on the admissible confession and recovered evidence. [Paragraphs 11, 25]

Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Murder case - Expert Medical Opinion - Autopsy and injuries - Expert's opinion on cause of death and nature of injuries - Conviction upheld based on the expert's opinion confirming homicide by multiple stab injuries. [Paragraphs 22, 23]

Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Murder case - Charge under Section 201 of IPC - Causing disappearance of evidence - Recovery of weapon after some delay - Intent to dispose of the weapon - Conviction under Section 201 IPC set aside as evidence did not conclusively prove an intention to screen the offender. [Paragraphs 30, 32]

Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Sentence - Murder case - Severity of the crime - Nature and number of injuries inflicted by the accused - Sentence imposed for murder conviction confirmed. [Paragraph 35]

Criminal Procedure - Appeal against Conviction - Compensation - Murder case - Award of compensation to victim's parents - Compensation maintained as per the Sikkim Compensation to the Victims (or their Dependants) Scheme, 2021. [Paragraph 36]

Letters Patent Appeal – Challenging Labour Court’s Award – Appeal against the judgment affirming the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement with full back wages – The appellant employer’s departmental inquiry found to be vitiated due to lack of fair opportunity for the workman to cross-examine witnesses and present his own. [Para 2]

Delay in Proceedings – Reference made by the workman in 2001 decided after 17 years – No explanation offered for the delay in reinstating the workman for a period of 1 year and 7 months. [Para 2.1]

Back Wages – Challenge to 100% Back Wages – Appellant argues that award of 100% back wages is not automatic upon reinstatement – Reliance on Apex Court decisions to assert that individual case circumstances must be considered. [Para 4]

Employer’s Fault – Workman’s Victimisation – Labour Court and learned single Judge found that the workman was victimized by the employer – Employer cannot benefit from its own wrong. [Para 5]

Legal Principles – Apex Court’s Guidelines – In cases of wrongful termination, reinstatement with full back wages is the normal rule, subject to certain conditions. [Para 4.2]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No ground to challenge the findings of the Labour Court and the learned single Judge – Civil Application also stands disposed of. [Para 6]

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 148 — Notice — Amalgamation of Companies — Legal principle — Approved scheme of amalgamation results in cessation of existence of amalgamating entity — Notices issued post amalgamation in the name of amalgamating company lack jurisdiction.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Adani Wilmar Ltd., Inox Wind Energy Ltd. — Established legal principle — Notices issued in name of amalgamating company after approval of amalgamation are fundamentally illegal and void.

Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2017-18— Notices issued to non-existent entity — Violation of established legal principle — Notices declared void and lacking jurisdiction - Judicial Observations — Relevance of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Adani Wilmar Ltd., Inox Wind Energy Ltd. In context of present case — Legal stance affirmed in precedent cases.

Implications of Decision — Previous notices rendered null and void due to issuance to non-existing entity — Jurisdiction of notices questioned and invalidated.

Petition allowed — Notices for assessment years 2014-15 to 2017-18 declared void — Invalidated notices set aside— Notices issued against established principle invalidated — Decision nullifies notices and sets aside invalidated ones.

Civil Revision – Challenge to impugned order – Application under Order 18 Rule 3-A, CPC declined – Rent Controller’s decision challenged – Petitioner seeks revision of the decision – Matter relates to eviction petition – Respondent failed to step into witness box – Petitioner raised objection, filed application under Order 18 Rule 3-A, CPC – Rent Controller declined application – Issue revolves around applicability of CPC provisions – Reference to Section 16 and Section 18 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 – Principles of CPC procedure applicable to Rent Controller’s proceedings – Relying on precedent – Court upholds Rent Controller’s decision – Civil revision declined. [Para 1]

Applicability of CPC – Procedure in Rent Controller proceedings – Provisions of CPC applicable in specific context – Section 16 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 – Summoning and attendance of witnesses – Section 18 of the Act – Execution of orders – Strict applicability of CPC – Rent Controller’s procedure guided by CPC principles – Not all CPC provisions applicable – Citing authority – Upholding Rent Controller’s decision. [Para 4]

Conclusion – Civil revision dismissed – Impugned order upheld – Principles of CPC procedure applied to Rent Controller proceedings – No interference required in Rent Controller’s decision to decline application under Order 18 Rule 3-A, CPC – Precedent’s applicability confirmed. [Para 4]

Administrative Law - Jurisdiction and Authority – Writ Petition against reduction of compensation by Principal Secretary, Department of Power – Compensation originally assessed by District Magistrate – Government’s revision order lacks jurisdiction under the Telegraph Act and the Electricity Act – District Magistrate is the competent authority for compensation assessment – Revision Petition improperly entertained.

Authority of District Magistrate - Compensation Assessment – Analysis – Held – The District Magistrate is the competent authority for assessing compensation for land acquisition under the Telegraph Act. The Principal Secretary lacked jurisdiction to revise this compensation. The impugned order was set aside due to lack of authority. [Para 18-19]

Decision – Allowing Writ Petition – The court allowed the writ petition, reinstating the compensation order of the District Magistrate and invalidating the Principal Secretary’s revision order. The decision underscores the necessity for government authorities to operate within their designated jurisdiction. [Para 21]

Administrative Law - E-Auction - Cancellation and Refund of Earnest Money Deposit - Writ petition filed challenging the cancellation of e-auction and refund of the earnest money deposit without reason. The petitioner, being the highest bidder, claimed a vested right to be declared successful. Held, the reserve price was improperly fixed due to a software error, justifying the cancellation of the auction. Conscious decision to refund the amount was valid and need not be disclosed to the highest bidder but can be reviewed by the court. Writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 1-12]

Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Judicial Review of Administrative Actions - In reviewing administrative actions, courts can call for records to verify the reasoning behind the decision. In this case, the recalculation of the reserve price based on incorrect software data was deemed a valid reason for cancellation. Held, there is no vested right for the highest bidder to seek confirmation of the auction if the process was flawed. [Paras 9-11]

Decision - Petitioner’s writ petition dismissed due to valid administrative reasons for auction cancellation and refund. Court emphasized the need to prioritize public funds and the integrity of the auction process. Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 11-12]

Criminal Law - Quashing of Order - Money Laundering - Petitioner accused of siphoning Rs. 190 crores - Enforcement Directorate registered case under PMLA - Petitioner seeks quashing of order dismissing application for exemption from personal appearance - Petitioner's counsel argues non-inclusion as accused in initial FIR - Enforcement Directorate later adds petitioner's name through supplementary complaint - Petitioner contends cooperation in investigation and seeks exemption due to health issues and being abroad - Enforcement Directorate contends lack of cooperation, petitioner's attempt to bribe CBI officer in separate case - Court examines nature of case, seriousness of allegations, and necessity of personal appearance - Denies exemption, upholds lower court's decision - Petition dismissed.(Para No. 3,7,8,9,11,12)