Criminal Law – Appeal in UAPA Case – Limitation – High Court jurisdiction to condone delay – The appellant challenged the High Court’s jurisdiction to condone delay in filing an appeal against a declining order on a bail application under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – Proviso to Section 21(5) of the NIA Act explicitly mandates a 90-day limitation for filing such appeals – Appellant contended the limitation clause infringes the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution – Held: The 90-day limitation period is mandatory, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to condone delay beyond this period [Paras 21-26].

Legislative Intent – Special Statute and Limitation – The court emphasized that UAPA, being a special statute aimed at curbing insurgency and safeguarding national security, carries strict procedural requirements – The legislative wisdom in enacting the limitation clause under Section 21(5) of the NIA Act precludes the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act – Strict compliance ensures timely adjudication and prevents misuse of the appellate process in cases involving national security [Paras 22(a)-(c)].

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 and Procedural Law – While acknowledging the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, the court clarified that reasonable restrictions imposed through a procedure established by law, as under the NIA Act, are valid – The mandatory limitation does not unreasonably curtail the appellant’s rights but ensures balance between individual liberty and national security [Paras 22(d), 23].

Comparison with Conviction Appeals and Reapplication for Bail – Distinguished the right to appeal against conviction, which involves fundamental liberty, from the right to appeal against a declining bail order – Conviction appeals require adjudication on merits to uphold procedural fairness, whereas declining bail orders allow reapplication on changed circumstances, thereby preserving the accused’s liberty [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court held it has no jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the 90-day period mandated by Section 21(5) of the NIA Act – Observed that any liberal interpretation or reading down of the provision would defeat the legislative intent and compromise national security imperatives [Para 27].
 

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope Against Private Bodies – Banking Activities – The Court examined the maintainability of writ petitions against private banks concerning alleged non-compliance with contractual obligations – Held: Private banks performing commercial activities are not subject to writ jurisdiction unless statutory or public duties are involved. Claims arising out of private contracts are not enforceable under Article 226 of the Constitution [Paras 18–20, 22].

RBI Guidelines – Applicability to Scheduled Banks – Nature of Circulars – Petitioners argued that banks violated Clause 7.6 of the RBI Master Circular by disbursing housing loans contrary to construction progress – Held: Circulars are directory, not mandatory, and primarily act as guidelines for policy formulation by banks; hence, non-adherence does not warrant judicial interference under writ jurisdiction [Paras 7, 19–21].

Consumer Protection – Alternative Remedies – The Court emphasized the availability of alternative remedies, including proceedings before the National Consumer Commission and the Integrated Ombudsman Scheme – Held: Relief under Article 226 cannot be granted when effective alternative forums are available and already approached by the petitioners [Paras 22–23].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to petitioners to pursue alternative remedies.
 

Bail Pending Trial – Allegations of Money Laundering – Proceeds of Crime – The petitioner, a former minister, was accused of laundering proceeds of crime arising out of corruption in tender allocation under the Punjab Foodgrains Labour & Cartage Policy 2020-21 – Allegations included acquiring proceeds of crime as immovable properties and gold worth crores, which were concealed through relatives and shell entities – Held: Petitioner granted bail as the predicate offenses were quashed by the High Court, and further incarceration would serve no purpose – Petition allowed [Paras 6.2-6.5].

Policy Amendment – Judicial Review Upheld – No Malafide Intent Found – The Punjab Foodgrains Labour & Cartage Policy 2020-21, which introduced amendments requiring a minimum turnover for bidding, was judicially reviewed and upheld by Division Benches of the High Court – Held: The amendment facilitated all bidders and did not disclose any arbitrariness or malafide intent [Paras 6.2].

Predicate Offenses Quashed – Effect on PMLA Complaint – Both predicate offenses (FIR Nos. 11 and 18 of 2022) were quashed by the High Court on the same date, eliminating the basis for continuing prosecution under the PMLA – Held: Further detention of the petitioner in custody was unjustified, and bail was granted [Para 6.5].

Compliance with PMLA – Procedural Safeguards Violated – The petitioner contended that his arrest was in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA, as he was summoned as a witness but arrested on the same day – Held: E.D. overstepped its jurisdiction by investigating beyond the scope of PMLA and failed to conclusively establish the tainted source of alleged proceeds of crime [Paras 3.1, 3.6].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to be released on bail in Complaint No. COMA/24/2024 dated 26.09.2024, arising from ECIR No. JLZO/16/2022, on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Court/Duty Magistrate – Further incarceration was deemed unnecessary in light of quashed predicate offenses [Paras 7-9].
 

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Rejection of Application for Amendment After Trial Commencement – Petitioner filed applications for amendment of plaints in two civil suits and a written statement in a counterclaim – Trial court dismissed applications on grounds of lack of due diligence and contradictory pleas – Held: Applications for amendment filed after framing of issues and commencement of trial are barred by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC unless due diligence is demonstrated – Petitioner failed to show due diligence, and amendments sought introduced contradictory claims, impermissible under law – Revision petitions dismissed [Paras 8-13].

Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Bar on Amendments After Trial Commences – Issues in the consolidated suits were framed on 26.05.2023, and the trial had commenced with examination of witnesses – The proposed amendments, relating to facts within the petitioner’s knowledge at the time of filing the original pleadings, lacked due diligence – The plea of being a "layman unable to convey facts to counsel" was insufficient to satisfy the due diligence requirement under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Trial court rightly held amendments to be barred by the proviso [Paras 12-13].

Contradictory Pleas – Inconsistency in Original and Amended Claims – In the first suit, petitioner asserted the mother was the owner of the property via a registered sale deed – In the second suit, petitioner claimed the property was purchased using funds inherited from the father – Proposed amendments introduced a new plea that the petitioner contributed funds to purchase the property, contradicting earlier assertions – Courts cannot allow amendments that fundamentally alter or contradict prior pleadings – Amendment rightly denied [Paras 13-14].

Alleged Delay Tactics – Revision Petitions Devoid of Merit – Petitioner, in possession of a portion of the disputed property, was found to be delaying resolution of suits filed in 2019 – Amendments sought were intended to delay proceedings and were unsupported by subsequent events or new material – Revision petitions dismissed as meritless [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Revision petitions dismissed – Trial court orders rejecting amendments upheld – Amendments found to be contrary to law, lacking due diligence, and aimed at delaying proceedings [Para 15].

Taxation Law - Recovery of Interest and Penalty – Section 11A of the Excise Act – Applicability of Natural Justice – Petitioner challenged the freezing of its bank account and demand for interest and penalty on delayed payment of excise duty, claiming that no show cause notice or opportunity to explain the delay was provided – Held: Under Sections 11AA and 11AC of the Excise Act, the issuance of a show cause notice is mandatory before imposing penalty – Principles of natural justice are inherent in recovery proceedings under Section 11AA – The action of the respondents violated the principle of audi alteram partem, and the demand and penalty were quashed [Paras 6-9].

CAG Audit Report – Scope and Limitations – Findings in a CAG audit report cannot serve as the sole basis for recovery proceedings – An audit report can only form the basis for initiating assessment, which requires issuance of a show cause notice and compliance with procedural requirements under the Excise Act – Direct recovery based on an audit report is unsustainable [Paras 1, 7].

Freezing of Bank Account – Section 11(2) of the Excise Act – Validity – The respondents froze the petitioner’s bank account without completing the process of adjudication or issuing a speaking order – Held: The freezing of the petitioner’s account under Section 11(2) is illegal, as the demand was made without compliance with statutory provisions – Actions that violate natural justice principles are invalid [Paras 9-10].

Principles of Natural Justice – Show Cause Notice Requirement – A bare reading of Sections 11AA and 11AC reflects that natural justice principles, including the opportunity to be heard, are inherent in the recovery mechanism – No demand for penalty or interest can be made without first providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case [Paras 6-7].

Supreme Court Precedent – Applicability of Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. – The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (1988) 35 ELT 349, holding that recovery proceedings initiated without serving a show cause notice and affording an opportunity to be heard are bad in law [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – The respondents’ action of freezing the petitioner’s bank account and imposing interest and penalty without issuing a show cause notice or providing an opportunity for hearing is declared illegal – Recovery proceedings quashed, and the freezing order set aside [Paras 9-10].
 

Quashing of FIR – Second FIR on Same Cause of Action – Abuse of Process of Law – The petitioner sought quashing of a second FIR, which was based on the same set of allegations as the first FIR – Held: The second FIR was illegal and unsustainable as it amounted to double jeopardy – Reliance placed on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – Second FIR quashed as it violated fundamental legal principles and was an abuse of process [Paras 6.4, 9-10].

Policy Amendment – Judicial Approval Already Upheld – No Cognizable Offense Disclosed – The amendment to the Punjab Foodgrains Labour and Cartage Policy 2020-21, alleged to be made with mala fide intent, had already been judicially reviewed and upheld by Division Benches of the Court – Held: The allegations lacked merit and disclosed no cognizable offense – FIR quashed [Paras 6.2-6.3, 6.5].

Misuse of Powers by Vigilance Bureau – Criminal Prosecution as Harassment – Launching of criminal prosecution based on a contractual matter under the guise of a criminal offense was held to be a misuse of power by the Vigilance Bureau – Court noted that the complaint was made by an unsuccessful bidder as an attempt to harass the petitioner – Held: Prosecution initiated against the petitioner was unwarranted and quashed [Paras 6.6-7].

Double Jeopardy – Successive FIR Not Permissible – The Court reiterated that successive FIRs based on the same transaction or cause of action are impermissible and amount to double jeopardy – Held: The second FIR violated the legal principles laid down in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and was quashed [Paras 6.4, 8].

Decision – Petition allowed – FIR No. 18 dated 22.09.2022, registered under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and Sections 7, 8, 12, and 13(2) of the PC Act, along with all consequential proceedings, quashed as being an abuse of the process of law and violative of the prohibition on successive FIRs [Paras 9-12].
 

Contract Law - Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – Interpretation of Contractual Jurisdiction Clauses – Clause 13(b) of the ISDA Agreement conferred exclusive adjudicatory jurisdiction to the High Court of Mumbai – Held: The clause was valid and binding on the parties, as it was neither void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act nor contrary to public policy – A jurisdictional clause conferring exclusive competence on one court is valid if the chosen court has territorial jurisdiction and part of the cause of action arises within its domain [Paras 5-6, 11-13].

Jurisdictional Limitation – Cause of Action Requirement – For a court to exercise jurisdiction under an exclusive jurisdiction clause, part or whole of the cause of action must arise within its territorial jurisdiction – Held: Since a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Mumbai, the clause is enforceable, and courts outside Mumbai lack jurisdiction in this matter [Paras 7, 12-14].

Waiver of Jurisdiction – Binding Nature of Contract – By entering into a valid contract that includes an exclusive jurisdiction clause, the parties waive their right to approach other courts – Held: The respondents, having consented to the jurisdiction clause, were estopped from invoking the jurisdiction of civil courts in Gurgaon. The clause must be strictly enforced [Paras 13-15].

Applicability of Proviso in Jurisdiction Clause – The exception in Clause 13(b), allowing Party B (the petitioner) to bring proceedings in other forums, applies only to the petitioner and not to the respondent – Held: Respondents could not rely on the proviso to invoke the jurisdiction of courts outside Mumbai [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Reference Answered – Civil Revision Petition Disposed Of – The jurisdictional clause in the ISDA Agreement is declared valid and enforceable. The case is remanded to the Roster Bench for further proceedings in light of this decision [Para 16].
 

Criminal Writ - Habeas Corpus – Custody of Minor – Applicability of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 – The petitioner, a biological father, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging illegal custody of his minor son (aged 9 years) with the maternal grandparents (respondents) – Held: The petitioner, being the natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, is entitled to the custody of the minor – Custody with the maternal grandparents is not in accordance with the law, and their refusal to return the child constitutes illegal custody [Paras 19-22, 26, 63].

Best Interest of the Child – Paramount Consideration – Welfare Principle – While adjudicating custody matters, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration – The mother, who is living in Canada since 2021, has shown no interest in the child’s welfare and failed to participate in legal proceedings, while the petitioner demonstrated stable financial and emotional readiness to care for the child – Custody awarded to the petitioner as it serves the best interest of the minor [Paras 56-59, 63].

Maintainability of Habeas Corpus Petition – Custody by Maternal Grandparents – Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Respondents argued that habeas corpus was not maintainable as the petitioner had alternative remedies under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Held: Habeas corpus is maintainable as the custody with maternal grandparents does not fall under any legally recognized category of guardianship (natural, testamentary, or legal guardian) – Refusal to hand over custody to the natural guardian amounts to illegal detention [Paras 13-19, 26].

Visitation Rights for Maternal Grandparents – The Court permitted the maternal grandparents (respondents) to visit the child after every fortnight for two hours at the petitioner’s residence, ensuring the child maintains familial bonds with both sides of the family [Paras 66-67].

Decision: Writ of habeas corpus allowed – The custody of the minor child, Harmanveer Singh, aged 9 years, directed to be handed over to the petitioner (biological father).
The maternal grandparents (respondents) are permitted visitation rights after every fortnight at the petitioner’s residence for two hours with prior intimation [Paras 63-67].
 

Appointment of Lambardar – Preference to Ex-Servicemen – Rule 15(c) of Punjab Land Revenue Rules – Collector’s Decision Upheld – The appellant challenged the appointment of the private respondent as Lambardar, arguing that the appellant’s younger age (29 years) should outweigh the respondent’s experience as a retired Subedar (51 years old) – Held: Rule 15(c) prioritizes services rendered to the State – Age factor cannot outweigh the preference for an ex-serviceman who retired after serving the nation – Collector's decision upheld [Paras 7-8].

Collector's Discretion – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Interference Not Warranted – The Financial Commissioner’s decision to override the Collector’s choice was set aside – The court noted that the Collector personally interacted with the candidates, considered their relative merits (age, education, and service to the State), and selected the respondent – The Single Judge appropriately upheld the Collector’s discretion, observing no perversity in the decision [Paras 5-9].

Educational Qualifications – Marginal Difference Not Decisive – The appellant argued his 12th-grade qualification made him a better candidate than the respondent, who had studied up to the 10th standard – Held: The marginal difference in educational qualifications was not significant, especially when weighed against the respondent’s service as an ex-serviceman – Respondent was not illiterate, and the Collector rightly prioritized his service record [Paras 5, 9].

Hereditary Claim – No Preference Allowed – The appellant’s hereditary claim as the son of the previous Lambardar was rejected – Held: Hereditary claims violate Article 14 of the Constitution – The Collector and the court appropriately excluded hereditary preference in the selection process [Para 5].

Land Ownership – Relevant Factor – The respondent owned land in the village, while the appellant did not – The court found this factor validly considered by the Collector in favor of the respondent [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court upheld the respondent’s appointment as Lambardar and affirmed the learned Single Judge’s order – Held: The Collector’s discretion was exercised properly, and there was no perversity or illegality warranting interference [Paras 9-10].