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].
 

Requisition and Compensation – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Enhancement of Rent – Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) challenged the enhancement of rent compensation assessed by the First Land Acquisition Collector – Respondent challenged a letter proposing a fresh inspection – Single Judge upheld the rent assessment but revoked the proposed inspection – Court found the assessment lacked proper measurement and was thus invalid – Directed a fresh determination in line with Division Bench’s previous directives [Paras 1-35].

Administrative Procedure – Requirement for Measurement – Division Bench directed measurement for meaningful determination – First Land Acquisition Collector failed to measure premises before assessment – Issued letter for inspection after final memo – Court found the process flawed and invalidated the assessment – Emphasized proper adherence to directives for accurate compensation [Paras 22-35].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Memo dated 12th August, 2021, along with memos dated 29th December, 2020, and 29th June, 2021, canceled – Directed fresh determination of rent compensation within two months – Letter dated 19th July, 2022, declared infructuous – No order as to costs [Para 34-35].
 

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].

Education Law – Examination Results Cancellation – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Lucknow University’s negligent conduct in withholding a student’s B.Sc. results and subsequent failure to communicate the cancellation of exams – High Court quashes University’s actions as arbitrary and illegal – Petitioner awarded costs for damages to educational prospects due to the University's negligence – [Paras 1-24].

Administrative Law – Non-communication of orders – Order dated 21.05.2012 not communicated to the petitioner, rendering it non-est and non-existing – Subsequent orders based on the non-communicated order deemed illegal and arbitrary – University’s failure to conduct a proper inquiry and provide an opportunity to the petitioner criticized – [Paras 10-21].

Cost Imposition – High Court imposes compensatory costs of Rs. 2 lakhs on Lucknow University for negligent actions that caused delay and harm to the petitioner’s educational career – Purpose of costs to discourage mala fide actions and compensate for inconvenience and expenses caused to the petitioner – [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The actions of Lucknow University, including the non-communication of essential orders and negligent conduct, were in gross violation of natural justice principles – The University is ordered to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within two months – [Para 24].

Co-operative Societies – Redevelopment of Housing Societies – Petitioners challenged the orders of the State Government relating to the redevelopment projects – Contention regarding the inadequacy of the consent obtained from the members and non-compliance with statutory requirements – High Court held the State’s orders to be mechanical and without proper consideration of members’ rights – Orders set aside [Paras 1-35].

Consent of Members – Statutory Requirement – Emphasized the necessity for obtaining the consent of at least 70% of the members as per the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Failure to obtain valid consent renders the redevelopment agreement void ab initio – High Court highlighted the importance of transparency and fairness in obtaining members’ consent [Paras 20-25].

Developer Obligations – Compliance with Regulations – Court scrutinized the obligations of developers under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and the Development Control Regulations – Found significant non-compliance with mandatory disclosures and project timelines – Developers directed to adhere strictly to statutory norms [Paras 26-30].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Orders by State Government set aside – Court mandated strict compliance with statutory procedures for redevelopment, ensuring members’ rights and interests are protected – Directed developers to rectify non-compliance and adhere to timelines and disclosures as per the applicable laws** [Paras 31-35].