Election Law – False Affidavits – Misjoinder of Parties – The petitioner sought to annul the election of respondent No.1 and other candidates on grounds of submitting false affidavits with discrepancies in income and asset details – The court found no discrepancies in the affidavits filed by respondents No.1 and 2, who are husband and wife – Further, respondent No.2 was neither a contesting nor returned candidate, making her inclusion in the petition a misjoinder of parties, as per Section 82 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Paras 7-10, 12].

Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Frivolous Petitions – The court applied Order VII Rule 11 CPC to reject the election petition at the threshold – Held: The petition lacked any cause of action, and none of the reliefs sought by the petitioner could be granted as per law – The court emphasized that frivolous litigation should be curtailed early to prevent wastage of judicial resources [Paras 14-18].

Decision: Petition dismissed – The election petition was dismissed as it failed to disclose a cause of action and contained misjoinder of parties – The court rejected the plea for voiding the election and declaring the petitioner as the elected candidate [Para 19].

Taxation Law - Goods and Services Tax (GST) – Refund Restrictions – Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules – Ultra Vires Declaration – Refund of IGST – Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules – Ultra Vires Section 16 of the IGST Act – The court held that Rule 96(10), which imposed restrictions on exporters claiming refunds of IGST when certain benefits from government notifications were availed, was ultra vires Section 16 of the IGST Act – Subordinate legislation cannot impose restrictions that override substantive rights provided by the parent statute – The rule created unjust discrimination among exporters and was found to be manifestly arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution – Held: Rule 96(10) was invalid as it contradicted Section 16 and produced unreasonable and unjust outcomes [Paras 7, 12-14].

Subordinate Legislation – Compliance with Parent Statute – Subordinate legislation must align with the parent legislation and cannot restrict rights granted by the statute – The court held that Rule 96(10) exceeded its authority by imposing conditions that nullified the right to refunds under Section 16 of the IGST Act – The rule was declared ultra vires and beyond the legislative intent [Paras 11-13].

Constitutional Law – Manifest Arbitrariness – Applying the doctrine from Shayara Bano v. Union of India, the court found Rule 96(10) to be manifestly arbitrary as it resulted in irrational and discriminatory outcomes – It denied IGST refunds even for minimal procurement benefits under certain notifications, producing excessive and disproportionate consequences – Such arbitrariness rendered the rule unconstitutional [Paras 13-14].

Discriminatory Impact on Exporters – Rule 96(10) created an arbitrary distinction between exporters claiming refunds under Rule 89 and those under Rule 96, leading to unequal treatment – The court held that this discriminatory outcome was not aligned with the legislative intent of Section 16 of the IGST Act [Para 14].

Retrospective Invalidity and Prospective Deletion – Though Rule 96(10) was deleted by Notification No. 20/2024-Central Tax effective from 08-10-2024, the court ruled it invalid for periods prior to this date – Held: Refunds denied under Rule 96(10) during its enforcement period could not be recovered or withheld, safeguarding petitioners' refunds [Para 15].

Decision: Petitioners' writ petitions allowed – Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules declared ultra vires – Orders and actions based on this rule for the period from 23-10-2017 to 08-10-2024 quashed – Exporters protected from recovery of refunded IGST within the specified timeframe – Appeals and pending issues unaffected by Rule 96(10) to be pursued in compliance with the judgment.

Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Authority of Lending and Borrowing Entities – Rule 18A of Kerala Police Departmental Rules – The petitioner, a Kerala Police Inspector on deputation as an Immigration Officer, faced departmental proceedings by the borrowing authority (BOI) – Held: Rule 18A empowers both lending and borrowing authorities to conduct disciplinary proceedings for misconduct during deputation; however, final actions such as penalty imposition rest with the lending authority upon repatriation – Proceedings were validly concluded by the lending authority after repatriation, dismissing the petitioner’s claim for exclusive jurisdiction of BOI [Paras 8-13].

Bias and Procedural Fairness – Role of Presenting Officer in Enquiries – The petitioner alleged bias, claiming the presenting officer aimed to shift blame – Held: No rule mandates an unbiased presenting officer; unless bias is proven against the enquiry officer, procedural fairness is presumed – The Tribunal’s rejection of bias claims was upheld [Paras 14-16].

Comparative Disciplinary Outcomes – Exoneration of a Co-accused Officer – The petitioner argued that another officer similarly charged was exonerated – Held: The exoneration of a co-accused does not invalidate separate findings of misconduct against another officer; punishment proportionality was confirmed [Paras 17-19].

Decision: The petition is dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s order validating the disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed on the petitioner.
 

Prevention of Money Laundering Act – Application of Twin Test – Section 45 of PMLA – Bail Granted - The applicant, arrested under the PMLA for alleged disproportionate assets amounting to 204% of known income, sought bail. The Court, after reviewing the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, found that the applicant had made out a prima facie case. Since the chargesheet in the predicate offence had not yet been filed, the Court held that the investigation was incomplete and the arrest based on presumptions was premature. Bail was granted with conditions [Paras 12-15, 35-38].

Disproportionate Assets – Presumption of Guilt – Cannot Be Basis for Arrest - The Court observed that in cases of disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the critical element is the failure to satisfactorily account for assets. Without a concluded investigation into the predicate offence, presuming the entire amount as proceeds of crime under the PMLA was unjustified. The applicant could not be arrested merely on suspicion without conclusive evidence of assets being illicitly gained [Paras 25-28, 32].

Statements Recorded Under Section 50 of PMLA – Not Admissible When Recorded Post-Arrest - The Court held that statements recorded after the applicant's arrest could not be relied upon to oppose bail. Such statements, recorded when the accused was in custody, were inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. This further weakened the case against the applicant [Paras 40-43].

Final Decision – Bail Application Allowed with Conditions - The Court granted bail to the applicant, noting that the continued incarceration without a chargesheet in the predicate offence would result in prolonged detention without trial. The applicant was ordered to furnish a bond of ₹50,000 and follow strict reporting conditions with the Directorate of Enforcement [Paras 50-52].

Criminal Law - Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – Conviction Modified for 1st Accused - The appellants were convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court, relying on circumstantial evidence, concluded that the 1st accused caused the death of the deceased by inflicting fatal stab injuries. However, the Court observed that the act of the 1st accused was provoked by the deceased during a card game, thus applying Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction of the 1st accused was modified to Section 304 Part I IPC, reducing the sentence to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment [Paras 34-36, 40-41].

Common Intention – Absence of Sufficient Evidence – Acquittal of Accused 2 and 5 - The prosecution failed to establish that accused 2 and 5 shared a common intention with the 1st accused to commit murder. There was no direct or circumstantial evidence proving their involvement in the infliction of fatal injuries. Their mere presence at the scene was not sufficient to infer shared intent. Accordingly, the conviction of accused 2 and 5 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was set aside, and they were acquitted [Paras 27, 33].

Doctrine of Grave and Sudden Provocation – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – Conviction for Murder Converted to Culpable Homicide - The Court held that the 1st accused acted under grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased's foul play and physical assault during the card game. Therefore, the offense fell under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part I IPC instead of murder under Section 302 IPC [Paras 35-36].

Decision – Conviction of Accused 1 Modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Accused 2 and 5 Acquitted - The conviction and sentence of accused 1 were altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC, with a sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50,000. Accused 2 and 5 were acquitted of all charges under Section 386(b)(i) CrPC [Paras 40-41].

Patent Infringement – Ad-Interim Injunction – Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC – Denial Due to Lack of Claim Mapping - The plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction against the defendant for allegedly infringing their patents on Pertuzumab through the product “Sigrima.” The Court held that in patent infringement cases, a prima facie case must be established, including claim construction and claim mapping. Since the plaintiffs failed to present claim mapping, an essential step in determining the scope of infringement, the injunction was denied [Paras 8-12, 30-35].

Biologics and Biosimilars – Differentiation in Scope of Patent Protection - The Court emphasized the critical importance of claim mapping in cases involving biologics and biosimilars. Mere similarity in composition or function does not automatically establish patent infringement without precise mapping of the patent’s claims against the allegedly infringing product. The plaintiffs’ inability to perform this essential task led to the dismissal of the injunction application [Paras 22-24, 33-36].

Conduct of Defendant – Breach of Assurance Irrelevant Without Claim Mapping - The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant breached an earlier assurance by launching the product “Sigrima” despite ongoing litigation. The Court noted that while the defendant’s conduct may raise concerns, such issues are secondary when the fundamental requirement of claim mapping is not satisfied [Paras 38-39].

Decision – Application for Interim Injunction Dismissed - The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate patent infringement due to the absence of claim mapping. As a result, the interim injunction was denied, and the previous ad-interim order was vacated [Paras 40-41].

Objections to Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Section 21 CPC – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner challenged the ex parte decree, raising objections regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court, Jammu. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that under Section 21 CPC, objections to pecuniary jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest stage, before the settlement of issues. Since the petitioners had failed to raise this objection during the trial, they could not do so at the appellate or revisional stage [Paras 10-12, 17-19].

Condonation of Delay – Order IX Rule 13 CPC – Petition Dismissed - The petitioners also sought to challenge the rejection of their application for condonation of delay in filing to set aside an ex parte decree. The Court held that an appeal against the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC. Therefore, the petition under Section 104 of the Constitution of J&K was not maintainable, as an efficacious remedy by way of appeal was available [Paras 25-28].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Liberty to Pursue Appeal - The Court dismissed both petitions, leaving the petitioners free to avail themselves of appropriate remedies, including filing an appeal against the order rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The respondent was directed to pay court fees on the decretal amount as per the applicable Court Fees Act [Para 30].

Environmental Law – Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment – Article 21 – The Court expressed concern over the proposed deforestation of 1.19 lakh trees in Baran District, which could severely affect the local ecology and climate by increasing carbon emissions and threatening biodiversity – The Right to a Healthy Environment is part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution – The State has a responsibility to protect and preserve the environment and must explore alternative solutions to avoid large-scale deforestation [Paras 2-4].

Climate Change – Adverse Effects of Deforestation – Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.K. Ranjitsinh vs. Union of India, the Court emphasized that citizens have the right to be free from the adverse effects of climate change, and that the destruction of forests near protected areas could exacerbate climate-related impacts such as carbon emissions and biodiversity loss – The Court highlighted the importance of preserving forests and avoiding displacement of flora and fauna [Para 4.1].

Public Interest – Need for Alternatives and Environmental Safeguards – The Court directed the State and Union Government to explore alternative land options for the project and to consider afforestation in the same region to mitigate carbon loss – No trees to be cut for at least 15 days, pending further orders [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Suo Moto PIL initiated – The Court treated the matter as a Public Interest Litigation and appointed Amicus Curiae to assist in the case – The respondents were directed to submit a detailed response, exploring alternatives to tree cutting and afforestation measures [Paras 5-6].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Fraud Allegations – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving allegations of visa fraud and cheating – Court held: The petitioner had joined the investigation and provided all relevant documents – No recovery was to be effected from the petitioner, and custodial interrogation was unnecessary – Bail was granted with conditions [Paras 1-5].

Multiple FIRs – Consideration of Criminal Antecedents – The petitioner was involved in another FIR under Section 420 IPC, but was already on bail in that case – The Court noted that as per the ruling in Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs. State of Punjab (2023), criminal antecedents alone cannot be the sole ground for denying bail – The appreciation of evidence should be based on the specific case at hand [Paras 4].

Decision – Anticipatory bail granted – The petitioner was directed to join the investigation within one week and to furnish personal and surety bonds – Failure to comply with the court’s directions would result in the cancellation of the bail order [Para 5].