Customs – Licensing Regulations – CHA License Revocation – The Customs Broker (respondent) filed a bill of export for clearance, allegedly aiding illegal exportation of subsidized contraceptives – Initial suspension and subsequent revocation of the CHA license by customs authorities under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 [Paras 4-8].

Regulation Compliance – Enquiry Report Timeliness – Tribunal set aside license revocation but upheld forfeiture of security deposit – Differing opinions on whether the enquiry report’s late submission nullified its validity – High Court affirms the directory nature of timelines under Regulation 20(5), allowing discretion in considering the report [Paras 11-20].

Judicial Precedents – Contradictory High Court Rulings – Reference to various High Court decisions (Madras, Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay, Telangana) regarding the mandatory or directory nature of timeline regulations – The present court aligns with the view that the timelines are directory, supporting a flexible interpretation [Paras 13, 15].

Decision – Appeal Outcome – The timeline for the enquiry report under Regulation 20(5) is directory – The Tribunal’s decision to partially accept the enquiry report and impose penalty upheld – Case disposed of with no requirement for strict adherence to the enquiry report timeline [Para 20-21].

Contract – Recovery of Money – Plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 7,23,63,548/- with interest from defendant – Defendant acknowledged receipt of money and issued cheques which were dishonored due to insufficient funds – Plaintiff initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, and under Section 420/406/120B IPC – Defendant claimed cheques were for security and contested jurisdiction under Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Court found defendant’s defense to be illusory and sham – Plaintiff entitled to summary judgment [Paras 1-27].

Negotiable Instruments – Dishonor of Cheques – Defendant issued cheques thrice, all dishonored due to insufficient funds – Defendant admitted dues in letters but failed to honor cheques – Court held defendant’s defense of financial crisis and claim of security cheques insufficient – Summary judgment in favor of plaintiff granted [Paras 3-23].

Jurisdiction – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Defendant contested suit’s maintainability claiming it fell under Commercial Courts Act – Court rejected contention, noting defendant’s own admission of seeking financial accommodation from plaintiff, not a commercial dispute [Paras 9, 19].

Summary Judgment – Triable Issues – Defendant raised no genuine triable issues – Defense deemed frivolous – Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff with further interest at 12% per annum from 13^th April 2017 on Rs. 4,05,00,000/- till realization [Paras 24-26].

Arbitration and Conciliation – Interim Injunction – Maintainability of Petition under Section 9 – Petitioners sought an injunction to prevent the respondent from disposing of properties to enforce an arbitral award from Sweden. The court upheld the maintainability of the petition, rejecting arguments that such relief could only be sought post-enforcement procedures under Part II, Chapter I of the Act [Paras 1-13].

Foreign Arbitral Award – Applicability of Section 9 – The court confirmed that Section 9 of the Act applies to foreign arbitral awards even before their formal enforcement, ensuring protection against dissipation of assets. Referred to judgments from the Telangana High Court, Bombay High Court, and Gujarat High Court supporting the broad applicability of Section 9 [Paras 9-12].

Enforcement of Arbitral Award – Legal Principles – Discussed legal principles surrounding the enforcement of arbitral awards, emphasizing that interim measures are permissible to safeguard assets for eventual enforcement [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Petition allowed – Respondent restrained by an injunction for six months or until an appropriate application for enforcement is filed, whichever is earlier [Para 14].

Criminal Law – Discharge of Accused – Revision petitions filed by Bharati Tamang and CBI challenging the discharge of Bimal Gurung by the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court – Case pertains to the murder of Madan Tamang, president of All India Gorkha League, in broad daylight – Chief Judge’s discharge order based on lack of sufficient evidence against Bimal Gurung found erroneous – High Court determines sufficient grounds for trial exist based on witness testimonies and other evidence [Paras 1-30].

Criminal Conspiracy – Evaluation of Evidence – Statements from multiple witnesses named Bimal Gurung as involved in the conspiracy to murder Madan Tamang – Witnesses provided consistent accounts of threats and meetings where Gurung allegedly conspired – Chief Judge’s discharge order failed to consider the totality of evidence, including statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. [Paras 17-26].

Witness Testimony – Reliability and Corroboration – Witnesses, including Prem Tamang, Mohan Sharma, and others, corroborated each other’s accounts implicating Gurung – Statements indicated Gurung’s leadership role in the conspiracy – Lack of call detail records for Gurung does not undermine overall evidence of conspiracy and direct involvement in the crime [Paras 17-23, 26].

Judicial Scrutiny under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Detailed judicial analysis required at the stage of discharge – Court’s duty to sift and weigh evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists – Chief Judge’s role is not merely to act as a post office for the prosecution but to apply judicial mind – High Court finds that prima facie case and grave suspicion against Gurung justify proceeding to trial [Paras 22-28].

Decision – Revision Petitions Allowed – Orders of discharge by the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, set aside – Directions issued for the trial court to frame charges against Bimal Gurung along with other accused – High Court mandates trial to proceed according to law and as per directions of the Supreme Court [Paras 29-31].

Partition of Money – Interim Injunction – Security Sufficiency – Petitioner's challenge against the trial court's acceptance of security for the withdrawal of half of the fixed deposit amount – Trial court's order set aside by High Court – Respondent directed to furnish fresh evidence proving the exclusive title and possession of the property offered as security – Emphasis on the necessity of unencumbered property and proper valuation certificate [Paras 1-6].

Security Assessment – Title and Encumbrance – Court finds insufficient proof of the respondent's mother’s exclusive title and possession of the property – Lack of encumbrance certificate and valuation documents noted – Court mandates the respondent to furnish appropriate evidence and documents, including an encumbrance certificate and valuation certificate from the concerned authority [Paras 4-6].

Decision: Original Petition allowed – Ext.P10 order set aside – Respondent directed to produce sufficient documents afresh to prove exclusive title, possession, and unencumbered status of the property offered as security – Opportunity granted to furnish alternative sufficient security if initial proof is inadequate [Para 6].

Service Law – Transfer and Posting – Higher Secondary School Teachers (HSST) – Petitioners challenged the orders of KAT regarding their transfers and postings – Contention of arbitrary and unreasonable transfers affecting their service conditions – High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, emphasizing the administrative prerogative in matters of transfer, provided it is not arbitrary or in violation of statutory provisions [Paras 1-25].
Administrative Discretion – Transfer Policy – Court reiterated the principle that transfers are a necessary incidence of service and the administrative authority has the discretion to transfer employees as per requirements – Any challenge to transfer orders must demonstrate malafide or violation of statutory norms [Paras 8-15].
Judicial Review – Scope and Limitation – Court limited its review to assessing if the transfer orders were issued with due adherence to policy and without malafide intent – Emphasized that the scope of judicial review does not extend to substituting the court’s decision for that of the administrative authority in matters of transfer unless clear illegality is shown [Paras 20-25].

Decision: Original petitions dismissed. Transfer orders upheld, and the petitioners directed to comply with the reassigned postings.
 

Transfer Policy – Interference by Tribunal – Assessment of Norms – Government formulated transfer policy to address teachers' grievances for posting in home stations, prioritizing teachers wishing to return to their home stations for at least five years – Tribunal's order in O.A.No.1019/2017 striking down total restriction on teachers from outstation transfer challenged – New norms evolved in 2019 giving preference to home station aspirants, but allowing options for outstation teachers based on seniority and service length – Tribunal's interference deemed unjustified as it overlooked Government's intent and procedural adherence [Paras 1-88].

Jurisdictional Issues – Review and Contempt Proceedings – Tribunal's orders in review applications and contempt proceedings in O.A.No.642/2022 criticized for lacking clear adjudication and reasoning – Orders in O.A.No.314/2024 setting aside transfer list on different grounds from O.A.No.642/2022 identified as jurisdictional error – Tribunal's decisions reviewed and reversed [Paras 4-68].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties – Representative Capacity – Addressing procedural difficulties in impleading all affected parties in transfer-related litigation – Emphasis on the need for procedural amendments to allow representative suits and departmental notices for effective litigation management [Paras 5-45].

Decision – Orders in review applications in O.A.No.642/2022 and transfer-related orders in O.A.No.314/2024 set aside – Government directed to reassess transfers giving due weightage to outstation service and seniority while prioritizing home station aspirants [Para 6-75].
 

Condonation of Delay – Matrimonial Appeal – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of 122 days delay in filing appeal against ex parte decree of dissolution of marriage – COVID-19 and family responsibilities cited as reasons for delay – Respondent remarried after expiry of appeal period – Delay not satisfactorily explained – Application dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act – Remarriage of Divorced Person – Bar under Section 15 applies only if appeal filed within limitation period – Respondent remarried after expiration of appeal period – Court holds bar not applicable – Appeal not filed within 90 days; remarriage on 26.05.2022 considered lawful [Paras 7-12].

Case References – Legal Precedents Cited – Cites Supreme Court decisions in Tejinder Kaur v. Gurmit Singh (1988) 2 SCC 90 and Krishnaveni Rai v. Pankaj Rai (2020) 11 SCC 253 – Highlights precedent on procedural obligations and conditions for remarriage post-divorce decree [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Interlocutory Application Dismissed – Delay in filing appeal not condoned – Court finds delay not satisfactorily explained and bar under Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act not applicable [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations under multiple sections of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act – Petitioners accused Nos. 4 and 9 (paramour and her mother) – Alleged involvement in marital discord between accused No.1 and complainant – Examination of complaint reveals no substantial reference or foundation for offences against petitioners – Lack of evidence and ingredients for charges – FIR quashed for petitioners.

Section 498A IPC – Relative of Husband – Paramour not considered a relative – Charges under Section 498A IPC cannot be sustained against a paramour as they are not family members or relatives within the meaning of the section – Quashing justified on this ground alone [Paras 1-9].

Other Offences – Lack of Specific Allegations – Offences under Sections 323, 324, 307, 420, 504, 506 IPC require specific allegations – Complaint devoid of substantive charges against petitioners – Mere association or presence insufficient for framing charges [Paras 10-12].

Abuse of Process – Continuing Proceedings without Evidence – Continuation of proceedings against petitioners without foundational allegations constitutes abuse of legal process – Quashing necessary to prevent misuse of judicial process [Para 10].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Proceedings in Crime No.163/2022 quashed against petitioners – Findings limited to petitioners and not influencing trial of other accused [Para 12].