Arbitration Law – Review under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC – Grounds for Review – Application Dismissed - The appellant sought a review of the judgment dismissing its appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, alleging errors on the face of the record, including the enforceability of exorbitant interest rates and misinterpretation of the sanction letters – The court reaffirmed that review is permissible only on limited grounds such as an error apparent on the record – Held: The issues raised were addressed and rejected in the original proceedings; review dismissed [Paras 1–5, 27–35].

Commercial Contract – Interest at 36% per Annum – Validity and Enforceability – Rate Not Unconscionable - The court examined the claim of excessive interest rates under commercial sanction letters – Held: Exorbitant rates in commercial contracts reflect market risks and do not contravene public policy when the parties are sophisticated entities with equal bargaining power – The interest clause was upheld as valid under the terms agreed by the parties [Paras 15–25, 40–50].

Public Policy – Scope in Arbitration – Not Violated by Enforceable Interest Rates - The appellant claimed the arbitral award contravened public policy due to excessive interest – The court reiterated the limited scope of public policy under Section 34(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing that contravention of public policy requires a breach of fundamental principles of Indian law – Held: The interest clause in the sanction letters did not breach fundamental legal principles; award upheld [Paras 51–58].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – No error apparent on the face of the record – Original judgment upheld – No costs awarded [Paras 59–65].
 

Criminal Law – Bail – Rejection of Bail Application – Appellant, a Senior Inspector of Police, accused of conspiracy and complicity in the murder of Mansukh Hiran and related offences – Charged under IPC Sections 120B, 201, 302, and 364, as well as Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the UAPA – Prosecution alleged involvement in a conspiracy to plant explosives and subsequent murder to eliminate evidence – Special Judge denied bail – High Court upheld rejection based on prima facie evidence and the seriousness of offences – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-33].

Conspiracy – Larger Conspiracy and Role of Accused – Prosecution case outlined premeditated conspiracy involving multiple accused, including appellant – Alleged appellant facilitated the crime by posing as "Inspector Tawade," luring the deceased to meet conspirators – Statements of protected witnesses, technical evidence (CCTV, call detail records), and forensic material linked appellant to the crime – Defense contention that there was no direct evidence of appellant's role dismissed as conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence [Paras 13-19, 21-23, 28-29].

Role of Evidence – Technical and Witness Testimonies – Call detail records, CCTV footage, and statements of witnesses provided prima facie evidence of the appellant’s role in luring the deceased and aiding co-conspirators – Specific allegations included handing over the victim to hired killers, tampering with evidence, and facilitating communication using benami SIM cards – Prosecution relied on sequence of events supported by physical and digital evidence to substantiate claims – Appellant’s defense of lack of direct evidence rejected as material corroborated a larger conspiracy [Paras 17-24, 27-28].

Application of UAPA – Stringent Provisions and Prima Facie Case – Appellant charged under UAPA for conspiring to commit terrorist acts aimed at creating terror – Court noted sufficient material to establish appellant’s role in conspiracy and rejected arguments against applicability of UAPA – Principles from Supreme Court judgments on prima facie satisfaction for UAPA bail upheld – Observed that offenses fell within UAPA framework due to intent to strike terror [Paras 22, 24, 29-31].

Decision – Bail Denied – High Court dismissed appeal – Held, strong prima facie evidence and seriousness of charges justified continued custody – Observed that the appellant’s release would jeopardize the trial and risk tampering with witnesses – Court emphasized that observations were limited to bail considerations and did not prejudge the trial outcome [Paras 32-33].

Matrimonial Law – D.V. Act - Interim Maintenance – Determination of Husband’s Income – Domestic Violence Act – Wife sought an increase in interim maintenance of ₹10,000/- per month granted by the trial court for herself and the minor child, while the husband sought a reduction of the same. The trial court considered the husband's income to be ₹12,260/- per month along with an additional ₹200 per lecture and awarded maintenance accordingly – Held: The award of ₹10,000/- as interim maintenance is reasonable, considering the financial status of the husband, the socio-economic standard of the wife, and the expenses of the minor child. No interference is warranted in the trial court's findings [Paras 9-14].

Financial Status and Standards of Living – Wife's Entitlement – The wife is entitled to maintain a standard of living similar to that of the husband. Courts must ensure that maintenance is neither extravagant nor meager – Held: The interim maintenance awarded is consistent with the husband’s income and the wife’s reasonable requirements [Paras 11-12].

Wife’s Capacity to Earn – Impact on Maintenance – The husband argued that the wife holds an M.Com degree and is capable of earning, while the wife asserted she was not employed. Held: The wife is entitled to maintenance unless the husband conclusively proves her actual earnings. However, she is not entitled to live a life of idleness and is encouraged to seek employment [Paras 13-15].

Legal Principles on Maintenance – Applicability under Domestic Violence Act – The court relied on the principles laid down under Section 125 CrPC and precedents such as Kalyan Dey Chowdhary v. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy and Rajnesh v. Neha to determine interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act – Held: Interim maintenance must be reasonable, ensuring the wife and child can maintain a standard of living consistent with the husband’s socio-economic status [Paras 10-12].

Rejection of Both Revisions – No Merits Found – The wife’s plea for enhanced maintenance and the husband’s plea for a reduction in the maintenance amount lacked merit – Held: The revisions were dismissed, and the trial court’s interim maintenance order was affirmed [Paras 14-16].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce on Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion – Petition Dismissed – Husband sought divorce alleging cruelty and desertion by wife – Alleged that the wife ill-treated him, was addicted to bad habits, and deserted him from 17/01/2020 – Evidence revealed inconsistencies in the husband's claims, including admissions of cohabitation for 85-90 days after the alleged date of desertion – Evidence further established that the husband had filed multiple petitions, including under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, without bona fide intention to reconcile – Held: No valid grounds for divorce made out; Family Court’s dismissal of the petition affirmed [Paras 10-15].

Conduct of the Appellant – Previous Marriages and Filing of Frivolous Petitions – Appellant admitted to three marriages and prior divorces, which supported the wife’s claim that the husband had a pattern of marrying and divorcing within short periods – Filing of a restitution petition followed by a divorce petition suggested an abuse of legal process to avoid liability under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Held: Husband’s conduct undermined his case, and vague allegations of cruelty were insufficient to grant divorce [Paras 12-14].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Bonafide Intention – Filing of a restitution petition without pursuing its execution indicated a lack of genuine effort to reconcile – Follow-up divorce petition within a short period of time further demonstrated that the restitution proceedings were used to avoid maintenance obligations – Held: Abuse of legal process noted [Paras 13-14].

No Evidence of Desertion or Cruelty – Evidence failed to substantiate claims of cruelty or willful desertion – Wife’s absence from proceedings did not absolve the appellant of the burden of proof – Sacred marital relationship should not be dissolved on vague and unsupported allegations – Held: Dismissal of the petition by Family Court upheld [Paras 14-15].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed with compensatory costs of ₹25,000 payable by the appellant to the respondent.
Judgment and decree dated 02/12/2023 passed by the Family Court, Shivamogga, in M.C. No. 116/2023 is affirmed.
 

Criminal Procedure – Expenses of Witnesses – Application under Sections 243(3) and 312 of Cr.P.C. – Petitioner sought reduction of travel expenses of PW.13, a Scientist, claiming they should be governed by the Karnataka Witness Expense Rules, 1967 – Held: The Rules are applicable only for payment by the Government and not for expenses imposed on accused persons – Sections 243(3) and 312 of Cr.P.C. allow courts discretion to determine reasonable expenses for witnesses summoned by the accused – Petition dismissed with costs [Paras 12-14].

Witness Expenses – Applicability of Karnataka Witness Expense Rules – Scientist from Autonomous Body – Karnataka Witness Expense Rules, 1967, found inapplicable to PW.13, a Scientist from C-DAC, an autonomous body under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Rules apply only to Government employees or complainants whose expenses are paid by the Government – Held: Discretion of Trial Court in determining reasonable expenses under Cr.P.C. provisions upheld [Paras 13-14].

Adjournments and Dilatory Tactics – Conduct of Petitioner – Adjournments sought repeatedly by the accused for cross-examination of PW.13, delaying trial since January 2024 – Held: Adjournments granted subject to payment of travel expenses cannot be contested by accused on grounds of Rules not applicable – Petition found to be an abuse of process, aimed at procrastinating trial – Costs imposed on petitioner to deter misuse of judicial process [Paras 15-17].

Abuse of Process – Failure to Cross-Examine Witness – Split Verdicts Not Permissible – Accused No.24, co-applicant in the application for reducing expenses, did not challenge the Trial Court’s order, rendering the petition unsustainable – Split verdicts on identical issues impermissible – Held: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to District Legal Services Authority [Paras 15-17].

Decision:

The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru Urban District. The Trial Court’s order requiring the petitioner to deposit Rs. 20,650/- as travel expenses of PW.13 was upheld, with a direction for compliance within 10 days. Non-compliance would forfeit the petitioner’s right to cross-examine PW.13, and failure to pay costs would result in recovery as arrears of land revenue.

Taxation Law - Customs Law – Confiscation of Imported Goods – Re-export Permitted – Appeals Dismissed - The appellant challenged the CESTAT's order permitting re-export of substandard Areca Nuts and reducing penalties – Court upheld CESTAT’s decision, noting that the goods were not fit for human consumption as per Indian standards but could serve industrial purposes – CESTAT acted within its authority under Section 125 of the Customs Act, balancing justice with public policy considerations – Held: Appeals dismissed; re-export allowed with compliance conditions [Paras 25–32, 55–62].

Food Safety and Standards – Regulatory Compliance – Confiscation Reassessed
Goods tested under FSSAI standards were found substandard and unsafe for human consumption – Court observed that the importer had not contested test results but sought re-export – CESTAT correctly permitted re-export as goods were deemed unsuitable for Indian standards but had potential industrial use abroad [Paras 28–35, 60–65].

Penalties and Redemption Fine – Discretion Exercised by Tribunal – Reduction Justified - CESTAT reduced the redemption fine and personal penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority, considering the lack of deliberate misrepresentation by the importers – Court found no basis to interfere, noting the reduction aligned with proportionality principles and public policy [Paras 45–50].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Re-export of substandard Areca Nuts permitted on payment of Rs. 25 lakhs fine and Rs. 10 lakhs penalty – Compliance conditions imposed to prevent re-import to India [Paras 65–70].
 

Taxation Law - GST Compliance – Rectification of Errors in GSTR-1 – Beyond Statutory Period – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner sought permission to amend errors in GSTR-1 returns filed for the quarter ending June 2021, after the statutory time limit expired under Section 37(3) of the GST Act, 2017 – The Court held that rectifications must adhere to the prescribed timelines to ensure the integrity of cascading tax effects and procedural finality – Held: Rectification beyond the statutory period is impermissible, and the petitioner’s plea is dismissed [Paras 5–14].

Legal Framework – Section 37 and Section 39 – Restrictive Timelines for GST Return Corrections - Section 37(3) prohibits rectifications in GST returns beyond November 30 following the financial year in which the invoices pertain – The Court emphasized that adhering to these timelines is vital for maintaining tax administration efficiency and certainty – Held: The time limitation under Sections 37(3) and 16(4) applies strictly to all assessees, regardless of inadvertent errors [Paras 6–12].

Supreme Court Precedent – Bharti Airtel Limited Case – Applicability in GST Correction Context - Referring to Union of India v. Bharti Airtel Limited (2022) 4 SCC 328, the Court reiterated that belated rectifications in GST returns could disrupt the statutory mechanism and cause cascading issues for other stakeholders – Held: Legislative intent and systemic integrity outweigh individual hardships arising from compliance errors [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Rectification of GSTR-1 disallowed – No costs awarded [Paras 15–16].

Service Law - Judicial Conduct – Grant of Bail – Alleged Misconduct – Punishment Quashed - The petitioner, a judicial officer, faced disciplinary proceedings for granting bail in a second petition without awaiting the outcome of a transfer petition pending in the High Court – Inquiry found no evidence of corrupt motive or extraneous considerations – Court observed: The petitioner’s judicial decision, though contested, was reasoned and fell within the bounds of judicial discretion – Held: Punishment of compulsory retirement set aside; disciplinary proceedings invalid due to lack of substantive evidence [Paras 20–32].

Departmental Inquiry – Procedural Fairness – Rule 16 Violated – Serious Prejudice - Petitioner alleged procedural irregularities, including delay in furnishing documents and a lack of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses – Court found significant procedural lapses in the inquiry process under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, resulting in prejudice to the petitioner’s defense – Held: Inquiry and subsequent punishment unsustainable [Paras 35–40].

Judicial Independence – Protection Against Frivolous Allegations – Guiding Principles

Court emphasized that judicial officers must be protected from baseless allegations to ensure independent decision-making – Observed: Adverse judicial orders alone cannot form the basis of disciplinary action unless motivated by malice or impropriety – Highlighted the importance of robust evidence before initiating proceedings against judicial officers [Paras 45–50].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order of compulsory retirement quashed – Petitioner entitled to all consequential benefits – No order as to costs [Paras 51–55].

NDPS - Transfer of Investigation – Allegations of Bias and Procedural Irregularities – Investigation Ordered – Petitioner alleged false implication in an NDPS case and failure of the local police to preserve CCTV footage despite court orders – Court directed transfer of investigation to a senior police officer from another district, emphasizing the importance of impartiality and adherence to procedural mandates [Paras 10-14].

Non-Preservation of CCTV Footage – Breach of Supreme Court Guidelines – Responsibility Fixed – CCTV footage from Sultanpur Lodhi police station, crucial to proving illegal detention, was not preserved despite a specific trial court order – Court held this as a violation of Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh guidelines and directed departmental inquiry against the SHO and oversight committee [Paras 15-18].

Importance of CCTV Monitoring in Police Stations – Non-Compliance Addressed – Highlighting deficiencies in Punjab police’s compliance with Supreme Court directives on CCTV installation and footage retention, the Court ordered the DGP, Punjab, to file a comprehensive compliance affidavit addressing gaps in implementation [Paras 19-22].

Interim Bail – Granted Pending Investigation Transfer – Considering procedural lapses and false implication allegations, interim bail was granted to the petitioner with liberty to raise all defenses during trial [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The petition was allowed in part. The investigation of FIR No. 126 dated 20/06/2022 was transferred to a senior police officer from a neighboring district. Interim bail was granted to the petitioner and co-accused Mangat Ram. The court directed a departmental inquiry against officers responsible for non-preservation of CCTV footage and ordered the DGP, Punjab, to submit a compliance affidavit regarding CCTV surveillance implementation in police stations.