Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Associate Decor Limited – Challenge to the minutes of the 22^nd Committee of Creditors meeting for being non est and illegal – Petitioner contending inadequate notice period for Committee of Creditors’ meeting contrary to Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 19 of the IBBI Regulations. [Paras 3, 7, 9, 13-15]

Notice Requirements and Legal Provisions – Insufficiency in notice period for the Committee of Creditors meeting – Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 19 of the IBBI Regulations necessitate a minimum notice period, reducible to 24 hours – Inadequate notice rendering the meeting and its resolutions unsustainable and non est. [Paras 14-15]

Resolution Professional Conduct – Allegations against the resolution professional’s conduct in the insolvency resolution process – Petitioner’s claims of hurried proceedings and erroneous information memorandum – Court reserving the petitioner’s liberty to file a complaint with the IBBI under Section 196 of the Code. [Paras 15-16]

Reconsideration of Restructuring Proposal – Directive for the Committee of Creditors to reconsider the petitioner’s restructuring proposal under Section 12A of the Code in light of the quashed resolutions. [Para 17]

Decision – Writ petition allowed in part – Resolutions of the 19^th Committee of Creditors meeting dated 11-02-2020 and the minutes of the 22^nd meeting dated 21-12-2022 quashed – Petitioner granted liberty to file a complaint with the IBBI – Committee of Creditors directed to reconsider the restructuring proposal. [Paras 18(i)-(vi)]

Input Tax Credit & Special Rebate under KVAT Act – Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 – Petitioners, rubber dealers, entitled to input tax credit and special rebate under Sections 11 and 12 of KVAT Act for tax paid on local rubber purchases. [Para 2]

Exemption Notifications and Inter-State Sales – Notification under Section 8(5) of CST Act exempting natural rubber from CST – Impact on input tax credit for inter-state sales exempted from tax under 3^rd proviso to Section 11(3) and Section 12(1) of KVAT Act. [Paras 3, 7]

Assessment Authority’s View – Disallowance of input tax credit and special rebate for inter-state sales of exempted goods under Annexures-I and II notifications, despite actual payment of CST under Section 8(1) of CST Act. [Para 3]

Appellate Tribunal Decision – Adjustment of CST paid on inter-state sales against demands raised due to disallowance of input tax credit, based on Annexure-VII notification clarifying the optionality of Annexures-I and II notifications. [Para 4]

High Court Judgment – Disposal of revisions without modification, affirming Tribunal’s limited relief. Exemption notifications not optional in statutory context, affecting input tax credit entitlement. Questions of law answered against assesses and in favor of Revenue. [Para 7]

Setting aside ex parte composite award – Appellant filed appeals against the order dismissing applications under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex parte award – Appellant claimed summons were never served and proper address not given – Appellant learned of ex parte award later and filed applications – Court considers the sufficiency of cause to set aside the ex parte award. [Para 1-5]

Service of summons – Summons were sent to the appellant’s given address, and lastly, to appear on 26.5.2008 – Summons received by appellant’s father, but no representation on behalf of the appellant on the fixed date – Appellant proceeded against ex parte – Appellant failed to provide a plausible explanation for non-appearance. [Para 11-13]

Dismissal of appeals – Court finds no reason to disagree with the Tribunal’s findings – Appeals dismissed as devoid of merits. [Para 14]

Bail Application – Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.PC – Petitioner charged under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Recovery of contraband – Allegation of non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner's claim of false implication – First-time offender – Lengthy custody period – Reference to Supreme Court judgments on bail in similar cases [Para 1-9]

Bail – Consideration of bail in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Recovery of commercial quantity of contraband – Substantial compliance with Section 37 – Importance of Article 21 (right to a speedy trial) – Grant of bail without expressing views on merits of the case – Conditions imposed on petitioner's release [Para 8-12]

Registration of Rice Mill - Petitioner seeks setting aside of order rejecting its application for final registration of rice mill - Petitioner purchased mill in auction and applied for allotment of paddy - Respondent rejected registration on the ground of inadequate land size - Petitioner claims to have obtained additional land on lease - Court examines relevant policy and instructions. [Para 1-3]

Ownership of Land - Instructions state that a new mill should be established on own land and cannot be on leased land - Petitioner purchased mill along with land in public auction - Court finds no dispute regarding ownership of the land - Petitioner is having sufficient plant and machinery - Policy allows rice millers to obtain land on lease within 4 kilometers. [Para 7-8]

Allocation of Paddy - Respondent had previously allotted paddy to the petitioner from 2017 to 2022 - Claim rejected based on instructions dated 13.08.2013 - Court considers the time-sensitive nature of the paddy allocation - Directs the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's claim for paddy allotment within two weeks. [Para 9-10]

Decision - Court orders the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's claim for paddy allotment based on the petitioner's ownership of land and compliance with policy provisions regarding additional leased land - Needful to be done within two weeks. [Para 11]

Administrative Law – Allotment of Petrol Pump – Petitioner's candidature for the allotment of petrol station canceled due to non-disclosure of 1 marla land abutting the road – Violation of terms and conditions of the brochure – Petitioner's contention that the land could be ignored for allotment – Respondent's insistence on compliance with brochure's conditions. [Para 1-8]

Decision – Petitioner's petition seeking to set aside the cancellation of candidature dismissed – Respondent's rejection of candidature upheld due to non-disclosure of the 1 marla land – No manifest arbitrariness or mala fide intention found on the part of the respondent – Dismissal of the petition does not preclude the petitioner from applying for future allotments. [Para 9-10]

Bail Application – Regular Bail – Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case involving charges under Sections 302, 307, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and other sections – Petitioner claims false implication and absence from the incident scene – State opposes bail citing gravity of allegations and common intention of an unlawful assembly – Court examines evidence, including statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and rejects bail application. [Para 1-11]

Legal Precedent – Reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Kumer Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and another' – Emphasis on the non-consideration of individual roles when accused are part of an unlawful assembly and charged with serious offenses – Application of this principle to the present case. [Para 10]

Decision – Bail application dismissed considering the gravity of allegations and the common intention of an unlawful assembly – Petitioner's claim of false implication not accepted based on evidence, including statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. [Para 11]

Conviction Under NDPS Act: Petitioner convicted and sentenced under Sections 8/15(c) of NDPS Act; challenges conviction citing procedural irregularities and incorrect legal interpretation by the trial court - [Para 1].

Contention on Seizing Officer's Authority: Petitioner argues non-compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act; seizing officer not authorized as S.H.O., thus rendering the search and seizure process invalid - [Para 2].

Prosecution's Stance: Opposes suspension of sentence, citing the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband, invoking Section 37 of NDPS Act - [Para 3].

Critical Examination of Seizing Officer's Role: Court notes issues with the legitimacy of the seizing officer's role, referencing precedent on the need for specific authorization under Section 42 of NDPS Act - [Paras 4, 7-9].

Admission of Procedural Flaws: Acknowledgment of non-compliance with Section 42(2) of NDPS Act and premature engagement of independent witnesses during seizure - [Para 5].

Suspension of Sentence and Bail Granted: Sentence suspended considering potential merit in appeal, duration of sentence served, and procedural errors; bail granted with specific conditions - [Paras 6-8].

Criminal Trespass and Assault – Allegations of trespassing and assault by petitioner on respondent’s land, leading to a physical altercation and subsequent police complaint. Charge sheet filed under Sections 447, 324, 506 IPC in Kalakada Police Station. [Paras 2, 4, 14-15]

Delayed FIR and Private Complaint – Delay in FIR registration (FIR No.33 of 2016 dated 28.06.2016) attributed to police inaction, necessitating a private complaint by respondent. Judicial Magistrate of First Class referred the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. [Paras 3, 11, 17]

Affidavit Requirement in Private Complaints – Discussion on the necessity of an affidavit in support of a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Priyanka Srivastava case. Uttarakhand High Court’s view on non-filing of affidavit as a curable defect considered. [Paras 5, 7-9]

Property Dispute and Criminal Charges – Existence of a civil dispute (O.S. No.111 of 2017) over property ownership does not negate criminal charges. The charge sheet's assertion of respondent’s possession of the property underpins criminal trespass allegations, despite the title dispute. [Paras 13, 16]

Decision – Criminal Petition No. 4200 of 2019 dismissed by Andhra Pradesh High Court. The proceedings in C.C. No.135 of 2018 against petitioner will continue. [Para 20]