Quashing of Cognizance and Process – Criminal Revision against dismissal of petition to quash cognizance and process – Petitioner accused of offenses under Sections 354A(1)(iv)/34 IPC – Allegations by actress against petitioner – Cognizance and process issued without proper application of judicial mind and procedural requirements – Petitioner challenges orders before Sessions Judge – High Court’s dismissal of similar revisions against co-accused cited as ground for dismissal – Sessions Judge dismisses petitioner’s revision solely based on High Court’s order – Petitioner not heard in High Court’s proceedings – Violation of fundamental principle of hearing and natural justice – Abuse of process of law – Order of Sessions Judge set aside – Matter restored for proper hearing and disposal – Criminal Revision allowed.

Lease Agreement Dispute – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and respondents disputed over the renewal of a lease agreement for property at Plot A-9 and 10, South Extension, Part-1, Ring Road, New Delhi - Lease originally executed in 1966, renewed in 2003 for 20 years – BPCL sought renewal; respondents declined and issued notice to vacate [Paras 3(i)-(vii)].

Interpretation of Lease Renewal Clause – Key issue was interpretation of Clause II (7) of the Lease Deed regarding lease renewal - BPCL contended for automatic 20-year renewal; respondents argued for mutually agreeable terms or no renewal – Court examined the phrase "NIL years" in the clause [Paras 9, 10, 12, 13].

BPCL’s Renewal Request – BPCL's communications in 2021 and 2022 seeking renewal cited – Respondents denied receipt; no substantiation by BPCL - Court considered these as afterthought defense [Paras 16, 17].

Court's Analysis and Ruling – Court interpreted renewal clause as requiring mutual agreement for any renewal period - Rejected BPCL’s interpretation of automatic renewal – No ambiguity in the written contract to warrant oral evidence or different interpretation [Paras 19, 23, 24, 25].

Specific Performance and Lease Agreement – Counterclaim for specific performance of lease renewal under Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 deemed untenable – Lease deemed determinable in nature [Paras 27].

Decision – Appeals and pending applications dismissed; upheld judgment of the Commercial Court favoring respondents – Lease Deed considered determinable, no ground for specific performance [Para 28].

Quashing of Order by Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) – Writ Petition – Supreme Court judgment reversing High Court’s decision – ITSC order based on respondent-assessee group’s application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act for settlement – ITSC erroneously accepted application despite inadequate full and true disclosure of income by respondent – Held, ITSC acted beyond its jurisdiction by approving application and granting immunity, as it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such applications without full and true disclosure – Order dated 9 June 2014 set aside. [Paras 32-57]

Jurisdiction of ITSC and Requirements for Application under Section 245C – Analysis – Held, ITSC can only consider applications under Section 245C that include full and true disclosure of income – Any lack of such disclosure deprives ITSC of jurisdiction to entertain the application or provide immunity from prosecution and penalties – Respondent-assessee group’s failure to fully disclose income resulted in ITSC exceeding its jurisdiction by approving application and granting immunity. [Paras 34-37, 50-57]

Disclosure of Income in Settlement Applications – Importance – Held, foundation of settlement applications under Section 245C is full, true, and honest disclosure of income and source of income – Inadequate disclosure leads to ITSC losing jurisdiction over the application – Respondent-assessee group’s application lacked full and truthful disclosure, rendering ITSC’s order and granted immunities legally unsustainable. [Paras 54-57]

Decision  – ITSC erred in approving application and granting immunity – Application under Section 245C requires complete and truthful disclosure – Order dated 9 June 2014 set aside, writ petition allowed [Paras 55-57].                      

Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement – Trial Court’s Orders Challenged – Petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing written statement before the Trial Court – Trial Court declined to take written statement on record – Subsequent applications for condonation dismissed – Petition before High Court assailing Trial Court’s orders – High Court’s analysis of facts and law – Arguments on behalf of Petitioner and Respondent – Consideration of delay and justification – Judicial custody of Petitioner – High Court’s observations on procedural aspects – Invocation of judicial discretion – Precedents cited – Non-commercial suits and directory nature of time limits – Substantial justice and compensation – High Court allows written statement on record with costs imposed on Petitioner – Petition disposed accordingly.

Decision: Petition allowed; written statement allowed to be taken on record with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the respondent no. 1 before the learned Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. –Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23, 25, 27A & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Prosecution alleges involvement of applicant in trafficking heroin concealed in mulethi logs – Applicant engaged in legitimate business of import of dry fruits and mulethi – Alleged recovery of heroin from mulethi logs supplied by applicant – Prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence including call detail records, financial transactions, and presence at storage location – Court examines evidence and finds lack of direct evidence linking applicant to heroin trafficking – Mulethi logs recovered not conclusively linked to applicant – Statements of co-accused not admissible in evidence – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act not satisfied – Applicant in custody since May 5, 2022, with trial unlikely to conclude soon – Delay in trial considered a negation of fundamental right under Article 21 – Court grants bail with conditions including personal bond and surety, restriction on leaving the country, providing address updates, appearance before trial court, maintaining mobile communication, refraining from criminal activity and contact with witnesses, and possibility of bail cancellation upon involvement in another case – Observations made for bail purposes only, without prejudicing merits of the case – Bail application allowed.

Parole Request in Pending Criminal Appeal – Dismissal of petition for parole – Petitioner, convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part I and Section 323 IPC, seeks parole to attend brother's marriage – Held, application for parole not maintainable during pendency of appeal, where appellant can seek suspension of sentence and interim bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. [Paras 6, 10, 12]

Role of High Court and Executive in Granting Parole – Analysis of judicial precedents – Emphasized that State cannot exercise powers to grant parole during pendency of statutory appeal – Rule 1209 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 restricts grant of regular parole when convict's appeal is pending – High Court's appellate powers not to be derogated by executive decisions on parole. [Paras 7, 8]

Judicial Interpretation of Parole Rules – Reference to Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – Discussion on distinction between parole and furlough – Clarification on Rule 1209 barring parole during pendency of appeal – Importance of appellate court's powers in parole decisions highlighted. [Paras 7, 9]

Alternative Remedies for Convicts – Convicts can seek interim bail or suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during pendency of appeal – High Court has the power to consider such applications on grounds similar to those for regular parole. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision – Petition for parole dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioner to file application for suspension of sentence and interim bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in pending appeal – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 12]

Criminal Revision Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Petitioner accused in proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act - Petitioner aggrieved against dismissal of application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by Trial Court and upheld by ASJ - Dismissal of application seeking examination of witness Paresh K. Lal Mehta, Ex-Director of Kirti Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. - Cheques issued by petitioner company dishonoured - Allegations of unilateral cancellation of license causing loss - Petitioner seeking to call witness and produce documents - Trial Court and ASJ found no merit in application - Observations on wide discretion under Section 311 Cr.P.C. - Execution of cheques not disputed by petitioner - Witness no longer associated with company - Complaint pending since 2006 - Petitions dismissed for lack of merits - Trial Court directed to dispose of matter expeditiously.

Quo Warranto Petition - Dismissal - Public Interest Litigation challenging the authority of the Chief Minister of Delhi - Petitioner seeks removal of Chief Minister from office citing incapacity due to incarceration - Court finds earlier orders dismissing similar PILs seeking identical relief - Petitioner alleges breakdown of constitutional machinery - Court asserts inability to interfere with executive functions or declare breakdown of constitutional machinery - Petitioner's persistence despite knowledge of previous dismissals indicates motive for publicity - Frivolity of PIL evident - Reliance on precedent found misplaced - Supreme Court's caution against frivolous PILs reiterated - Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund. [Paras 1-10]

Judicial Review of Statutory Provisions – Challenge against Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012 – Alleged to be ultra vires the Constitution for conferring powers on the Additional Collector to dispossess persons based on mutation proceedings, affecting rights to property under Article 300A – Held, the impugned provisions confer excessive powers beyond legislative competence under Entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII, relating only to land revenue and records. The legislation improperly extends to adjudication of property rights, a function reserved for the judiciary – Impugned provisions struck down as unconstitutional. [Paras 2-49]

Property Rights and Mutation – Mutation of land records does not determine legal title or possession rights, solely administrative for revenue collection – The act of dispossession based on mutation violates established legal principles, where title and possession issues must be adjudicated by civil courts – Section 9(1) of the Act and relevant rules, allowing dispossession by the Additional Collector without judicial process, held to infringe on constitutional rights under Article 300A and principles of natural justice. [Paras 18, 20, 24, 48]

Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement for fair hearing and judicial process in matters affecting property rights – Mutation proceedings intended for administrative record-keeping, not for adjudicating title or possession – Dispossession without court order constitutes a violation of natural justice and the constitutional right to property, necessitating judicial intervention. [Paras 24, 36, 47]

Decision – The Court declares Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012, insofar as they empower the Additional Collector to dispossess individuals and confer possession to others, as unconstitutional. The provisions are beyond the legislative scope of Entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII and infringe upon the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. [Paras 49-50]