Negotiable Instruments Act – Appeal Against Conviction – Deposit of 20% Fine Under Section 148 N.I. Act – Exceptional Circumstances – The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing him to deposit 20% of the fine amount as a condition for admitting the appeal against his conviction under Section 138 N.I. Act – Held: The deposit of 20% of the fine is not an absolute rule, and courts may consider exceptional circumstances where the deposit may be waived – The petitioner cited his resignation from the company before the issuance of cheques, his unemployment, and the liquidation of the company as exceptional circumstances – The impugned order was set aside to allow the petitioner an opportunity to present his exceptional circumstances before the trial court for reconsideration [Paras 9-13].

Judicial Precedents – Applicability of Section 148 N.I. Act – Scope of Waiver in Special Circumstances – Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Surender Singh Deswal v. Virender Gandhi and Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. SIDC Ltd., the Court emphasized that while Section 148 requires the deposit of 20% of the fine amount, it is not mandatory in all cases – Courts must assess whether the imposition of such a condition would deprive the appellant of the right to appeal, especially in cases of financial incapacity or other exceptional reasons [Paras 10-12].

Exceptional Circumstances – Financial Hardship – Resignation from Company – The petitioner argued that he had resigned as a director before the issuance of the cheques and had no control over the company's affairs at the relevant time – Additionally, he had been unemployed since 2018 and the company was under liquidation, making it difficult for him to pay the 20% deposit – Held: These exceptional circumstances may justify a waiver of the deposit, and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to present his case before the trial court [Paras 4-5, 13].

Decision: The Court set aside the order directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the fine amount and remanded the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge to reconsider the deposit requirement in light of the petitioner’s exceptional circumstances. The petitions were allowed, and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to present his case for exemption from the deposit of the fine [Paras 13-14].

Domestic Violence – Right of Residence – Shared Household – The petitioner, who married the second respondent, claimed her right to reside in the shared household under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act. The Magistrate’s earlier order protecting her right to stay in the shared household was recalled on the grounds that the property was owned by her father-in-law, respondent No. 3 – Held: The property, though owned by the father-in-law, was a shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act since the petitioner resided there after marriage – However, the petitioner does not have an absolute right to continue residing there – The Court balanced her right by directing the husband to provide alternate accommodation [Paras 19-22].

Civil Suit for Possession – Right to Evict Under Law – Balance of Interests – The respondents, including the father-in-law, had filed a civil suit for possession of the shared household – Held: The filing of a civil suit is in accordance with law, and Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act allows eviction, provided alternate accommodation is arranged for the petitioner – The Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of the petitioner and the father-in-law’s right to peaceful living [Paras 20, 23].

Income of Petitioner – Recall of Maintenance Order – The petitioner’s interim maintenance was recalled after it was revealed that she was employed and earning Rs. 40,000 per month – Held: The recall of the maintenance order is justified given her financial independence [Para 16].

Judicial Precedents – Shared Household and Eviction – The petitioner relied on earlier cases such as Hiral P. Harsora and Sarika Mahendra Sureka, but the Court found that the precedents applied only to certain facts – In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, the Supreme Court held that while the daughter-in-law has a right to residence, she may be evicted from the shared household following due process of law [Paras 9, 11, 20].

Decision: The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner’s right to reside in the shared household is not absolute. The father-in-law, as the owner of the property, has a right to seek possession through legal means. The learned Magistrate’s order, directing the husband to provide alternate accommodation, was upheld as a reasonable balance between the parties’ rights. The petition lacked merit and was dismissed [Paras 22-24].

Labour Law – Provident Fund Contributions – Canteen Subsidy – Basic Wages – Section 2(b) of EPF Act – Not Included – The canteen subsidy, being optional and dependent on employee attendance, was held not to form part of basic wages under Section 2(b) of the EPF Act. The Court referenced the principles from Bridge & Roofs Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, concluding that wages universally paid to all employees are included in basic wages, whereas selective payments, such as the canteen subsidy, are excluded [Paras 34, 37].

Provident Fund Contribution – Canteen Subsidy – Explanation 1 to Section 6 of EPF Act – Deemed as Dearness Allowance – The subsidy of Rs.475/- per month, provided under statutory settlement, had a direct nexus to the cost of living. The supply of food at subsidized rates in canteens established that the cash value of the food concession fell within Explanation 1 to Section 6, thus attracting provident fund contributions. The decision distinguished the Tata Power Co. Ltd. case, where no food was supplied [Paras 39-43].

Cash Value of Food Concession – Legal Interpretation – Distinction from Tata Power Case – The Bombay High Court's interpretation in Tata Power Co. Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was examined. Unlike Tata Power, where no actual food was provided, the present case involved subsidized food supply, justifying the inclusion of canteen subsidy as dearness allowance [Paras 40-42].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, holding that the cash value of the canteen subsidy must be considered part of the dearness allowance under Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the EPF Act, thereby requiring provident fund contributions [Para 43].
 

Criminal Procedure – Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC – Standard of Evidence – The petitioner challenged the order of the Trial Court summoning him as an accused under Section 319 CrPC, arguing that the evidence did not meet the threshold to justify his implication – Held: Section 319 CrPC allows summoning of additional accused only when strong and cogent evidence points to their involvement – The evidence presented, including testimonies of PW-3 and PW-7, indicated that the petitioner was involved in the fraudulent transfer of property – The court found that un-rebutted evidence would likely result in conviction, thus justifying the summoning order [Paras 10-15].

Forgery and Criminal Conspiracy – Allegation of Forged Signatures – Witnesses testified that the petitioner forged signatures on a sale deed to transfer land – The court noted that although forensic evidence on signature comparison was inconclusive, the witness testimonies provided a prima facie case – Held: The Trial Court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 319 CrPC to summon the petitioner based on this evidence [Paras 11-14].

Appellate Jurisdiction – No Challenge to Remand Order – The petitioner argued that the Appellate Court wrongly remanded the case to the Trial Court for reconsideration – The court dismissed this contention, stating that the remand order was not challenged and had attained finality – Further, the Trial Court did not review its own order but acted on directions from the Appellate Court [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – The Trial Court’s order summoning the petitioner as an accused under Section 319 CrPC is upheld [Para 18].
 

Criminal Law – Impleading Additional Accused – Power under Section 319 CrPC – High Threshold of Evidence Required – Petition filed to challenge rejection of application under Section 319 CrPC to add Smt. Shanthi Roache (wife of existing accused) as an additional accused, on grounds she had knowledge of the spurious liquor activities conducted by her husband – Trial court dismissed the application, and subsequent revision was also denied by the Sessions Court – Held: Power under Section 319 CrPC, an extraordinary measure, must be used sparingly, requiring evidence at a higher threshold than mere suspicion; court must be convinced that unrebutted evidence would likely lead to conviction – Allegations did not meet the requisite standard of strong, cogent evidence for summoning the respondent as an accused; mere spousal residence without direct involvement insufficient – Petition dismissed [Paras 13, 17].

Spousal Relationship and Presumed Knowledge in Criminal Offenses – Insufficiency for Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC – Court emphasized that co-residence or marital ties alone do not substantiate complicity in criminal activity without direct evidence – Held: In absence of proof linking the respondent to the offense, merely being the spouse of an accused cannot justify summoning under Section 319 CrPC, especially in pre-trial stage – Trial court and Sessions Court orders upheld [Paras 18-20].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Court found no grounds to interfere with the orders of the lower courts, which had correctly applied the law under Section 319 CrPC in rejecting the application to implead Smt. Shanthi Roache as an accused – Petition lacking in merit [Para 20].
 

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Section 11(5), Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Non-signatories bound by Arbitration Clause – Petition for appointment of Justice T.S. Thakur as arbitrator – Held: Non-signatories can be bound by an arbitration agreement if they actively participated in the contract's performance and had a substantial role in the agreement's subject matter – The respondents were bound by the arbitration clause based on their conduct and involvement under the MoS and related Share Purchase Agreements [Paras 23-30].

Group of Companies Doctrine – Application to Non-Signatories – Group Companies Doctrine extended to bind non-signatories to arbitration – Respondents were connected through ownership and management, giving rise to obligations under the MoS – Held: Non-signatories can be made parties to arbitral proceedings under the doctrine if they are involved in the agreement’s performance and benefit directly from the transactions [Paras 33-35].

Consolidation of Arbitral Proceedings – Power to Consolidate – Indian Arbitration Act – The Court found no express prohibition or allowance for consolidation of separate arbitration proceedings – Reference made to international arbitration rules (ICC, SIAC) to suggest that consolidation could be permissible under Indian law as long as it does not violate party autonomy [Paras 37-39].

Implied Consent to Arbitration – Binding Nature of MoS – Respondents' Role – Implied consent inferred through the conduct and obligations of respondents under the MoS and SPAs – Held: Despite not being formal signatories, their involvement in the underlying agreements subjected them to arbitration proceedings [Paras 79-85].

Decision – Arbitration Reference Allowed – The Court appointed Justice T.S. Thakur, Former Chief Justice of India, as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes, including claims against non-signatories under the MoS – Objections of non-signatories dismissed – The arbitration was allowed to proceed, and applications under Section 16 were left for the arbitrator to decide [Paras 66-72].

Anticipatory Bail – Non-Bailable Warrant and Proceedings under Section 82 CrPC – Exceptional Circumstances for Granting Bail – The applicant sought anticipatory bail after non-bailable warrants and proclamation under Section 82 CrPC were issued against him in a fraud case involving the sale of government land. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Court held that there is no absolute bar on granting anticipatory bail after issuance of a proclamation if exceptional circumstances warrant it. Considering that the applicant was not in possession of the disputed land and had initiated civil proceedings for cancellation of the sale, the Court granted anticipatory bail – Held: Anticipatory bail granted in the interest of justice, subject to conditions [Paras 19-25].

Fraud in Land Sale – Victim of Fraud – Anticipatory Bail Granted – The applicant was alleged to have been involved in a fraudulent transaction concerning government land. However, the Court found that the applicant had paid part of the sale consideration and initiated proceedings for cancellation of the fraudulent sale agreement. The co-accused, including the seller, had already been granted bail. In light of these facts, the applicant was deemed to be a victim of the fraud, and anticipatory bail was granted – Held: Anticipatory bail granted [Paras 22-24].

Conditions for Anticipatory Bail – The Court imposed several conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail, including regular appearance before the trial court, non-interference with the investigation, and not leaving the country without permission. The Court emphasized that the anticipatory bail was subject to compliance with these conditions – Held: Bail granted with conditions [Paras 26].

Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, subject to conditions to ensure the applicant’s cooperation with the investigation and compliance with court orders [Paras 25-26].

Excise Law – Exemption Notification – Rebate Claim on Exported Goods – The petitioner challenged the rejection of their rebate claim on biscuits exported out of India – The petitioner had voluntarily paid excise duty on the goods exported, arguing that since the biscuits did not bear a retail sale price in rupees, they were not covered by the exemption notification – Held: Goods exported without a retail sale price in rupees are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 3/2006 – The petitioner was entitled to pay duty and claim a rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 [Paras 13-14, 20].

Article 265 of the Constitution – Retention of Duty Paid Without Authority of Law – The revenue contended that the goods were exempt under Notification No. 3/2006 and that the petitioner was not required to pay duty, thereby not entitled to a rebate – The Court held that if goods were exempt, retaining the duty paid without the authority of law would violate Article 265 of the Constitution – The Court rejected the revenue’s argument, emphasizing that duty paid without legal obligation cannot be retained [Paras 15-16].

Cenvat Credit and Tribunal Decision – Consistency in Rebate Claims – The petitioner’s earlier rebate claims had been allowed by appellate authorities and accepted by the revenue – The Court noted that the revenue could not take a contrary position after accepting similar claims in the past – The tribunal’s order allowing the petitioner’s appeal was also accepted by the revenue, further supporting the petitioner’s claim for a rebate [Paras 17-19, 23-24].

Decision – The petitioner’s claim for a rebate of excise duty paid on exported biscuits was allowed – The order of the Revisional Authority was quashed – The respondents were directed to grant the rebate claims [Paras 30-31].

Motor Vehicle Accident – Rash and Negligent Driving – The prosecution alleged that the respondent, driving a tipper, failed to notice the turn signal given by the deceased bicyclist and caused a fatal accident – The trial court convicted the respondent for rash and negligent driving under Sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC – The appellate court, however, acquitted the respondent, holding that the accident occurred on a busy national highway, and the deceased could have avoided the collision by exercising caution while crossing the road – Held: The appellate court's view was reasonable as the deceased was turning at a road junction and the evidence, including skid marks, suggested that the respondent had attempted to stop the vehicle [Paras 6-8].

Road Safety Regulations – Duty of Driver and Bicyclist – Under Rule 8 of the Rules of the Road Regulation, 1989, drivers must slow down at road junctions to ensure safety – The court observed that both the deceased and the driver had duties under the law, and in this case, the deceased's negligence in entering the junction was a contributing factor – The appellate court's finding that the deceased bicyclist should have exercised caution was upheld [Paras 10-12].

Appellate Review – Scope of Interference in Acquittal – The court reaffirmed the principle that an acquittal should not be overturned unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable – In this case, the appellate court's decision to acquit the respondent was found to be a plausible view based on the evidence, and no interference was warranted [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The appellate court's judgment acquitting the respondent is upheld as the view taken was reasonable and supported by the evidence [Para 18].