Arbitration – Challenge to Award – Interest on Claims – VAT Claims – Challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act against an award allowing claims for unsupplied items and VAT components – Held that the arbitrator acted beyond jurisdiction by granting claims contrary to contractual terms – Clause 15.4 of the tender document precluded any interest claims against the purchaser – Arbitrator’s award of interest despite contractual bar was beyond his jurisdiction – VAT claims for unsupplied items and post-delivery period precluded by contractual terms – Award set aside [Paras 1-44].

Contractual Terms and Jurisdiction of Arbitrator – Arbitrator bound by contract terms – Section 28(3) of the Act mandates consideration of contract terms – Short closure clause within the tender terms justified non-purchase of balance items – No breach of contract by petitioner railways – Arbitrator’s award disregarding contract terms vitiated by illegality and perversity – Section 34(2)(a)(iv) and Section 34(2-A) of the Act invoked [Paras 22-29, 35-41].

Interest Award – Clause 15.4 of bid document barred interest claims – Section 31(7) of the Act permits interest only if not otherwise agreed by parties – Arbitrator’s award of interest beyond contract terms held illegal and beyond jurisdiction – Judgments cited reinforcing arbitrator’s inability to grant interest in contradiction to contract [Paras 37-40].

Decision – AP No.105 of 2021 allowed – Arbitral award dated September 24, 2020, set aside – No order as to costs – Directions for urgent certified copies issuance upon compliance [Paras 44-46].

Administrative Law – Repatriation – Absorption – Petitioner, initially on deputation as Deputy Registrar, was absorbed by University’s Executive Council (EC) resolution – Later repatriated by Registrar’s order claiming she was still on deputation – Petitioner challenged repatriation – Court held petitioner was validly absorbed and became permanent employee – Registrar’s order set aside as it lacked jurisdiction and violated statutory provisions [Paras 7.1-7.4].

University Governance – Authority and Jurisdiction – Executive Council (EC) as Chief Executive Authority – Registrar and Vice-Chancellor overstepped jurisdiction in repatriating petitioner – Absence of quorum for EC meetings not justified – EC’s decisions binding until formally modified or recalled [Paras 7.3-7.4].

Costs – Litigation Costs – Petitioner awarded ₹1,00,000 as costs due to illegal actions by University officials – Costs to be borne by Registrar and Vice-Chancellor personally [Para 9].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned repatriation order dated 01.03.2024 set aside – Petitioner to be treated as Deputy Registrar with effect from 02.03.2021 – Respondent University directed to relieve petitioner from her current posting within three days to enable her to join the University [Para 8].

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 260A – Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 – Appeal against Tribunal's order dismissing appellant's plea due to non-payment under the Scheme – Tribunal and lower authorities erred in dismissing appeal as withdrawn without issuing a certificate under Section 90(2) of the 1998 Act – Appeal allowed, remanded to Commissioner (Appeal) for fresh decision on merits [Paras 2-8].

Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 – Section 90 – Interpretation – Appeal withdrawal contingent upon issuance of certificate under Section 90(2) – No certificate issued due to non-payment by appellant – No automatic dismissal of appeal – Jurisdictional Commissioner required to decide appeal on merits [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Case remanded to Commissioner (Appeal) for fresh adjudication on merits – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Para 9].
 

Tax Law – Review Jurisdiction – The Court held that the review jurisdiction exercised by the Assessing Authority under the repealed PGST Act was impermissible. The PGST Act did not explicitly confer any review jurisdiction upon the authorities constituted under it, rendering the review of the initial assessment order without jurisdiction [Paras 6-10].

Limitation Period – Assessment – The assessment for the year 2002-03 was held to be time-barred. According to Section 11(3) of the PGST Act, any assessment was required to be framed within three years from the last date prescribed for furnishing the last return. The assessment order dated 10.12.2007 was beyond the prescribed limitation period, vitiating both the initial assessment and the subsequent reassessment [Paras 11-12].

Transition to PVAT Act – The Court explained that despite the repeal of the PGST Act by the PVAT Act, the assessment proceedings initiated under the repealed Act were to remain unaffected as per Section 92(2)(e) of the PVAT Act. This provision ensured that investigations, inquiries, or assessment proceedings initiated under the PGST Act continued to be governed by it even after its repeal [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The Court found no merit in the State's appeal and upheld the VAT Tribunal’s decision to quash the assessment and reassessment orders against M/S Nestle India Ltd. The writ petition filed by the State was dismissed [Paras 12].

Cheque Dishonour – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellant challenged trial court’s acquittal of respondent in cheque dishonour case – Court upheld acquittal noting lack of evidence of goods delivery and accused’s liability – Emphasized need for concrete proof to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2-6, 12-14].

Presumption and Evidence – Section 138 and 139 NI Act – Court highlighted requirement to prove debt or liability for cheque dishonour cases – Noted failure to provide delivery proof, invoices without acknowledgment, and absence of business records corroborating transaction – Accused’s claim of misplaced cheque book substantiated by timely police report [Paras 10-12].

Scope of Acquittal Appeals – Reappreciation of Evidence – Reiterated principles of limited interference in acquittal appeals – Emphasized prejudice in favour of acquitted accused and necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt for conviction [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Trial court’s judgment well-reasoned and evidence-based – No grounds to interfere with acquittal – Leave to appeal denied [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Bail – Petition for regular bail – Petitioner arrested with counterfeit currency notes – Prosecution case based on secret information and recovery by police – Petitioner claims false implication and non-recovery of counterfeit notes – Petitioner contends that counterfeit notes are toys and not genuine currency – Held – Petitioner in custody for over 9 months – Several other cases against petitioner but on bail in majority – Past cases not a basis to refuse bail in present case – Reference to Supreme Court rulings allowing bail despite pendency of other cases – Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-7].

Bail Conditions – Regular Bail – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds – Conditions include non-inducement of witnesses, attendance on court dates, no absenteeism without permission, surrender of passport, and disclosure of residence and mobile details – Imposition of further conditions at trial court’s discretion [Para 7].

Decision: Petition allowed. Petitioner granted regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/duty magistrate/chief judicial magistrate concerned. Specific conditions imposed include non-inducement of witnesses, mandatory court attendance, surrender of passport, and reporting of residence and mobile number changes. Court emphasizes that involvement in any other criminal activity during the trial will be viewed seriously and may lead to bail revocation [Para 7].

Bail – Regular Bail in Suicide Case – Petitioners sought bail in a case under Section 306 IPC, alleging harassment leading to suicide – Court noted petitioners' long incarceration, lack of evidence examination, and Supreme Court’s bail principles – Bail granted considering prolonged detention without trial progression [Paras 1-15].

Suicide Note – Evidentiary Value – Suicide note implicated petitioners – Court awaited forensic report on handwriting – Emphasized bail does not determine guilt but ensures presence for trial [Paras 6, 8, 15].

Principles of Bail – Fundamental Rights – Referenced Supreme Court principles on bail as a rule and jail as an exception – Highlighted right to a speedy trial and presumption of innocence – Emphasized judicial discretion in granting bail to avoid unnecessary incarceration [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Held – Petitioners granted regular bail on furnishing bail bonds – Observations limited to bail decision, not affecting trial merits [Paras 16-18].
 

Customs Law – Acquittal and Exit Permit – Petitioner, a Chinese national, was intercepted at Mumbai airport carrying gold bars, subsequently acquitted by the trial court – Customs Department’s appeal dismissed – Respondent No. 2’s failure to challenge acquittal within the statutory period – FRRO’s refusal to issue Exit Permit due to pending LOC initiated by Customs Department – High Court criticizes Customs Department’s conduct as vindictive and an abuse of power – Orders issuance of Exit Permit and compensation for mental agony and trauma [Paras 1-42].

Article 21 of the Constitution – Right to Liberty for Foreign Nationals – Court emphasizes protection of liberty under Article 21 extends to foreign nationals – Highlights procedural failures and humanitarian considerations – Ensures no discrimination against foreign nationals and upholds right to fair treatment and liberty [Paras 34-39].

Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance – Respondent No. 2’s appeal found non-maintainable due to lack of requisite approval as mandated by Circular No. 27/2015-Cus – High Court underscores necessity for compliance with procedural requirements before filing appeals [Paras 23-28].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – High Court directs issuance of Exit Permit within one week – Orders compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 to be paid to petitioner by Union of India, recoverable from salary of responsible Customs official – Emphasizes humane and fair treatment of foreign nationals in accordance with constitutional provisions [Para 42].

Scholarship Scheme – Application of Amendments – Petitioner’s claim for scholarship rejected based on amendments made after his application – High Court held that the petitioner’s entitlement should be determined by the Scheme in force at the time of application – Subsequent amendments not applicable – Respondents directed to reassess the scholarship claim accordingly [Paras 1-36].

Legitimate Expectation – Scheme Promises – State’s reversal of policy under amended Scheme contrary to petitioner’s legitimate expectation – Court emphasizes the necessity for State to uphold promises made in public schemes to maintain trust and ensure fairness [Paras 37-38].

Assessment and Reimbursement – Tuition Fee and Other Allowances – Petitioner’s right to allowances like annual maintenance and equipment, regardless of actual expenditure, upheld – Court directed State to pay due amounts by specific deadline to avoid interest charges [Paras 39-47].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned communication rejecting scholarship quashed – Respondents instructed to process payment based on original Scheme provisions at the time of application [Paras 42-49].