Criminal Law – Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Bail Granted – The appellant, Manik Bhattacharya, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for allegedly receiving Rs. 7,00,000 from 44 candidates – Charged under Section 3, read with Section 70, and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002 – His bail applications were denied twice by the trial court – Upon appeal, the High Court considered his prolonged detention, health issues, and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution – Noting the delay in framing charges and the unlikelihood of a trial conclusion soon, the High Court granted bail with stringent conditions – [Paras 24-25, 27-28]

Investigation and Witness Testimony – The ED alleged the appellant's involvement in illegal appointments in primary education – Evidence included statements from co-accused Tapas Kumar Mondal, who stated that Rs. 3.25 crores were collected to secure appointments for 325 candidates – The appellant argued these statements did not directly implicate him, and the ED failed to establish a money trail to him – Furthermore, no money was recovered from his possession, and he challenged the authenticity and completeness of the evidence – [Paras 6, 14]

Grounds for Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – The High Court referred to the principles established by the Supreme Court concerning the right to a speedy trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – Considering the appellant's nearly two-year detention without trial and the vast amount of documentary evidence, the Court found that further detention would breach his fundamental rights – The improbability of a near-future trial conclusion indicated that prolonged pre-trial detention would equate to punishment without trial – [Paras 22, 23, 29, 30]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Bail Granted – The High Court granted bail, subject to stringent conditions: surrendering the passport, restricted movement without court permission, and no tampering with evidence or witness intimidation – The appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with two sureties – It was clarified that the observations in this judgment were solely for the bail application and would not influence the trial court's assessment of the case's merits – [Paras 31-34]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Divorce Granted – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion - The appellant alleged that the respondent-wife insisted on moving to her parental home and later deserted him without consent - The respondent claimed harassment and demand for dowry - The Court noted the absence of denial by the respondent that she left the matrimonial home and the omission to explain the circumstances of her departure - Held: The evidence pointed towards desertion and cruelty by the respondent – The marriage is dissolved on these grounds [Paras 7-10].

Evidence – Cross-Examination and Documentary Evidence - In cross-examination, the appellant confirmed his modest income, supported by a certificate of net salary - The respondent and her father’s claims of a higher income could not be substantiated, and they failed to explain the departure from the matrimonial home - Held: The appellant's contentions were supported by evidence, and the respondent's objections were not upheld [Paras 12-15].

Permanent Alimony – Consideration of Appellant's Income - Considering the appellant's current income and the respondent's age and education, the Court directed a permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court - Held: The alimony is justified in exercising the Court's discretion, given the dissolution of marriage [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the Family Court dismissing the divorce petition is reversed – The marriage solemnized on 9th March 2015 is dissolved by a decree of divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion – Permanent alimony of ₹5,00,000 to be deposited in the Family Court within two months – The decree to be drawn up expeditiously [Para 17].

Contract Law – Coal Supply Dispute – Appeal Dismissed – Coal Pricing – Colliery Control Order 2000 – Imposition of Add-on Charges - CCL imposed add-on charges over the base price of coal, which the appellant paid under protest. The appellant contended that under the Colliery Control Order 2000, only CIL was authorized to fix coal prices and that CCL had no power to impose such charges - Held: The appellant unconditionally agreed to pay the enhanced price, and there was no evidence to suggest that CCL's demand for a 30% premium was for profiteering - Writ petitions were dismissed as no violation of Article 14 or profiteering was established [Paras 29-32].

Contractual Disputes – Maintainability of Writ Petitions - The respondents argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the dispute pertained to a commercial contract without any public law element. The appellant argued that the exercise of powers by the authorities under the statutes governing coal supply was being questioned - Held: The writ petitions were maintainable as they involved the exercise of statutory powers under the Essential Commodities Act and Colliery Control Order 2000 [Paras 35-37].

Price Fixation – Article 14 and Fair Pricing - The appellant claimed that the imposition of add-on charges violated Article 14 of the Constitution, arguing that no other subsidiaries of CIL imposed such charges. The respondents maintained that coal pricing involved various factors, and the appellant enjoyed the benefits of source-specific coal - Held: No evidence suggested that the price fixation was arbitrary or aimed at profiteering - Price fixation must ensure a fair price for the consumer while allowing for reasonable profit, but not profiteering [Paras 43-46].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petitions was upheld – No relief granted to the appellant regarding the refund of add-on charges/source-specific premium charges – Costs were not awarded [Paras 49-50].

Constitutional Law – Citizenship – Cessation of Citizenship – The appellant was disqualified from the post of Mukhiya on the ground of having voluntarily acquired the citizenship of Nepal, resulting in the cessation of his Indian citizenship under Section 9 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 – The appellant contended that the State Election Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter, which should have been referred to the Central Government under the Citizenship Rules, 2009 – Held: The Election Commission does not have the authority to adjudicate on the cessation of citizenship; such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Central Government – The decision of the Election Commission was set aside, and the matter was directed to be referred to the Central Government [Paras 11-13, 15].

Election Law – Disqualification – Jurisdiction of State Election Commission – The State Election Commission disqualified the appellant for alleged foreign citizenship – Held: As per the Full Bench decision in Rajani Kumari v. State Election Commission, the State Election Commission can consider disqualification issues based on unimpeachable materials, provided it is not purely an election dispute – However, contentious issues, especially those concerning citizenship cessation, should be decided by a competent court or the Central Government, not the Election Commission [Paras 14-20].

Procedural Law – Referral to Central Government – The court directed the State Election Commission to refer the dispute to the Central Government to determine whether the appellant had acquired foreign citizenship voluntarily, which could lead to the cessation of Indian citizenship under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1955 [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The order of the State Election Commission and the judgment of the learned Single Judge were set aside – The State Election Commission was directed to refer the matter to the Central Government for determination – The appellant is entitled to continue in the post of Mukhiya until the Central Government's decision is made [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal Overturned – Eyewitness Testimonies – Three eyewitnesses, including the father and daughter of the deceased, testified against the accused, stating that he attacked his wife with a Kassi – Trial court disregarded these statements due to minor contradictions in timing and procedural flaws in the investigation – Held: The High Court found the contradictions insignificant and the testimonies credible and consistent on material facts – Acquittal overturned [Paras 9.3, 11].

Evidence – Recovery of Weapon – The Kassi used in the crime was recovered based on information provided by the accused – FSL report confirmed that human blood on the weapon matched the blood group of the deceased – Trial court dismissed this evidence due to contradictions regarding the timing of police arrival at the crime scene – Held: Recovery of the weapon was crucial evidence supporting the prosecution's case [Paras 12, 13].

Appellate Review – Standard of Interference – The appellate court is empowered to reverse an acquittal if the trial court's findings are based on misreading or omission of material evidence – In this case, the trial court failed to appreciate key evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and forensic findings – Held: Acquittal found to be perverse and legally unsustainable [Paras 14, 15].

Decision:  Appeal allowed – Acquittal set aside – Respondent convicted under Section 302 IPC – Life imprisonment awarded with a fine of ₹10,000, in default of payment, six months' rigorous imprisonment – Bail bonds cancelled, respondent to be taken into custody to serve sentence [Paras 16, 17].

Service Law – Appointment Validity – Retrospective Application of Rules – The petitioners were appointed as teachers and non-teaching staff before the enforcement of the 1978 and 1984 Rules, which mandated training qualifications and a prescribed selection procedure – The institution received temporary and permanent recognition in 1980 and 1984, and was included in the grant-in-aid list in 2006 – Held: Appointments made before the rules were valid, and subsequent rules did not render these appointments illegal, especially after acquiring necessary qualifications – The objection to their appointments at this stage is unsustainable - Appeal partly allowed. [Paras 30-38].

Service Law – Training Qualification – Effect of Non-Possession at the Time of Appointment – Training became an essential qualification under the 1978 Rules – Petitioners appointed before these rules were not trained – Held: Appointment of untrained teachers prior to these rules does not suffer from any defect – The lack of training qualification at the time of appointment was irregular but not void, and their services were affirmed after acquiring the necessary training [Paras 38, 41].

Education Law – Recognition and Grant-in-Aid – The institution was granted recognition and was included in the grant-in-aid list without any objections to the petitioners' qualifications or appointments at that time – Held: The authorities cannot raise objections at this belated stage regarding the procedure adopted at the time of initial engagement of the petitioners [Paras 41, 44].

Principle of 'No Work, No Pay' – The matter of salary payment to the petitioners from July 2012 till their superannuation was relegated to the authority to ascertain their working during this period – Held: Petitioners are entitled to salary if they worked, otherwise not entitled under the principle of 'no work, no pay'.

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – The order of the learned Single Judge was modified to the extent of relegating the matter regarding salary entitlement from July 2012 till retirement to the authority for determination – The petitioners' initial engagement in the institution was found in accordance with the law, and they are entitled to consequential benefits.

Consumer Law – Writ Petitions under Article 227 – Jurisdiction – Challenge to NCDRC Orders – Multiple writ petitions were filed in the High Court of Delhi challenging the orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Petitioners contended that the High Court of Delhi had jurisdiction as NCDRC is located in Delhi – Respondents argued that jurisdiction lies with the High Court where the cause of action arose, relying on Siddhartha S. Mookerjee case – Held: Jurisdiction for petitions under Article 227 lies with the High Court where the original cause of action arose, not merely based on the location of the NCDRC in Delhi – Court followed Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddhartha S. Mookerjee and other similar cases, emphasizing that jurisdiction should align with where the matter originated – Appeal dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-76].

Writ Jurisdiction – Cause of Action – Petitioners claimed that the NCDRC’s location in Delhi vested jurisdiction in the Delhi High Court – Court disagreed, holding that the cause of action determines jurisdiction, not the location of the appellate or revisional tribunal – The cause of action for each petition had arisen outside Delhi, and the petitions should have been filed in the respective jurisdictional High Courts – Situs of the tribunal not a decisive factor for jurisdiction [Paras 13-65].

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission – Regional Benches and Jurisdiction – NCDRC, as a national-level tribunal, exercises jurisdiction across multiple states – Petitions challenging its orders must be filed in the High Court within the territorial jurisdiction of the original cause of action – Establishment of regional benches by the central government could further guide jurisdictional filings – [Paras 49-56].

Decision: All writ petitions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction – Petitioners directed to pursue remedies in the appropriate jurisdictional High Courts – Delhi High Court cannot entertain petitions solely based on the situs of the NCDRC [Paras 73-76].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Estoppel under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act – The applicant was inducted as a tenant by the original landlord, Shri Ramakant B. Desai, and paid rent for several years – Held, a tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord during the tenancy – Applicants' claim that the property belongs to the housing society is not maintainable under the principles of estoppel – [Paras 13-26].

Co-operative Housing Society – Ownership and Membership – Impact on Landlord-Tenant Relationship – The applicants argued that since the society owns the property, they have the right to occupy the premises – Court held that membership in the housing society does not negate the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship with the original landlord – The applicant's arguments based on ownership under co-operative society laws were rejected – [Paras 7-29].

Res Judicata – Prior Proceedings in Co-operative Society – Applicants contended that prior rulings in society-related matters should bar the respondents' claim – Held, issues resolved in co-operative society proceedings do not affect the landlord's right to recover possession under rent control laws – [Paras 10-21].

Decision: Revision application dismissed – The Appellate Court's judgment ordering the applicants to hand over possession of the disputed premises to the respondents is upheld – The applicants are estopped from denying the respondents' title under the landlord-tenant relationship – Applicants directed to vacate the premises and pay arrears of rent with interest – [Paras 27-29].

Service Law – Inter-Cadre Deputation – Order of Central Administrative Tribunal Set Aside – The petitioner, an Indian Forest Service officer from the Manipur Cadre, sought an extension of his inter-cadre deputation to Kerala for an additional two years due to personal difficulties – His initial deputation was granted on grounds of his father's old-age ailments and his family's location in Kerala – Both the State of Kerala and State of Manipur provided no objections for the extension – However, the Government of India rejected the extension request, citing a lack of cogent reasons and delay in submission – The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissed the petitioner’s application for extension – On appeal, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed a fresh decision on the request for extension – [Paras 1, 2, 4, 11, 13]

Guidelines and Personal Difficulties – According to clauses (c) and (d) of the inter-cadre deputation guidelines, an extension is based on personal difficulties and requires review – The maximum period for inter-cadre deputation is five years – The petitioner’s original deputation was based on his father's ailments and his family's location in Kerala, which the Government of India initially accepted – The petitioner argued that these reasons still existed with worsened impact, warranting an extension – [Paras 4, 8-9]

Decision and Reconsideration – The High Court noted that the CAT found the petitioner’s request for extension was submitted in time and disagreed with the Central Government's claim of delay – The Court observed that the reasons for the petitioner’s initial deputation were still valid and held that the matter required reconsideration by the competent authority – The Court directed the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet to take a fresh decision on the petitioner’s extension request, allowing him to continue in Kerala until a decision is made – [Paras 10, 12]

Order – Appeal Allowed – The High Court allowed the original petition, setting aside the CAT's order and the Central Government's rejection of the extension request – It directed a fresh decision on the petitioner’s request for a further two-year extension of inter-cadre deputation to Kerala, effective from June 26, 2023 – [Paras 13].a