Execution Proceedings – Decree Satisfaction – Error in Appropriation – Appellants (KSEB and its officer) challenged the order of the execution court allowing attachment of their bank account to recover Rs.1,05,841/- as alleged balance under an enhanced compensation decree – Court found that the execution court erred in appropriating the entire earlier deposit (Rs.2,91,761/-) towards interest and costs, leading to an inflated calculation of balance due – Held: Method of appropriation adopted was incorrect as prior deposits included original decree amount – Matter remanded for fresh consideration [Paras 1, 5, 9, 11].

Interest Calculation – Enhanced Decree – Scope of Appellate Judgment – In the appellate decree enhancing compensation from Rs.1,89,000/- to Rs.2,54,000/-, interest at 9% was awarded from date of suit till date of actual payment – Court clarified that interest on original decree amount was to stop from date of deposit (30.06.2010), but interest on the balance (Rs.65,000/-) was to run till payment (23.09.2020) – Held: Execution court failed to correctly apply this clarification while computing interest liability [Paras 4, 6, 11].

Costs – Entitlement Post Appeal – Appellants contended that no costs were awarded in appeal and hence not recoverable – Court held that since trial court decree was upheld in other respects, decree holders were entitled to costs awarded therein – Objection regarding costs rejected [Para 11].

Remand – Improper Calculation – Fresh Adjudication Directed – Finding the execution court’s order based on flawed appreciation of deposit and interest chronology, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both sides – No costs awarded in appeal [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 16.08.2022 in E.A. No. 58/2022 set aside – Execution Court directed to reconsider matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Bail – POCSO and JJ Act Offences – Parity with Co-Accused – Petitioner charged under multiple IPC, JJ Act and POCSO provisions for alleged torture and abuse of a 3-year-old foster child – Other co-accused including petitioner’s husband (prime accused) granted bail – Held: On ground of parity and similar footing in charges, petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 5, 35]

Criminal Procedure – Illegal Arrest – Violation of Sections 50, 50A, 41B(b)(i), 46(4) CrPC – Arrest made without furnishing grounds, informing relatives, attesting arrest memo or obtaining prior judicial permission for arrest of woman at night – Held: Cumulative procedural lapses render arrest illegal – Fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22(1) violated – Arrest unsustainable [Paras 26–32]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioner in custody for over 2½ years, with only 15 of 74 witnesses examined and trial expected to take further considerable time – Held: Long incarceration violates right to liberty under Article 21 – Bail granted to prevent injustice and safeguard constitutional rights [Paras 22–24]

Interpretation of Precedent – Pankaj Bansal and Mihir Rajesh Shah Cases – Mandate to inform arrestee of grounds in writing applicable irrespective of arrest date – Argument that Pankaj Bansal applies only prospectively rejected – Section 50 of CrPC pre-existed and must be followed – Non-compliance affects validity of arrest [Paras 33–34]

Bail Conditions – Stringent Safeguards Imposed – Accused directed to furnish ₹1 lakh bond with two sureties (one government servant), surrender of official documents, non-contact with victim or witnesses, restriction on travel without court permission and cooperation in trial mandatory [Para 36]

Decision: Bail granted – Petitioner Dr. Sangeeta Dutta directed to be released in connection with Sessions (Special) Case No. 112/2023 on furnishing bond and fulfilling strict conditions – Court noted gross procedural violations during arrest and prolonged custody with pending trial – Petition allowed with liberty to State to seek cancellation in case of violation of conditions [Paras 35–37]

Banking Law – Classification of Borrower Account as Fraud – Prejudgment in Show Cause Notice – Violation of Natural Justice – Action Set Aside – Petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 28.02.2024 and the impugned order dated 07.08.2024 whereby respondent Bank of India reclassified the account of M/s Swati Mining Pvt. Ltd. as “Fraud” – Held: From the language and tone of the show cause notice, it is evident that the bank had pre-judged the matter – A show cause must be inquisitive, not conclusive – Use of definitive language rendered the notice invalid and the consequential action void [Paras 3, 16, 25]

Procedural Fairness – Forensic Audit Report Not Supplied – Personal Hearing Denied – Violation of Audi Alteram Partem – Petitioner repeatedly demanded a copy of the forensic audit report forming the basis of the fraud classification – Respondent bank’s claim of sending the report via email not substantiated with proof of delivery – Impugned order did not address petitioner’s objections or explain basis for rejection of reply – Personal hearing not granted despite being mandated in law and upheld by judgments in Rajesh Agarwal and IDBI Bank v. Gaurav Goyal – Held: Entire proceedings vitiated by non-compliance with principles of natural justice [Paras 4-6, 17, 21-24]

Judicial Precedent – Procedure for Fraud Classification – Guidelines in Hemant Kanoria Followed – Court reiterated the procedural safeguards laid down in Hemant Kanoria v. Bank of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 1012 – Held: Respondent bank failed to serve the forensic audit report with the show cause notice, failed to call for further reply or provide hearing – Process adopted contrary to the RBI Master Directions and binding judicial precedent [Paras 20, 24]

Administrative Law – Quasi-Judicial Function – Impugned Order a Replica of Show Cause Notice – No Independent Reasoning – Court noted that the impugned order was a verbatim reproduction of the show cause notice and did not contain any findings dealing with petitioner’s objections – Held: Absence of a reasoned order violates requirement of fairness under Article 14 and RBI Master Directions – Classification order quashed [Paras 18, 24]

Remedy – Fresh Opportunity Granted – Liberty to Bank to Reinitiate Proceedings – While quashing the show cause notice and impugned order, Court granted liberty to the bank to proceed afresh in accordance with law from the stage of issuing a valid show cause notice, ensuring supply of relied documents and following due process [Para 25]

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Show cause notice dated 28.02.2024 and impugned order dated 07.08.2024 quashed – Respondent bank granted liberty to initiate proceedings afresh strictly in accordance with law and RBI Master Directions – No costs [Paras 25-26]

Child Custody – Interim Custody – Appeal – Appellant-father challenged Family Court order granting interim custody of two minor children to respondent-mother – Alleged failure of Family Court to apply welfare principle and omission to record children’s wishes – Held: Family Court rightly prioritised emotional and psychological well-being of children over material considerations – Welfare of child is paramount – No ground for interference in appeal [Paras 1, 7, 26-27]

Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Family Court applied Section 17 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and relevant case law – Assessed stability, caregiving capacity, emotional needs of children – Held: Welfare principle was correctly applied – Physical custody alone not determinative – Emotional nurturing and continuity of care weighed over financial stability [Paras 17-20.1, 23]

Custody – Unilateral Removal by Father – Appellant took both children to Gurugram without mother’s consent – Claimed to be primary caregiver since 2023 – Held: Temporary unilateral custody cannot override long-standing caregiving role of mother – Family Court merely restored prior custody status – No vested right created by father’s self-assumed custody [Paras 5, 20.2, 20.3]

Child’s Preference – Daughter’s Choice to Reside with Mother – Court found elder child to be mature, articulate, and clear in expressing desire to live with respondent-mother – Held: Preference is genuine and not result of coercion or inducement – Supported by confidential in-camera interactions and continued voluntary residence with mother [Paras 13, 20.6, 21, 24]

Allegations Against Mother – Claims of Extra-marital Affairs – Appellant alleged respondent was unfit due to alleged extra-marital relations and erratic behaviour – Held: Allegations were unsubstantiated and speculative – No adverse impact on children’s welfare established – Custody decisions cannot be based on conjecture or moral assumptions [Paras 15.4, 20.4, 20.5]

Parental Alienation – No Proof of Manipulation – Appellant claimed daughter was alienated by respondent – Held: No credible evidence of such alienation – Court interactions showed daughter’s discomfort in father’s exclusive custody – Continued residence with mother based on her own volition [Paras 20.6, 21]

Violation of Visitation Orders – Appellant Took Children Abroad – Appellant took children to Dubai in March 2024 despite court’s visitation orders – Held: Conduct frustrated court’s directions and reflects disregard for legal process – Undermines claim of being responsible custodial parent [Paras 6, 22]

Sibling Bond – Split Custody Arrangement – Daughter residing with mother, son with father – Court observed such split is not ideal – Directed Family Court to explore ways to preserve sibling bond and ensure gradual transition if appropriate [Paras 25, 29]

Judicial Role – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court emphasised its duty to protect minors’ welfare over adversarial rights of parties – Approach must be child-centric, not parent-centric – Reaffirmed from Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A. Chakramakkal [Paras 18-19]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Impugned Family Court order upheld – Interim custody arrangements to continue for 8 weeks – Parties permitted to seek modification from Family Court – All pending applications closed [Paras 27-30]

Industrial Disputes – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Absence Without Leave – Reinstatement Without Back Wages Upheld – Petitioner, a temporary Chawkidar whose services were regularised, absented without sanctioned leave from 02.11.1993 to 27.01.1994 – Tribunal found non-acceptance of joining illegal and ordered reinstatement but denied back wages – Held: Absence without leave and failure to inform employer disentitles petitioner from back wages – Reinstatement does not automatically confer entitlement to wages for period of absence [Paras 2, 10-13]

Labour Law – Burden of Proof – Gainful Employment Not Pleaded – No Evidence of Unemployment – Petitioner failed to plead or establish that he remained unemployed during disputed period – Held: Burden lies on workman to assert and prove non-employment; in absence thereof, no back wages can be granted [Paras 12-13]

Back Wages – Principles and Precedents – Flexibility in Relief – No Straightjacket Rule – Citing U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh and Deepali Gundu Surwase, Court reiterated that award of back wages is not automatic – Various factors including nature of absence, length of service, and conduct must be considered – In present case, absence without communication justified denial of wages [Paras 6-9]

Medical Grounds – Mere Production of Medical Certificate Insufficient – No Leave Applied – Petitioner relied on medical certificate to justify absence – Held: Without any application for medical or casual leave or prior intimation to employer, plea of illness cannot be accepted as justification for unauthorised absence [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Award of Industrial Tribunal upheld – No entitlement to back wages – Petitioner found to be at fault for absence without intimation – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Sections 307, 323, 504, and 506 IPC - Acquittal – Appeal under Section 419 BNSS – Sole testimony of injured complainant not supported by medical evidence – Delay of 16 days in initiating prosecution remained unexplained – No independent witness produced despite being named – Suppression of fact that accused had also sustained injuries and police proceedings were initiated against both sides – Trial court found contradictions in injury narrative and held complainant's version unreliable – Held: No perversity or illegality in acquittal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13, 21-27, 30-38].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Appellate Interference in Acquittal – If two plausible views exist, appellate court should not reverse acquittal unless trial court findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – No such defect found in trial court’s judgment – Findings based on proper evaluation of evidence and consistent with Supreme Court precedents – No ground for interference [Paras 16-20, 39].

Evidence – Sole Injured Witness – Credibility – Injured witness's testimony must be cogent and corroborated – Contradictions between medical evidence and complainant’s version – Injuries found simple and not matching the narrative – Testimony categorised as neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable – Cannot be sole basis for conviction – Held: Trial court rightly disbelieved sole testimony in absence of corroboration [Paras 30-38].

Delay in Lodging Complaint – Complaint filed 16 days after alleged incident – No satisfactory explanation – Alleged application to police not proved – Delay fatal to prosecution as per Supreme Court precedent – Trial court's findings upheld [Paras 22-27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – No ground for interference with trial court judgment under Section 419 BNSS.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Vicarious Liability – Directors – Petitioners sought quashing of complaint filed in 1994 under IPC and Excise Act citing lack of specific allegations – Court held that in absence of averments indicating personal role or statutory vicarious liability, criminal prosecution against directors (Petitioners 3 to 9) is not sustainable – Complaint and proceedings quashed qua them [Paras 7.1, 8–10, 17(i)].

Taxation – Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 – Scope of Immunity – Petitioners argued that tax arrears settled under scheme granted full immunity from prosecution – Court held: Scheme does not apply retrospectively and cannot nullify criminal proceedings already instituted before 01.09.1998 – Petitioners not entitled to immunity for criminal complaint filed in 1994 [Paras 11–15].

Forgery – Prima Facie Case – False Declaration – Petitioners challenged maintainability of complaint under Section 468 IPC claiming discrepancy in glass thickness logs doesn't amount to forgery – Court rejected submission – Held: Misdeclaration before government authority to evade tax amounts to forged document under Section 464 IPC – Prima facie case made out against company and MD [Paras 4.9, 16, 17(ii)].

Criminal Law – Doctrine of Separate Legal Personality – Court reiterated that mere designation as director does not attract criminal liability – Active role or statutory provision required – Reaffirmed principle that vicarious liability in criminal law requires specific statutory mandate or evidence of involvement [Paras 7.1, 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Complaint quashed and proceedings dropped against Petitioners 3 to 9 (Directors) – Petition dismissed against Petitioner No.1 (Company) and Petitioner No.2 (Managing Director).

Income Tax – Reassessment – Bar of Limitation – Notice under Section 148 issued on 22.04.2024 to reopen A.Y. 2017–18 – Court held that under first proviso to amended Section 149, such notice is time-barred as six-year limitation expired on 31.03.2024 – Fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149 not applicable to extend limitation under first proviso – Held: Notice and reassessment proceedings are barred by law [Paras 9-16, 21]

Tax Procedure – Parallel Proceedings – Pending Rectification – Grounds of reopening (employee PF contribution, depreciation disallowance, unexplained credits) were already pending under Section 154 – Held: Initiating reassessment under Section 148 during subsistence of Section 154 rectification proceedings amounts to impermissible change of opinion – Reliance placed on S.M. Overseas (P) Ltd. [Paras 17-20]

Statutory Interpretation – Effect of Amendments – Court clarified that first proviso to amended Section 149 overrides the saving clauses in fifth and sixth provisos – Cited Delhi, Rajasthan, and Bombay High Court precedents rejecting retrospective application of extended limitation – Reiterated: Notices for pre-2021 assessment years cannot be saved by amended ten-year window unless old limitation was alive on 01.04.2021 [Paras 10-15]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 quashed – Reassessment for A.Y. 2017–18 held barred by limitation – No costs [Para 21]

Criminal Law – UAPA – Regular Bail – Section 43-D(5) – Prolonged Custody – Appellant in custody for over 2 years and 10 months without trial due to pendency of sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA – No evidence linking weapons recovered from appellant to terrorist activity or declared terrorists – Held: Long incarceration without trial violates Article 21 – Bail granted despite UAPA charges [Paras 3, 10, 12]

UAPA – Prima Facie Case – Section 43-D(5) – Standard of Review – Prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe accusations under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA to be prima facie true – No evidence linking accused to any act of terrorism – No record of WhatsApp communication or joint jail presence with alleged terrorists – Court held mere possession of arms without terror link insufficient for continued detention under UAPA [Paras 9-10]

Criminal Law – Parity in Bail – Co-Accused Granted Bail – Appellant's role not graver than co-accused already granted bail – Persons from whom arms were recovered, and others who allegedly supplied the weapons, all released on bail by Trial Court or Coordinate Bench – Held: Parity and lack of distinguishing features support grant of bail [Paras 10, Table under Para 10]

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail as Safeguard – Delay in framing charges and conclusion of trial despite completion of investigation violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Supreme Court precedents in K.A. Najeeb, Jalaluddin Khan, Vernon, Shoma Kanti Sen, and Javed Shaikh applied – Held: Bail cannot be denied solely on seriousness of charges where trial is indefinitely delayed [Paras 11–16]

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Court imposed stringent conditions including ₹10 lakh bond, weekly police attendance, undertaking for trial participation, and prohibition on inducement or fresh offences – Prosecution permitted to seek cancellation if conditions breached [Paras 17–19]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 22.12.2023 denying regular bail set aside – Appellant granted regular bail subject to stringent conditions including high bond, weekly marking, and undertaking for trial compliance – Observations made not to affect merits of trial – Trial Court permitted to impose additional safeguards – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 17–21]