Legal Representatives – Right to Adduce Evidence – Legal representatives of the deceased defendant sought permission to adduce evidence at the stage of final hearing – Petitioner opposed, arguing that the original defendant had already led evidence and cross-examined the witnesses – Court held that the legal representatives, having adopted the written statement of the deceased defendant, could not introduce a new or independent defence unless disclosed at the outset – Trial Court's order allowing the application was quashed [Paras 10-28].

Order 22 Rule 4(2) CPC – Scope of Legal Representatives' Rights – The Court clarified that legal representatives are entitled to raise all defences available to the deceased defendant but cannot claim independent rights unless they are impleaded in a separate capacity – The application was allowed without proper consideration of this principle, and the Trial Court's order was set aside [Paras 15-20].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the Trial Court's order dated 14/10/2022 was quashed. Legal representatives were given liberty to file a fresh application if a case is made out under Order 22 Rule 4 of the CPC.

Bail Application – Prolonged Trial – Section 439 CrPC – Bail Granted - The petitioner, in custody since 12/09/2016, filed a second bail application under Section 439 CrPC, after the first bail plea was dismissed. The Court observed that despite the passage of over eight years, only four out of 28 witnesses had been examined, and the trial had been proceeding at a snail's pace. Considering the prolonged incarceration without any foreseeable conclusion to the trial, the Court granted bail to the petitioner [Paras 6-9].

Presumption of Innocence – Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial - The Court reiterated the principle that pre-conviction detention is not punitive in nature and that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court emphasized the petitioner’s fundamental right to a speedy trial, observing that the prosecution’s delay in producing evidence and concluding the trial had unjustly extended the petitioner’s time in custody [Paras 10-12].

Incarceration Beyond Reasonable Time – No Justifiable Delay in Trial - The Court referred to the fact that the accused had been in custody for more than eight years, with no significant progress in the trial. It underscored the right of the petitioner to be released on bail if the trial does not conclude within a reasonable time, as continued incarceration would violate constitutional principles [Paras 20-23].

Final Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions - The Court allowed the bail application, granting the petitioner bail upon furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of ₹25,000 each. The petitioner was directed to appear before the trial court on all future dates of hearing [Para 9].

Bail Application – Corruption Charges – Section 7 of the PC Act – Regular Bail Granted – The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 2.5 lakhs during the course of official duties – The Court considered the petitioner’s contention of false implication, lack of criminal antecedents, and the fact that the investigation had been completed – Held: The petitioner was granted bail with conditions [Paras 15-28].

Judicial Discretion in Bail Matters – Allegations of Corruption – The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges but emphasized that the severity of the offence cannot be the sole criterion for denial of bail – Citing the principle that “bail is the rule, jail is the exception,” the Court released the petitioner on bail [Paras 40-50].

Decision: Bail granted to the petitioner on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with sureties and subject to conditions, including surrender of passport and cooperation with the investigation.

Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-law – Senior Citizens Act – Rule 22(3)(1) of the 2009 Rules – Order of Eviction Restored - The petitioner, a senior citizen, filed for eviction of his son and daughter-in-law under Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009. The District Magistrate had allowed the eviction due to ill-treatment and harassment by the respondents. However, the Divisional Commissioner set aside the eviction order. The High Court restored the eviction order, holding that the petitioner, as the lawful owner of the property, had the right to evict the respondents under the Senior Citizens Act [Paras 12-14, 25-28].

Conflict Between Senior Citizens Act and Domestic Violence Act – Harmonious Construction of Rights – Reliance on S. Vanitha Case Misplaced - The respondents, relying on the Domestic Violence Act, contended that the property constituted a shared household, and the daughter-in-law could not be evicted. The Court distinguished the present case from S. Vanitha v. Deputy Commissioner, where the eviction was seen as retaliatory. Here, there were no ongoing matrimonial disputes, and the daughter-in-law had no claims against her husband. Therefore, the reliance on S. Vanitha was misplaced, and the petitioner's right under the Senior Citizens Act was upheld [Paras 30-35, 45].

Protection Order Under Domestic Violence Act – No Impediment to Eviction Proceedings - The Court noted that the interim protection order granted under the Domestic Violence Act merely prevented dispossession without due process of law. The initiation of eviction proceedings under the Senior Citizens Act constituted due process, and the protection order had been vacated. Hence, there was no legal barrier to the eviction [Paras 40-42].

Decision – Eviction Order Reinstated – Respondents Directed to Vacate - The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Divisional Commissioner’s order and restoring the eviction order passed by the District Magistrate. The respondents were directed to vacate the premises within 30 days [Para 50].

Arbitration – Interim Relief – Emergency Arbitrator’s Order – Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Maintainability Upheld - The petitioners sought interim relief under Section 9, requesting the respondents to provide security in compliance with the Emergency Arbitrator’s order. The respondents challenged the maintainability, arguing that the Emergency Arbitrator’s order should be enforced as a final award under Section 49 of the Arbitration Act. The Court held that the Emergency Arbitrator’s decision, though termed an “award,” was in substance an interim order aimed at securing the claim during arbitration and thus did not require enforcement under Section 49. The petition under Section 9 was maintainable [Paras 31-32].

Exclusion of Part I of the Arbitration Act – Applicability of Section 9 in International Arbitration - The respondents argued that the arbitration agreement, governed by SIAC Rules, excluded the applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act, including Section 9. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the agreement did not expressly exclude Part I, and the proviso to Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act allows Section 9 to apply to international commercial arbitrations seated outside India unless specifically excluded. The petitioners were entitled to seek interim relief under Section 9 [Paras 33-36].

Security in Arbitration – Bank Guarantee Directed – Protection of Petitioner’s Claim - The Court upheld the Emergency Arbitrator’s order directing the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee of ₹145 crores as security. The respondents’ objections to the valuation and financial constraints were dismissed, and the Court noted that a bank guarantee was the most appropriate form of security to ensure the petitioner’s claims were protected, especially given the respondents’ past delays and conduct during the arbitration proceedings [Paras 40-45].

Final Decision – Interim Relief Granted - The Court granted interim relief under Section 9, directing the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee for ₹145 crores and restraining them from disposing of or encumbering their assets. The matter was listed for compliance on 22nd October 2024 [Paras 30, 50].

Quashing of FIR – Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act – Prior Approval Mandatory - The petitioners, a Circle Inspector and an Assistant Sub-Inspector, sought to quash an FIR registered against them for demanding illegal gratification. The High Court held that under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior approval from the competent authority is mandatory before initiating any investigation against a public servant for actions carried out in the discharge of official duties. Since no such approval was obtained, the FIR was quashed [Paras 10-14, 20-24].

Application of Section 17A – Protection for Public Servants in Discharge of Duties - The Court emphasized that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act protects public servants from investigation for actions taken in the discharge of official functions without prior approval from the competent authority. As the alleged demand for gratification was linked to the petitioners' official duties, the lack of prior approval rendered the FIR void ab initio [Paras 16-18].

Trap Proceedings and On-the-Spot Arrest – No Exception Applicable - The Court noted that the petitioners were not caught in a trap or on-the-spot arrest while accepting illegal gratification. Therefore, the proviso to Section 17A, which allows investigation without prior approval in cases of on-the-spot arrest, was not applicable. The entire investigation was vitiated by the failure to secure prior approval [Paras 22-23].

Final Decision – FIR Quashed - The High Court allowed the petitions, quashing FIR No. 14/2022 registered at ACB Jaipur against the petitioners, as the investigation was initiated without the mandatory prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act [Para 25].

SARFAESI Act – E-Auction Sale Notice – Validity of Auction Proceedings - The petitioner, a guarantor for a loan, challenged the e-auction sale notice issued by the bank under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of dues. The Court upheld the validity of the auction proceedings, noting that the bank had complied with the procedural requirements under the SARFAESI Act and that the petitioner failed to challenge the notice or settle the dues within the prescribed timeframe [Paras 10-12, 24-28].

Right of Redemption – Extinguishment After Auction Notice – Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act - The Court held that the petitioner’s right of redemption was extinguished once the auction notice was published under Rule 9(1) of the SARFAESI Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioner's subsequent payments did not revive the right of redemption, and the auction purchaser’s rights had vested with the issuance of the sale certificate [Paras 30-32, 36-40].

Availability of Alternate Remedy – Writ Petition Not Maintainable - The Court reiterated the established principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when an alternative statutory remedy exists. In this case, the petitioner had a statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT, which he failed to exhaust. The writ petition was therefore dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 45-48].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – No Violation of Article 300A - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the bank had acted within the statutory framework, and the petitioner’s claim of violation of property rights under Article 300A was unfounded. The contempt petition was also disposed of, finding no merit in the petitioner’s claims of non-compliance with Court orders [Para 55].

GST Law – Revocation of Voluntary Cancellation of Registration – Principles of Natural Justice – The petitioner challenged the revocation of voluntary cancellation of their GST registration and subsequent retrospective cancellation from 27 June 2020 – The CGST authorities had revoked the voluntary cancellation without issuing a show cause notice or granting a hearing – Held: The revocation of voluntary cancellation without prior notice or opportunity of hearing violated the principles of natural justice – Further, the cancellation order did not provide reasons for rejection, and retrospective cancellation from a date prior to the registration itself was unsustainable – All consequential proceedings based on the flawed decision-making process were quashed [Paras 12-16, 19].

Retrospective Cancellation – Invalidity – Absence of Justification – The petitioner’s registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from a date prior to its grant – Held: There was no valid explanation for this retrospective cancellation, and the respondents failed to justify the retrospective application of the order – Such cancellation was held to be invalid and contrary to law [Paras 15-16].

Remedy for Breach of Natural Justice – Right to Fresh Proceedings – Since the revocation of voluntary cancellation and subsequent proceedings were conducted in breach of natural justice, the respondents were granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, ensuring due process was followed – The petitioner was restrained from utilizing the Input Tax Credit (ITC) until the conclusion of fresh proceedings [Paras 18-19].

Decision – The orders dated 20 February 2024, 8 March 2024, and 9 May 2024 were quashed – The petitioner's position as of 8 May 2023, when voluntary cancellation was accepted, was restored – Respondents were granted liberty to issue fresh show cause notices and conclude the proceedings by 31 January 2025, with the petitioner restrained from using the ITC until then [Paras 20-22].

Criminal Procedure – Right to Fair Trial – Entitlement to Unmasked Prosecution Records – The petitioners, accused of POCSO offences, sought unmasked copies of prosecution records for effective defense – The Special Courts rejected these applications, citing the need to protect the identity of the victim under Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act – Held: The right to a fair trial is enshrined under the Constitution and cannot be denied – While victim privacy is important, the accused are entitled to unmasked copies of prosecution records to effectively challenge the prosecution’s case, subject to the condition that the privacy of the victim is protected and not disclosed in the public domain [Paras 13-16].

Protection of Victim Identity – Balancing Privacy and Defense Rights – The court emphasized that prosecution records must be provided in full to ensure the accused’s right to a defense – However, the accused and their counsel must be bound by an undertaking not to disclose the victim’s identity or details in any form of media or public forum, maintaining compliance with Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act [Para 12].

Digital Evidence – Access Restrictions – In cases where digital evidence, such as chats or videos, is part of the prosecution’s case and may compromise the victim’s privacy, the court upheld the restriction of access to such materials under the principles established in Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep vs. State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 853] [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Criminal M.C. petitions allowed – The impugned orders of the Special Courts are set aside – The Special Courts are directed to provide unmasked copies of the prosecution records to the accused or their counsel, ensuring the protection of the victim’s identity as per the conditions imposed [Paras 17-18].