Refund of Stamp Duty – Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Refusal of Refund Upheld - The petitioner sought a refund of Rs. 65,37,500 paid as stamp duty and transfer duty for a sale deed that was refused registration. The High Court held that once the stamp duty has been utilized for a presented document, it cannot be refunded merely because the registration was refused for non-compliance with the Registration Act, 1908. The petitioner, having voluntarily withdrawn the registration proposal, could not seek a refund under Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which allows refunds only in limited situations, none of which applied in this case [Paras 12-13, 18-19].

Utilization of Stamp Duty – No Refund Upon Document Execution - The Court emphasized that once a document is executed and stamp duty is paid, the intended purpose of the stamp duty is considered served, even if registration is subsequently refused. As such, the petitioner’s claim for a refund was denied, and the Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the refund [Paras 17-18].

Distinction Between Stamp Duty and Registration Fee - The Court noted the distinction between stamp duty and registration fees under the Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, holding that while registration fees may be refunded if registration is refused, stamp duty paid for an executed document cannot be refunded once the duty has been utilized [Paras 13-14].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the District Registrar's order refusing the refund of stamp duty. The petitioner’s arguments based on judgments from other cases were found inapplicable to the present facts [Paras 19-20].

Disproportionate Assets – Pre-Arrest Bail – Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act - The petitioner, a former Media Advisor to the Chief Minister, sought pre-arrest bail after being accused of accumulating disproportionate assets to his known sources of income during his tenure. The Court, after considering the serious nature of the allegations and the petitioner’s failure to cooperate in the investigation, held that pre-arrest bail could not be granted in such cases of economic offenses involving public trust [Paras 9-12, 16].

Economic Offenses – Public Interest and Abuse of Position – No Pre-Arrest Bail Granted - The Court emphasized that economic offenses, particularly those involving misuse of official position and large sums of public funds, require a different approach. It held that the petitioner’s case, involving substantial unexplained expenditures exceeding his income by 305%, justified his custodial interrogation. The plea of old age and health conditions were not considered sufficient to outweigh the need for a thorough investigation [Paras 17-18].

Failure to Cooperate with Investigation – Misuse of Interim Bail – Bail Application Dismissed - The petitioner had previously been granted interim protection but failed to cooperate with the investigating officers by not supplying crucial documents. The Court ruled that the petitioner had misused the interim concession and that his custodial interrogation was necessary to uncover the true extent of his disproportionate assets [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Petition for Pre-Arrest Bail Dismissed - The High Court dismissed the pre-arrest bail application, underscoring that the seriousness of the offense, the petitioner’s lack of cooperation, and the gravity of the allegations necessitated his arrest for further investigation. The petitioner’s argument of political vendetta and personal health issues were rejected as insufficient grounds for bail [Paras 19-20].

NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Recovery of 602 gms Heroin – Bail Denied – The petitioner was found in possession of 602 gms of heroin, significantly above the commercial threshold – The Court held that compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act was properly executed, and the delay in submitting the contraband to the FSL was not unreasonable [Paras 2-15].

Delay in Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – No Bail – Despite the petitioner being in custody for over two years and four months, the Court denied bail, citing the large quantity of contraband involved and the seriousness of the offense – Held: In cases involving commercial quantities, prolonged incarceration does not automatically justify bail [Paras 14-18].

Decision: The bail petition was dismissed. However, the Court stated that the petitioner could move a fresh bail application if the trial experiences further delays or prolonged custody without progress.

Waqf Property – Appointment of Mutawalli – Hereditary Succession – The petitioners challenged the Waqf Tribunal's order that set aside the Waqf Board’s resolution appointing a committee of Mutawallis – The Tribunal incorrectly focused on hereditary succession when the Waqfnama explicitly excluded any intention for such succession – Held: The order of the Tribunal was unsustainable as it failed to consider the Wakif’s express intention to not appoint descendants as Mutawalli – The resolution of the Waqf Board appointing the Mutawalli committee was time-barred but legally justified – The Board was directed to re-evaluate the matter and appoint a new Mutawalli committee after giving all interested parties a hearing [Paras 12-15]​.

Waqf Board’s Role – Fresh Consideration of Mutawalliship – The Court held that since the original resolution had expired, the Waqf Board should dispose of the issue of Mutawalliship afresh within eight weeks, ensuring due process and opportunity for all parties to be heard [Paras 16-18]​.

Decision – Civil revision allowed – Tribunal’s order set aside – Waqf Board to reconsider the appointment of Mutawalli – Case disposed of​.

Patent Law – Revocation of Patent – Lack of Novelty and Inventive Step – Section 64 of the Patents Act – Petitioner sought revocation of Patent No. 249376 for the process of preparing chiral beta-amino alcohols, claiming it lacked novelty and inventive step – Petitioner relied on prior arts, including European and US patents, alleging that the process steps, reactants, and catalysts were already known – Court held: Respondent's patent showed technical advancement with a higher yield (60-70%) and optical purity (close to 100%) over the prior arts – Novelty and inventive step established – Petition dismissed [Paras 32-38].

Patent Law – Interested Person – Section 2(t) of the Patents Act – Petitioner claimed to be an interested person as a competitor in the same pharmaceutical field – Court held: Petitioner qualifies as an interested person under Section 2(t) – However, the burden to establish grounds for revocation, including lack of novelty and inventive step, was not discharged by the Petitioner – Petition dismissed [Paras 28-31, 43].

Patent Law – Burden of Proof in Post-Grant Challenge – The burden of proving the invalidity of a patent in post-grant challenges lies with the Petitioner – The Respondent overcame all objections raised by the Patent Controller, and the patent was granted after due examination and amendments – Court held: Mere citation of prior arts without establishing lack of novelty or inventive step is insufficient to revoke a granted patent [Paras 42-44].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Offence – The petitioners, former directors of a company, were accused of non-payment of outstanding salary and performance bonus to an ex-employee. The Court held that the allegations, even if true, constituted a civil dispute over payment of dues and did not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust under Sections 420 and 406 IPC – No dishonest or fraudulent intention was shown at the time of engagement – Non-payment of salary alone does not amount to criminal offence [Paras 16-25]​.

Jurisdiction – Mandatory Enquiry under Section 202 CrPC – The Court noted that the petitioners resided outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. As per Section 202 of CrPC, a mandatory enquiry must be conducted before issuing summons to accused persons residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction – Since the enquiry was not conducted, the proceedings were quashed [Paras 30-40]​.

Decision – Criminal revision allowed – Proceedings quashed – Issuance of summons to the petitioners set aside​.

Constitutional Law – Writ Petition Against Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) – Availability of Statutory Remedies – The petitioner filed a writ petition against the PAO issued by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) before the expiration of the 30-day statutory period for raising objections before the Adjudicating Authority – Held: The writ petition is premature as the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies available under Sections 5 and 8 of the PMLA, which provide adequate safeguards and opportunities to challenge the attachment – Petition dismissed, petitioner directed to approach the Adjudicating Authority [Paras 1.1, 3.1, 3.6].

Provisional Attachment Under PMLA – Judicial Review – The petitioner’s challenge to the PAO, asserting a lack of connection with the proceeds of crime, was found unsustainable – The PAO is subject to review and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority within 180 days as per Section 5(5) of the PMLA – The court found that statutory remedies must be exhausted unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present in this case – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasize procedural safeguards provided under the Act [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Exceptions to Exhaustion of Remedies – When Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked – The petitioner failed to establish that the PAO was passed without jurisdiction, in violation of natural justice, or amounted to an abuse of process, which are the grounds for bypassing statutory remedies – Court reiterated the principles laid down in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499 regarding the limited exceptions to the rule of exhausting remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 3.2, 3.6].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Petitioner directed to avail statutory remedy by approaching the Adjudicating Authority under the PMLA – No observation on the merits of the case made – The Adjudicating Authority is directed to expedite the matter [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Bail in NDPS Cases – Medical Grounds – Section 37 of NDPS Act – Bail Granted with Conditions - The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS, citing critical health conditions requiring care outside the prison setting, while the prosecution opposed the application due to the commercial quantity involved and alleged serious misconduct involving misuse of position by police personnel. Given the petitioner’s critical medical needs, the court held that stringent conditions on release could meet the justice requirements and balance the health needs – Bail was granted, overriding Section 37’s rigor in this context, with specific restrictive and rehabilitative conditions on the petitioner [Paras 9-12].

Stringent Bail Conditions – Ensuring Fair Trial and Prevention of Offense Repetition - The court imposed conditions requiring the petitioner to submit detailed identification records and barred possession of firearms, emphasizing the significance of rehabilitation and reform as part of bail considerations – These conditions reflect the judiciary's intent to mitigate risks of witness tampering and recurrence of offenses, balancing bail with public safety concerns [Paras 14-19].

Discretion in Bail for Medical Reasons – Role of Proportionality and Necessity - Emphasizing the necessity for proportionality in bail conditions, the court aligned with Supreme Court observations that bail restrictions should not infringe rights disproportionately – The petitioner was held eligible for bail on medical grounds, subject to compliance with conditions supporting public and individual safety [Para 19].

Decision – Bail Granted – Given the petitioner’s critical medical condition and satisfaction of initial Section 37 conditions, the court granted bail with stringent restrictions to safeguard public safety and ensure the petitioner’s compliance.

Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Minimum Wages Act vs. Industrial Disputes Act - The petitioner challenged the Labour Court’s direction to pay differential minimum wages to a workman engaged through a contractor, arguing the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to determine disputed wage claims. Held: The Minimum Wages Act provides an exclusive remedy under Section 20 for wage disputes, making the Labour Court’s order under Section 33-C(2) ultra vires [Paras 8-9].

Principal Employer Liability - Contract Labour - The Court held that the Labour Court erred in directing the principal employer to pay differential wages without recourse to the prescribed process under the Minimum Wages Act. The workman must approach authorities under the Minimum Wages Act for such claims [Paras 3-4].

Relief and Directions - The Court set aside the Labour Court’s order, granting liberty to the workman to seek remedies under the Minimum Wages Act, with guidance that time spent in proceedings before the Labour Court and High Court would be considered regarding limitation [Para 9].

Decision: The petitions are allowed, and the Labour Court's order is set aside. The respondent-workmen are directed to pursue remedies under the Minimum Wages Act.