Criminal Law  - Quashing - Information Technology Act – Section 67 – Privacy and Consent in Marital Relationship – Application for Quashing Rejected – The applicant-husband sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the IT Act for allegedly making and sharing an obscene video of his wife without her consent – Held: The marital bond does not dilute a wife’s individual rights to privacy and bodily autonomy – Making and sharing intimate content without consent constitutes a breach of trust and a punishable offence – Marriage does not provide immunity to a husband for such violations [Paras 3-5].

Criminal Procedure Code – Section 482 – Scope of Inherent Powers – No Interference Warranted – The Court held that issues related to factual determination, evidence appreciation, and credibility are within the domain of the trial court – No mala fide or malicious intent was evident to justify interference under Section 482 CrPC – Application dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 6-7].

Matrimonial Muslim Law - Maintenance — Minor Daughter’s Right — Section 125 CrPC — Maintenance directed for wife but omitted for minor daughter — Illegality committed by Family Court — Held: Minor daughter, being undisputedly born out of wedlock, is entitled to maintenance from her father under Section 125 CrPC — Court directed Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance for the minor daughter [Paras 13-14, 24, 28].

Maintenance — Quantum — Income of Husband — Boutique Business Income

Considered — Opposite party failed to effectively rebut wife’s claim of Rs.30,000/- monthly income from boutique business — Alleged lower earnings rejected due to lack of convincing evidence — Held: Maintenance fixed at Rs.2,000/- per month each for wife and minor daughter (Total Rs.4,000/- per month) considering dependents of husband [Paras 23, 29-31].

Muslim Wife — Entitlement to Maintenance after Divorce — Applicability of Section 125 CrPC — Even after divorce, if wife unable to maintain herself, entitled to maintenance — Payment of Dain-mehar or maintenance during iddat period does not discharge husband’s liability unless full life provision made — Divorce does not bar maintenance under Section 125 CrPC if wife is destitute — Held: Opposite party’s claim of divorce ineffective to deny maintenance [Paras 25-27].

Maintenance — Date from which Payable — Maintenance payable from date of application — Family Court wrongly awarded maintenance from date of order — Held: Maintenance shall be paid from 01.03.2012, the date of maintenance petition filing [Paras 15, 33-34].

Final Decision — Criminal Revision Allowed — Impugned order modified — Maintenance granted to both wife and daughter from the date of filing the application — Petition allowed [Paras 34-35].

Taxational Law – CGST Act, UPGST Act - Provisional Attachment – Justification under Section 83 of UPGST Act – The petitioner’s bank account was provisionally attached due to alleged tax evasion – The petitioner contended that the attachment was arbitrary and relied on Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 2021 SC 2114), where the Supreme Court ruled that provisional attachment should be exercised as a last resort – The Court distinguished the present case, noting that the petitioner had been given a hearing, had filed objections, and a reasoned order was passed – Held: The provisional attachment was justified as per law, and the petitioner’s objections were adequately considered [Paras 3-9].

Tax Evasion – Non-Payment of GST Collected – Section 74 of CGST Act – The petitioner had collected GST from customers but failed to deposit it with the government – The demand order confirmed a liability of ₹2,23,73,267 each under CGST and SGST, along with penalties and interest – Held: The non-payment of collected GST constitutes a serious contravention, justifying the recovery action under Section 74 [Paras 4-5, 10].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal against Demand Order – The petitioner sought to challenge the demand order through the writ petition – The Court ruled that the petitioner had a statutory alternative remedy of filing an appeal – Held: Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked when a statutory appellate remedy exists, and the petitioner must pursue an appeal under the law [Paras 6, 9].

Scope of Judicial Review – Provisional Attachment under Section 83 – The Court observed that provisional attachment under Section 83 can be challenged only when exercised arbitrarily or without due process – Since the petitioner had been granted an opportunity to object and was heard by the authorities, judicial interference was unwarranted – Held: The attachment order was lawful and within the framework of GST laws [Paras 8-10].

Penalty for GST Violation – Section 122(2)(b) and Section 125 of CGST Act – The petitioner and its director were found liable for penalties under the GST Act for tax evasion – A total penalty of ₹2,23,73,267 was imposed on the petitioner, with additional penalties on its director – Held: The penalties imposed were in accordance with statutory provisions and justified in light of the findings of tax evasion [Paras 5, 11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – The Court found no arbitrariness in the provisional attachment or the demand order. Alternative remedy directed – The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal against the demand order in accordance with the law.

Civil Writ - Medical Admission – NEET-UG Counselling – Retention of Seat – Finality of Admission Process – The petitioner, who had been allotted a seat in Government Medical College, Nagpur, sought transfer to Topiwala National Medical College, Mumbai, alleging misallocation of the Hilly Area Open Women category seat – The petitioner had submitted a Status Retention Form, thereby confirming his admission and rendering himself ineligible for further rounds – Held: Once a student opts for status retention, they forfeit the right to seek upgradation in subsequent rounds – Petition dismissed [Paras 23-27].

Reservation Policy – Hilly Area and Female Reservation – Applicability of Rules – The petitioner contended that the seat vacated by an upgradation should have been allotted to him instead of a lower-ranked candidate – The court held that under Rule 9.4.9 of the NEET-UG Brochure, female reservation within a category must be filled first before considering male candidates – Held: The seat was correctly allotted as per reservation rules, and no illegality was committed [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Admission Matters – The petitioner challenged the admission process, seeking judicial intervention to alter seat allotment – The court reiterated that judicial review in admission cases is limited to manifest errors or violations of legal provisions – Held: There was no procedural irregularity, and intervention was unwarranted [Paras 22-28].

Public Policy – Finality in Admission Process – Avoiding Disruption of Medical Education – The court criticized attempts by students to alter admissions after completion of counselling, emphasizing the need for finality – Held: Allowing such challenges would disrupt the admission process and create uncertainty in medical education [Paras 26-30].

Abuse of Legal Process – Attempt to Dislodge Another Student – Condemned – The court disapproved of the petitioner’s attempt to dislodge a fellow student to gain a seat in a preferred institution despite already securing admission in a government medical college – Held: Such litigation tactics are unacceptable and amount to an abuse of the judicial process [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Petition dismissed.

Civil Writ - Service Law - Payment of Gratuity – Interest on Delayed Payment – Section 7(3-A) of Gratuity Act – Gratuity was withheld due to pending audit objections and disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee – The amount was later disbursed, but the petitioners (legal heirs) sought interest for the delay – Held: Interest is not payable if the delay is caused by the employee's fault and employer has obtained necessary approval – As audit objections justified withholding gratuity, no interest can be claimed – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 3-5].

Audit Objections and Withholding of Gratuity – Whether Justified – Employer contended that the deceased employee had outstanding dues of Rs. 25,54,329, and gratuity was withheld until reconciliation – Held: Employer acted within its rights in adjusting outstanding dues before releasing gratuity – However, disputed amounts beyond the settled dues must be adjudicated separately – No violation of Gratuity Act found [Paras 4-5].

Jurisdiction of Writ Court – Disputed Questions of Fact – The employer asserted that Rs. 77,977 was still due from the deceased employee – Petitioners contested the claim – Held: Writ jurisdiction cannot decide disputed facts related to financial liabilities – Petitioners must seek remedy through a competent forum – Writ petition not maintainable for such claims [Para 5].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No entitlement to interest under Section 7(3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Delay in payment justified due to pending audit objections – Petitioners may seek remedies for disputed dues in an appropriate forum – No costs imposed [Paras 6-7].

Company Law – Director’s Liability for Corporate Debt – Loan Given to Company – No Personal Guarantee – The appellant extended a loan to respondent no.1 (company) but sought recovery from its directors personally – Trial court decreed the claim only against the company and dismissed it against the directors – Held: A company is a separate legal entity, and its directors are not personally liable for corporate debts unless a personal guarantee or indemnity is given – No evidence of misrepresentation or inducement by the directors – No personal liability can be imposed on directors merely because they requested the loan [Paras 6-7].

Corporate Veil – No Grounds to Lift – No Fraud or Malfeasance Alleged – The appellant contended that the corporate veil should be lifted to hold the directors personally liable – Held: Lifting the corporate veil requires proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or misuse of corporate structure – No such allegations were made in the pleadings – Mere friendship with directors does not create personal liability – Appeal dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Doctrine of Agency – Directors Not Personally Liable – Application of Section 230 of the Contract Act – The appellant argued that since the directors controlled the company’s affairs, they should be liable – Held: Under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agent is not personally liable unless expressly agreeing to be bound – No personal guarantee or indemnity was executed – Loan was granted to the company, not the directors in their personal capacity – No case for agency liability made out [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment upheld – Directors not personally liable for repayment – No personal guarantee or misrepresentation proven – No case for lifting the corporate veil – Company alone liable for repayment of the loan [Paras 10-11].
 

Bail – Anticipatory Bail in Forest Offenses – Applicability of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – The petitioner, accused of involvement in illegal felling of sandalwood trees, sought anticipatory bail – The prosecution argued that custodial interrogation was essential for recovery and further investigation – Held: Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception unless specific grounds necessitate pre-trial custody – No prima facie evidence of active involvement beyond a confession statement of a co-accused – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 6-8].

Custodial Interrogation – Necessity and Alternative Measures – The investigating officer contended that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of stolen wood – Petitioner countered that he had already appeared for questioning three times and was being pressured for a confession – Held: Custodial interrogation is not a precondition for effective investigation—Police may conduct recoveries while the accused is on bail, as per the ruling in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Paras 7-9].

Principle of Bail as the Rule – Constitutional Mandate – The court reaffirmed the principle that bail should be granted unless there is a likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence – Cited P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of U.P., emphasizing that arrest should not be mechanical and should serve a valid investigative purpose – Petitioner directed to cooperate with investigation and appear before the police when required [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks – If arrest is recorded, he shall be released on bail upon executing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed, including restrictions on travel, non-interference with witnesses, and mandatory cooperation with the investigation – Failure to comply will result in cancellation of bail [Paras 12-14].
 

Criminal Revision - Obstruction of Public Servant – Whether Conviction Under Section 186 IPC Sustainable – The petitioners were convicted for obstructing a traffic constable while he was clearing a traffic jam—Held: Prosecution failed to prove that the complainant was discharging official duties at the time—Absence of duty roster and police records weakens the case—Conviction set aside [Paras 18-21].

Assault on Public Servant – Whether Prosecution Proved Essential Ingredients – Petitioners were convicted for assaulting and injuring a traffic constable—Held: No independent witnesses were examined despite the incident occurring in a crowded area—Medical evidence did not corroborate the injuries alleged—Failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt—Conviction under Sections 332 and 353 IPC set aside [Paras 22-26].

Criminal Intimidation – Conviction Under Section 506 IPC – Whether Justified – The Trial Court convicted petitioners for threatening the constable—Held: No evidence of intimidation or fear caused—No detailed reasoning provided in lower court judgments—Conviction under Section 506 IPC unsustainable [Paras 27-28].

Independent Witnesses – Importance in Prosecution Case – The prosecution failed to examine even a single public witness despite the incident occurring in a busy market—Held: Sole reliance on police witnesses raises doubts about the fairness of the trial—Conviction set aside [Paras 28-30].

Final Decision – Criminal revision petition allowed—Conviction and sentence set aside—Petitioners acquitted of all charges—Ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case [Paras 31-33].

Civil Law - Contract Interpretation – Success-Based Fee – Bank’s Discretion to Choose Fee Option Upheld – The dispute arose over whether the plaintiff was entitled to a success-based fee at 0.50% (Option ‘a’) or 0.0749% (Option ‘b’) for financial advisory services in the sale of NPAs – The plaintiff claimed the bank was obligated to pay at the higher rate for 100% cash transactions – Held: The mandate letter explicitly granted the bank discretion to choose between the two fee structures based on the nature of the NPA sale – Plaintiff’s interpretation rejected—Suit dismissed [Paras 24-27, 43].

Commercial Contracts – Business Efficacy Test – No Basis to Override Express Contract Terms – Plaintiff argued for a higher fee citing greater efforts required for 100% cash transactions – Court applied the business efficacy test but found no contractual provision supporting this claim – Held: The bank’s discretion to select a fee structure, as explicitly mentioned in the contract, must be honored—Doctrine of business efficacy cannot override clear contractual terms [Paras 28-30, 42].

Admissions in Pleadings – Effect – Plaintiff Bound by Its Prior Conduct – Plaintiff initially accepted the lower fee (0.0749%) for past transactions and later claimed entitlement to the higher rate (0.50%) – The court held that admissions in pleadings have a higher evidentiary value and are binding unless successfully rebutted – Held: Plaintiff’s acceptance of lower payments in previous instances negated its claim for higher fees—Suit dismissed [Paras 31-33, 44].

Decision – Suit Dismissed – No Additional Amount Payable by Defendant – The court ruled in favor of the bank, affirming that it had discretion in applying the appropriate fee structure – No additional amount was found payable to the plaintiff – Held: Suit dismissed with no relief granted—Plaintiff liable to bear its own costs [Para 45].