NDPS Act – Bail Application – Commercial Quantity of Narcotic Substance – Section 37 Rigors Considered – The petitioner sought bail in connection with the recovery of a commercial quantity of Ganja. While Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, the court held that these conditions must be balanced against the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Despite the serious charges, the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration (since 03.04.2021) and the absence of strong evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, apart from a voluntary statement under Section 67 NDPS, justified granting bail [Paras 8-10].

Speedy Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Applicability of Section 436A Cr.P.C – The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for more than three years, and only three out of six charge-sheeted witnesses had been examined, with no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, the court emphasized the need for balancing the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act with the fundamental right to a speedy trial [Paras 5-9].

Non-Admissibility of Section 67 Statements – Tofan Singh Case Applied – The prosecution relied on the petitioner’s voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The court held that, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, statements recorded under Section 67 are not admissible in criminal trials for establishing guilt. The absence of other incriminating evidence, such as call detail records or financial transactions, further weakened the prosecution's case [Para 8].

Decision: The petitioner, incarcerated since 03.04.2021, is granted bail on parity with co-accused Ravi Ranjan and considering the prolonged trial. The petitioner is to be released on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation in the trial and non-tampering with evidence. The court also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents [Para 10].

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction Clause – Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses in International Contracts – Whether an Indian court can exercise jurisdiction despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favor of English courts – Held, the lease agreements allowed the respondents to approach courts where the assets were located, in this case, India – The court's jurisdiction was valid under the agreements' asymmetric jurisdiction clause – [Paras 20-40].

Contract Law – Breach of Lease Agreement – Remedies for Default – Whether failure to meet payment schedules entitles the lessor to repossess assets – Held, the appellant's failure to adhere to payment obligations justified the repossession of the leased engines by the respondents – [Paras 45-50].

Commercial Law – Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation – Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act – Whether failure to undergo pre-litigation mediation bars the suit – Held, the urgency of the interim relief sought justified bypassing pre-litigation mediation, especially considering the depreciable nature of the assets involved – [Paras 44-45].

Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The court upheld the order directing SpiceJet to ground and return the three engines to the respondents and held that the suit was maintainable. SpiceJet was allowed to raise objections regarding jurisdiction and governing law during the trial.

Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Validity of Reopening Concluded Assessments – Whether reassessment can be initiated on the same grounds after a concluded assessment – Held, the initiation of reassessment proceedings for the same assessment year based on identical facts and figures is invalid – The Ashish Agarwal judgment did not mandate reopening of completed assessments – [Paras 9-12].

Income Tax – Section 148-A(b) and Section 148-A(d) – Reassessment Notices Treated as Show Cause Notices – The Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal allowed notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, to be treated as show cause notices under Section 148-A(b), but this applied only to cases where reassessment proceedings had not attained finality – [Paras 8-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Exercise of Extraordinary Powers – The Supreme Court's exercise of powers under Article 142 was aimed at balancing the rights of the revenue authorities to reassess and the rights of assessees to challenge such proceedings. However, this does not apply to concluded assessments – [Paras 22-25].

Decision:The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order under Section 148-A(d) dated July 19, 2022, and the consequential notice under Section 148 were quashed. The court held that reassessment on the same grounds after the original proceedings had attained finality was invalid.

Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Whether the appellate court can allow additional evidence not produced during the trial – Held, the appellate court can admit additional evidence when necessary to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause – The appellate court found that the deed of ‘Bondobosto’ by the Maharaja of Bardhaman, which could not be traced earlier, should be admitted – [Paras 1-40].

Remand of Case – Procedural Fairness – The court found that admitting additional evidence was essential for proper adjudication – The trial court was directed to hear the case afresh, specifically considering the additional evidence – The remand does not prejudice the parties as both had made claims and counterclaims – [Paras 40-50].

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Application for Amendment – The appellate court held that the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for modifying the plaint should be considered on merits by the trial court – Proper opportunity for objections and additional pleadings must be provided – [Paras 30-40].

Judicial Precedent – Reference to Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2022) and Satish Chand Surana v. Raj Kumar Meshram (2021), where the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for appellate courts to allow additional evidence if it is crucial for justice – [Paras 50-60].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The appellate court's order admitting additional evidence and remanding the matter for a fresh trial was upheld – Trial court directed to conclude the proceedings within six months.

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – No substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission – The appellant framed questions of law in the memo of appeal, mostly pertaining to factual aspects – Held: All the questions framed by the appellant relate to factual aspects and cannot be treated as substantial questions of law under Section 100 of CPC – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 15, 16].

Departmental Inquiry – Joint Departmental Inquiry – Principles of Natural Justice – Joint inquiry was never questioned before the appropriate forum or during departmental appeal – Issue of bias raised by appellant not entertained as the appellant failed to challenge the joint inquiry initially – Principle of equality not applicable as co-delinquent was exonerated on different grounds – Finding of the lower court upheld [Paras 7, 15].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Interference in Departmental Proceedings – Civil court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in departmental proceedings – Court will not act as an appellate authority against the order of the disciplinary authority – No error found in the decision-making process regarding the principle of natural justice – Departmental proceedings were legal and valid, and the order of dismissal is not interfered with [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Evidence – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Departmental Inquiry on Same Charges – Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically render departmental inquiry findings invalid – The appellant was acquitted in the criminal case, but the departmental proceedings held him guilty based on evidence – Civil Court cannot interfere in the decision of the disciplinary authority unless principles of natural justice are violated [Paras 9, 14].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – The Court found no substantial question of law and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court – Departmental inquiry and dismissal were found to be lawful and in compliance with principles of natural justice [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Change of Investigative Agency – Sections 452, 376, 313, 506, 323, 427 IPC – Whether a court can direct a change of the investigating agency upon the request of the accused – Held, the accused cannot choose or demand a change in the investigating agency unless clear evidence of bias or partiality is demonstrated – [Paras 12-16].

Writ of Mandamus – Section 156(3) CrPC – Application to Change Investigation Agency – The petitioners alleged that they were falsely implicated due to an ongoing civil dispute over land – Court reiterated that allegations of bias must be substantiated by specific material facts and not merely vague claims – Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court emphasized that such changes in investigation should only be made in exceptional cases to ensure justice – [Paras 17-24].

Judicial Precedent – Apex Court Guidelines – The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753, highlighting that changes in investigation must be rare and based on convincing evidence of bias or injustice – The petitioners failed to make a case for such a change – [Paras 25-29].

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioners' request for the appointment of another agency to investigate the criminal case was denied – Court observed that the investigation conducted by the local police was not shown to be biased or improper – The ongoing civil dispute cannot form the basis for seeking a change in the investigative agency – [Paras 30-33].

Property Law – Permanent Injunction – Suit for Injunction Simpliciter – Whether a suit for permanent injunction can be decreed without seeking a declaration of title when the title of the plaintiff is under dispute – Held, when a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title, the suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title – [Paras 19-22].

Title Dispute – Requirement of Comprehensive Suit – The trial court correctly dismissed the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove absolute ownership over the property – First Appellate Court erred in decreeing the suit based solely on possession without addressing the complicated issues of title – [Paras 5-7].

Burden of Proof – Title and Possession – The Supreme Court's rulings in Anathula Sudhakar and Kayalulla Parambath Moidu Haji applied, holding that where de jure possession has to be established based on title, the suit must be for declaration and not merely for injunction – [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The judgment of the First Appellate Court is set aside – The plaintiff/respondent is directed to amend the plaint to convert the suit into a comprehensive suit for declaration of title, right, and interest, and for consequential permanent injunction – The trial court is directed to decide the case on merits as a suit for declaration of title and possession – [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Section 439 CrPC and Section 45 PMLA – Bail for a woman under PMLA – The petitioner applied for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, arguing that she was wrongfully implicated in a money laundering case linked to her father’s illegal activities. She was accused of laundering approximately ₹12 crores through her companies from proceeds of cross-border cattle smuggling. Despite being a school teacher, investigations revealed that she managed various companies involved in the laundering activities – [Paras 1-45].

Bail under PMLA – Proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA – Special treatment for women – The court considered the special provision under the Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, which grants exceptions to women, persons under 16, or those who are infirm, from stringent bail conditions. The petitioner, being a woman, was entitled to consideration under this provision. The court found no specific reasons to deny her the benefit of this provision – [Paras 50-51].

Right to Liberty – Article 21 – Impact of long incarceration – The court emphasized that the petitioner had been in custody since 26th April 2023. With the trial expected to be prolonged due to the voluminous chargesheet and translation issues, prolonged detention without trial would infringe upon her fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – [Paras 45-55].

Doctrine of Parity – Bail granted to co-accused – The court considered the bail already granted to the petitioner’s co-accused, including her father, Anubrata Mondal, by the Supreme Court on the grounds of prolonged detention. The principle of parity, along with the petitioner’s entitlement under the proviso to Section 45(1), formed the basis for granting bail – [Paras 52-55].

Decision:

Regular Bail Granted – The petitioner was admitted to regular bail with conditions, including a personal bond of ₹10,00,000, restrictions on leaving the country, and cooperation with the investigation – [Paras 60-70].

Partition Suit – Oral Gift and Applicability of Indian Succession Act – Whether the oral gift made by the first defendant (father) in 1963 to his wife Ayisha is valid, and if the Indian Succession Act applies post the registration of their marriage under the Special Marriage Act – Held, the oral gift to Ayisha was upheld based on evidence in Exts.A2 and A4, wherein the gift was acknowledged – The Indian Succession Act governs the succession due to the marriage registration under Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act – [Paras 1-25].

Special Marriage Act and Succession – Section 21 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides that the Indian Succession Act, 1925 applies to marriages solemnized under this Act, including marriages registered post-celebration under other forms – The trial court’s decision to apply the Indian Succession Act for partition of the property was affirmed – [Paras 20-25].

Gift under Mohammedan Law – Validity of Oral Gift – Under Mohammedan Law, oral gifts are permissible if essential conditions of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession are met – Court found sufficient evidence through the joint statements of the donor and donee, affirming possession and the gift – [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Appeal and cross objections dismissed – The preliminary decree of partition based on the application of the Indian Succession Act is upheld – No interference with the trial court’s findings.