Civil Writ - Excise Law – Re-processing of Expired Liquor Stock – No Express Provision in Odisha Excise Act or Rules – Permission Granted – The petitioner, a distillery, challenged the rejection of its application for re-processing expired liquor stock on the grounds that no specific provisions exist in the Odisha Excise Act, 2008 or the Odisha Excise Rules, 2017. The State relied on the Supply Chain Management Policy, 2020, which mandated destruction of such stock and barred reprocessing. The Court held that the policy was not applicable to the petitioner and emphasized that the chemical report confirmed the stock was fit for human consumption. The absence of explicit statutory provisions was insufficient to deny permission. Directions were issued for granting permission for re-processing within four weeks [Paras 5-7].

Administrative Law – Discretionary Powers – Misuse of Authority – Reprocessing Rejection Overturned – The Court observed that the State Excise Department's refusal to allow re-processing due to a lack of statutory provisions was arbitrary. The State's own actions, such as ordering chemical tests that confirmed the stock’s viability, implied acknowledgment of the stock’s suitability for consumption. Held: The authority's reliance on the policy and rules was misplaced, and denial of permission was unjustified. The writ petition was allowed [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Directions for Compliance – Opposite Party No. 2 Directed to Grant Permission – The Court directed the Excise Commissioner to forthwith grant permission for re-processing the stock and ensure compliance within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order [Para 7].
 

Debt Recovery – Recall of DRT Order – Petitioners challenged DRT’s recall of its order allowing inclusion of co-sureties’ properties in recovery proceedings – Petitioners contended recall was time-barred and caused prejudice – High Court held: DRT, as a statutory tribunal, possesses ancillary powers to recall orders to rectify errors apparent on record, provided no substantive rights are crystallized – Delay in filing the recall application was minimal, and the respondent-bank demonstrated sufficient cause – No jurisdictional infirmity found in the recall order dismissing the petitioners' inclusion application [Paras 12.1, 25–30].

Contract of Guarantee – Release of Surety – Effect on Co-Sureties – Respondent-Bank released title deeds of co-sureties’ properties during loan restructuring in 2007 – High Court held: Release of secured properties terminates corresponding guarantee obligations – Petitioners, being principal borrowers, cannot seek inclusion of released properties in recovery proceedings after significant delay and acquiescence – Rule of estoppel bars reopening the matter after co-sureties’ properties were knowingly excluded [Paras 56–59].

Surety’s Rights – Material Alteration in Principal Contract – Petitioners sought inclusion of co-sureties’ properties after their release – High Court held: Release of properties without co-sureties’ consent constitutes a material alteration to the principal contract, discharging their obligations – Creditor’s actions in returning title deeds significantly prejudiced co-sureties, barring any revival of obligations under the contract of guarantee [Paras 60–61].

Debt Recovery Tribunal – Review and Recall Powers – DRT’s statutory authority allows review under Rule 5A of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 – High Court affirmed: Recall permissible to rectify mistakes or procedural errors causing prejudice – Respondent-bank’s application was filed within reasonable time and aimed at correcting erroneous inclusions in recovery proceedings – Procedural fairness upheld [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Recall order upheld – Petitioners precluded from seeking inclusion of co-sureties’ released properties in recovery proceedings – High Court emphasized settled principles of fairness and the sanctity of discharged guarantees [Paras 56–61].
 

Civil Law - Review - Maintainability – Review Petition by Change of Counsel – Without "No Objection" – Review Filed Invalidly – Review petition filed by a new counsel without obtaining a "No Objection Certificate" from the counsel who argued the original writ petition – Held: Filing of review petition without proper authorization violates settled principles – Review dismissed as improperly filed [Paras 5.6-5.22].

Review Scope – Reargument of Decided Matters – Petition Barred – The grounds raised in the review petition seek to reargue matters already decided – No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated – Reopening of adjudicated issues not permissible under the guise of review – Review petition dismissed [Paras 5.23-5.32].

Delay in Filing – No Sufficient Cause – Application for condonation of delay dismissed – Petitioners failed to provide sufficient cause for condoning 152 days of delay in filing the review – Alleged incapacity of counsel's clerk due to an accident not substantiated by evidence – Delay deemed unjustifiable [Paras 6.1-6.14].

Fraud Allegations – Misuse of Review Petition – Unsupported Claims – Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation raised in review proceedings without prior basis in writ petition – Such claims seen as an abuse of judicial process – Dismissal warranted [Para 7.4].

Decision – Review Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – The Court rejected the plea to condone the delay in filing the review petition and dismissed it on grounds of procedural impropriety, suppression of material facts, and lack of merit – Costs of Rs. 25,000 imposed on the petitioners to be deposited with the High Court Bar Association Advocates’ Welfare Fund, Cuttack, within four weeks [Paras 8-10].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal - Eyewitness Testimony – Single Dock Identification – Credibility Doubted – Conviction Overturned – The Court noted that the sole eyewitness (P.W. 15) identified the accused a year after the incident during dock identification without prior Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The prolonged time lapse and absence of corroboration raised doubts about the witness’s reliability – It was observed that P.W. 15 might have had opportunities to see the accused in Court prior to identification – Held: Failure to conduct TIP was fatal to the prosecution’s case – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 36-47].

Discovery of Weapons – Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – Inadmissibility of Recovery Evidence – Conviction Overturned – The Court found no direct link between the accused and the recovered weapons allegedly used in the murders – The prosecution failed to establish authorship of concealment or connection to the crime – Held: Mere recovery of weapons without proof of possession or use by the accused cannot establish guilt – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 48-52].

Call Detail Records (CDRs) – Procedural Lapses – Certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act Absent – Conviction Overturned – The prosecution relied on CDRs to establish conspiracy but failed to furnish a valid certificate as required under Section 65B of the Evidence Act – Held: The CDRs were rendered inadmissible, and no conclusive proof of conspiracy was established – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 61-64].

Circumstantial Evidence – Conspiracy – Standard of Proof Not Met – Conviction Overturned – The Court observed that the prosecution’s reliance on circumstantial evidence, including slogans and pamphlets, failed to conclusively establish the accused's involvement in the conspiracy – The pamphlets and slogans lacked evidentiary value under Sections 62-67 of the Evidence Act – Held: The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – Decision: Conviction overturned, appellants acquitted [Paras 65-72].

Benefit of Doubt – Acquittal – The Court held that the discrepancies in evidence, reliance on inadmissible evidence, and failure to meet the burden of proof necessitated giving the benefit of doubt to the appellants – Held: All appellants acquitted of charges and directed to be released forthwith – Decision: Appeals allowed, appellants acquitted [Paras 73-79].
 

Sexual Assault Allegations – Bail Granted – Delay in Filing Complaint – The petitioner, a well-known film actor and director, faced allegations of sexual assault committed 17 years prior – The Court noted the significant delay in filing the complaint and absence of compelling prima facie evidence to deny bail – Held: Bail granted subject to conditions to ensure cooperation in the investigation [Paras 2-8].

Delay in Complaint – Impact on Criminal Proceedings – The Court observed that the 17-year delay in filing the complaint affects the petitioner’s right to dignity and fair trial – Held: Bail cannot be denied based solely on unsubstantiated allegations made after such an inordinate delay, particularly when the petitioner’s cooperation in the investigation is evident [Paras 6-8].

Principle of Bail – Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception – Reiterating Supreme Court guidelines, the Court emphasized that bail should not be denied arbitrarily, even in serious cases, unless justified by factors like custodial necessity or potential interference with the investigation – Held: Bail application allowed, considering the principle of personal liberty [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Bail Granted with Conditions – The petitioner was granted bail on furnishing a bond of ₹50,000 with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed to ensure cooperation with the investigation and non-interference with witnesses or evidence [Paras 11].
 

Arbitration Law - Arbitration Agreement – Clause 70 of Contract – Disputes Arising During the Currency of the Contract – Arbitrator Appointed – Disputes arose due to changes in the scope and design of the project by the respondents, delaying project completion and increasing costs – Clause 28.1.4(c) of the MES Manual allows arbitration during the contract period under exceptional circumstances – Held: The contention of respondents that arbitration cannot proceed until project completion is unsustainable in light of contractual provisions permitting arbitration during the contract’s pendency – Arbitrator appointed to adjudicate disputes [Paras 5-8].

Delay in Work Completion – Attribution of Responsibility – Respondents at Fault – 70% of the contract work was completed on time, but delays occurred due to design changes introduced by the respondents and their failure to provide revised specifications promptly – 11 extensions were granted to the petitioner without any objection from the respondents, further demonstrating their responsibility for delays – Delay not attributable to the petitioner [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Sole Arbitrator Appointed – Disputes Referred for Arbitration – Petition allowed – Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora, DG (Pers), MES Department, appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate disputes between the parties – Arbitrator’s fees to be borne equally by both parties – No second arbitration to be pursued post-contract completion [Paras 9-10].

Civil Writ - Unauthorized Construction – Conversion of Parking Space – Demolition Upheld – Sanctioned Plan Violated – The appellants contested the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation's demolition order of a flat constructed on land designated as parking space in the sanctioned plan – The Court held that neither the West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006 nor the West Bengal Municipal (Building) Rules, 2007 permits conversion of parking spaces into residential flats – Demolition order found lawful and properly reasoned [Paras 11-16].

Natural Justice – Hearing Provided – Order Valid – The appellants were heard before the Commissioner passed the demolition order – Inspections were also conducted – Held: No breach of principles of natural justice was established [Paras 11, 16].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal Mechanism Available – Writ Not Maintained – Appellants bypassed the statutory appeal process and approached the writ court – The Court emphasized that appellate proceedings allow a broader scope for evidence reappraisal than writ petitions – Held: The appellants’ writ petition was rightly dismissed [Para 17].

Parking Spaces – Common Area Protection – Legal Prohibition on Conversion – Referring to Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v. Panchali Co-op. Housing Society Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 536, the Court reiterated that parking areas are common facilities under housing regulations and cannot be converted to residential use [Para 15].

Relief Granted – Time to Vacate – The Court granted the appellants two months to vacate the premises before demolition, considering the peculiar facts of the case [Later portion].
 

Child Custody – Welfare of the Minor – Visitation Rights Modified – Daily visitation ordered by the Family Court was deemed excessive, disrupting the child's routine – Held: Visitation schedule modified to twice weekly (Tuesdays and Sundays), ensuring the child's welfare while preserving the father-daughter bond [Paras 41-56].

Parental Alienation – Obligation to Facilitate Bonding – The Court emphasized the mother's role in encouraging the child’s interaction with her father, highlighting that parental alienation undermines the child’s emotional development – Held: Both parents to co-parent and participate in counseling sessions for the child's benefit [Paras 57-61].

Contempt Petition – No Wilful Disobedience Established – Contempt petition filed by the father alleging visitation violations was dismissed in light of the child's fragile mental state and existing challenges – Held: Compliance with visitation orders essential; future violations by the mother could invite severe consequences, including custody reconsideration [Paras 66-74].

Outstation Travel – Permission Relaxed for Short Trips – Restrictions on the mother taking the child out of the National Capital Territory of Delhi were relaxed for trips not exceeding two days, while requiring prior permission for longer trips – Compensation for missed visitation days mandated [Paras 64-65].

Counseling Mandated – Monthly Sessions Ordered – Both parents and the child directed to attend monthly counseling sessions to address the child’s apprehensions and promote co-parenting [Paras 61-63].

Decision – Both petitions disposed of – Visitation modified to twice a week, mandatory counseling sessions directed, and outstation travel restrictions partially relaxed – Contempt petition dismissed with cautionary remarks [Paras 75-77].

Civil Law - Employees’ Provident Fund Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Limitation Bar Applied – Proceedings Quashed – The petitioners challenged criminal proceedings alleging non-filing of provident fund returns, citing limitation and prior dissolution of their establishment – Held: Cognizance taken beyond the statutory limitation period under Section 468 CrPC rendered the proceedings unsustainable – Proceedings quashed [Paras 12-15, 17-19].

Directors’ Liability – Absence of Mens Rea or Vicarious Responsibility – No Grounds for Continuation – The petitioners, who were directors of a defunct company, were not liable for vicarious responsibility under Section 14A of the EPF Act due to the absence of active management or control over the establishment during the relevant period – Quashing upheld [Paras 6a, 7, 16].

Policy Recommendations – Withdrawal of Prosecution for Non-Filing of Returns – The Court noted that the Central Board of Trustees, EPFO, recommended withdrawal of prosecutions for non-filing of returns to avoid unnecessary litigation – Held: Continuation of such proceedings would waste judicial resources and government exchequer [Paras 6f, 16].

Precedents – Applicability of Prior Judgments – Prosecution Barred by Limitation – Following Kartik Chandra Das v. State of West Bengal and C.B. Bhandari v. Provident Fund Inspector, the Court reaffirmed that delayed cognizance in cases of this nature contravenes statutory limitations and procedural safeguards [Paras 6h, 6i].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – Proceedings Quashed – Cognizance orders and related proceedings quashed, and any associated orders set aside – Observations made regarding the futility of continuing such proceedings given the non-operational status of the company and expiry of the limitation period [Paras 18-19].