Insolvency Proceedings – Effect of Resolution Plan on Statutory Dues – The petitioner company underwent insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, and a resolution plan was approved by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench – The plan provided for payment of all dues of creditors, including state dues – The petitioner contended that the resolution plan extinguished all previous liabilities, including those under the AP VAT Act and GST Act – Held: The Supreme Court’s decision in Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company held that once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not included in the plan are extinguished – The court ruled that the petitioner’s liability under the AP VAT Act and GST Act stood extinguished to the extent of its liability up to 04.09.2019 [Paras 6-12].

Binding Nature of NCLT Orders – Non-issuance of Notice to the State – The State argued that the NCLT’s order was not binding as no notice was issued to the State during the insolvency proceedings – Held: Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code provides a non-obstante clause overriding other laws – The court held that the NCLT’s order is binding on the State despite the lack of notice, and the remedy for the State was to seek setting aside of the order, not to contend its non-binding nature in subsequent proceedings [Paras 13-15].

Demand-cum-Adjudication Orders – Validity Post-Resolution Plan – The tax authorities issued demand-cum-adjudication orders for the period before and after the resolution plan’s approval – Held: The orders for the period prior to the resolution plan’s approval were set aside as they were covered by the plan – However, the period from 05.09.2019 to 31.03.2020 was not affected by the NCLT’s order, and the authorities were allowed to issue fresh notices to quantify taxes and dues for this period [Paras 16-18].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed in Part – The writ petitions were allowed to the extent that the demand-cum-adjudication orders dated 03.06.2023 and 25.11.2023 were set aside – The tax authorities were permitted to reassess and issue fresh notices for dues from 05.09.2019 to 31.03.2020 in accordance with law – No order as to costs [Para 19].

Tenancy Law – Protected Tenant – Section 4B of the Tenancy Act – Whether tenants can continue to hold tenancy rights despite land acquisition for development – Held, Section 4B prohibits termination of tenancy by efflux of time but does not apply where land has been exempted from the Tenancy Act under Section 88 due to public development purposes – [Paras 30-55].

Public Development – Exemption from Tenancy Act – Section 88 – The Court held that the land in question was reserved for development under a government-sanctioned scheme, which made the land exempt from the provisions of the Tenancy Act. Consequently, the petitioners could not claim tenancy protection – [Paras 65-85].

Civil Procedure – Reference to Competent Authority – Section 85A of the Tenancy Act – Whether the Civil Court’s referral to the Revenue Court to decide tenancy issues was valid – Held, the Civil Court correctly referred the issue of tenancy to the competent authority under Section 85A of the Tenancy Act, as the question of tenancy was integral to the execution proceedings – [Paras 90-100].

Decision:

Both writ petitions were dismissed, and the petitioners' claim to tenancy rights was rejected. The petitioners were found not entitled to tenancy protection due to the exemption of the land from the Tenancy Act under Section 88. The interim stay was extended for eight weeks.

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Appellants sought rejection of the plaint filed by the respondents under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The civil suit named 16 defendants, including public officials and private individuals – The trial court rejected the application for rejection of the plaint without addressing the necessity of notice under Section 80 CPC – Held: The trial court erred in allowing the suit to proceed without examining compliance with Section 80(2) CPC, which mandates notice to public officials before instituting a suit against them unless urgent relief is sought – Revision allowed; the plaint is to be returned to the respondents for compliance with Section 80 CPC [Para 5, 6, 9].

Mandatory Injunction – Suit for Removal of Construction – The respondents sought a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove illegal construction on their land – The suit included both public officials and private individuals – The trial court granted leave to institute the suit without notice to public officials under Section 80 CPC without proper evaluation of the urgency – Held: There was no pressing situation warranting bypassing Section 80 notice requirements, as the suit involved removal of shops, not an immediate threat or urgency – The suit was not maintainable without prior notice to public officials [Para 7, 8].

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Frivolous Suits – The court emphasized the importance of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in filtering frivolous or misconceived suits – The trial court failed to utilize this provision effectively, resulting in wastage of court time and resources – The suit should have been returned under Section 80(2) CPC due to the lack of urgency and the absence of a prior notice to the public officials involved [Para 10, 11].

Decision: The revision petition is allowed – The plaint is to be returned to the respondents in terms of Section 80(2) CPC – The respondents are to decide whether to issue notice under Section 80 to the public officials or proceed only against the private defendants – The trial court is directed to pass an order within seven days of receiving a certified copy of this order – The appellants have the right to approach the High Court again if the suit proceeds only against them.

NDPS Act – Bail Application – Commercial Quantity of Narcotic Substance – Section 37 Rigors Considered – The petitioner sought bail in connection with the recovery of a commercial quantity of Ganja. While Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, the court held that these conditions must be balanced against the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Despite the serious charges, the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration (since 03.04.2021) and the absence of strong evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, apart from a voluntary statement under Section 67 NDPS, justified granting bail [Paras 8-10].

Speedy Trial – Prolonged Incarceration – Applicability of Section 436A Cr.P.C – The court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for more than three years, and only three out of six charge-sheeted witnesses had been examined, with no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI, the court emphasized the need for balancing the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act with the fundamental right to a speedy trial [Paras 5-9].

Non-Admissibility of Section 67 Statements – Tofan Singh Case Applied – The prosecution relied on the petitioner’s voluntary statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The court held that, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, statements recorded under Section 67 are not admissible in criminal trials for establishing guilt. The absence of other incriminating evidence, such as call detail records or financial transactions, further weakened the prosecution's case [Para 8].

Decision: The petitioner, incarcerated since 03.04.2021, is granted bail on parity with co-accused Ravi Ranjan and considering the prolonged trial. The petitioner is to be released on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including cooperation in the trial and non-tampering with evidence. The court also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedents [Para 10].

Civil Procedure – Jurisdiction Clause – Exclusive Jurisdiction Clauses in International Contracts – Whether an Indian court can exercise jurisdiction despite an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favor of English courts – Held, the lease agreements allowed the respondents to approach courts where the assets were located, in this case, India – The court's jurisdiction was valid under the agreements' asymmetric jurisdiction clause – [Paras 20-40].

Contract Law – Breach of Lease Agreement – Remedies for Default – Whether failure to meet payment schedules entitles the lessor to repossess assets – Held, the appellant's failure to adhere to payment obligations justified the repossession of the leased engines by the respondents – [Paras 45-50].

Commercial Law – Mandatory Pre-Litigation Mediation – Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act – Whether failure to undergo pre-litigation mediation bars the suit – Held, the urgency of the interim relief sought justified bypassing pre-litigation mediation, especially considering the depreciable nature of the assets involved – [Paras 44-45].

Decision: The appeals were dismissed. The court upheld the order directing SpiceJet to ground and return the three engines to the respondents and held that the suit was maintainable. SpiceJet was allowed to raise objections regarding jurisdiction and governing law during the trial.

Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Validity of Reopening Concluded Assessments – Whether reassessment can be initiated on the same grounds after a concluded assessment – Held, the initiation of reassessment proceedings for the same assessment year based on identical facts and figures is invalid – The Ashish Agarwal judgment did not mandate reopening of completed assessments – [Paras 9-12].

Income Tax – Section 148-A(b) and Section 148-A(d) – Reassessment Notices Treated as Show Cause Notices – The Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal allowed notices issued between April 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021, to be treated as show cause notices under Section 148-A(b), but this applied only to cases where reassessment proceedings had not attained finality – [Paras 8-10].

Constitutional Law – Article 142 – Exercise of Extraordinary Powers – The Supreme Court's exercise of powers under Article 142 was aimed at balancing the rights of the revenue authorities to reassess and the rights of assessees to challenge such proceedings. However, this does not apply to concluded assessments – [Paras 22-25].

Decision:The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order under Section 148-A(d) dated July 19, 2022, and the consequential notice under Section 148 were quashed. The court held that reassessment on the same grounds after the original proceedings had attained finality was invalid.

Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence – Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Whether the appellate court can allow additional evidence not produced during the trial – Held, the appellate court can admit additional evidence when necessary to pronounce judgment or for substantial cause – The appellate court found that the deed of ‘Bondobosto’ by the Maharaja of Bardhaman, which could not be traced earlier, should be admitted – [Paras 1-40].

Remand of Case – Procedural Fairness – The court found that admitting additional evidence was essential for proper adjudication – The trial court was directed to hear the case afresh, specifically considering the additional evidence – The remand does not prejudice the parties as both had made claims and counterclaims – [Paras 40-50].

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Application for Amendment – The appellate court held that the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for modifying the plaint should be considered on merits by the trial court – Proper opportunity for objections and additional pleadings must be provided – [Paras 30-40].

Judicial Precedent – Reference to Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2022) and Satish Chand Surana v. Raj Kumar Meshram (2021), where the Supreme Court emphasized the necessity for appellate courts to allow additional evidence if it is crucial for justice – [Paras 50-60].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – The appellate court's order admitting additional evidence and remanding the matter for a fresh trial was upheld – Trial court directed to conclude the proceedings within six months.

Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – No substantial question of law was formulated at the time of admission – The appellant framed questions of law in the memo of appeal, mostly pertaining to factual aspects – Held: All the questions framed by the appellant relate to factual aspects and cannot be treated as substantial questions of law under Section 100 of CPC – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 2, 15, 16].

Departmental Inquiry – Joint Departmental Inquiry – Principles of Natural Justice – Joint inquiry was never questioned before the appropriate forum or during departmental appeal – Issue of bias raised by appellant not entertained as the appellant failed to challenge the joint inquiry initially – Principle of equality not applicable as co-delinquent was exonerated on different grounds – Finding of the lower court upheld [Paras 7, 15].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Interference in Departmental Proceedings – Civil court has limited jurisdiction to interfere in departmental proceedings – Court will not act as an appellate authority against the order of the disciplinary authority – No error found in the decision-making process regarding the principle of natural justice – Departmental proceedings were legal and valid, and the order of dismissal is not interfered with [Paras 10, 11, 12].

Evidence – Acquittal in Criminal Case – Departmental Inquiry on Same Charges – Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically render departmental inquiry findings invalid – The appellant was acquitted in the criminal case, but the departmental proceedings held him guilty based on evidence – Civil Court cannot interfere in the decision of the disciplinary authority unless principles of natural justice are violated [Paras 9, 14].

Decision – Second appeal dismissed – The Court found no substantial question of law and upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court – Departmental inquiry and dismissal were found to be lawful and in compliance with principles of natural justice [Para 16].

Criminal Law – Change of Investigative Agency – Sections 452, 376, 313, 506, 323, 427 IPC – Whether a court can direct a change of the investigating agency upon the request of the accused – Held, the accused cannot choose or demand a change in the investigating agency unless clear evidence of bias or partiality is demonstrated – [Paras 12-16].

Writ of Mandamus – Section 156(3) CrPC – Application to Change Investigation Agency – The petitioners alleged that they were falsely implicated due to an ongoing civil dispute over land – Court reiterated that allegations of bias must be substantiated by specific material facts and not merely vague claims – Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court emphasized that such changes in investigation should only be made in exceptional cases to ensure justice – [Paras 17-24].

Judicial Precedent – Apex Court Guidelines – The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Romila Thapar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753, highlighting that changes in investigation must be rare and based on convincing evidence of bias or injustice – The petitioners failed to make a case for such a change – [Paras 25-29].

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioners' request for the appointment of another agency to investigate the criminal case was denied – Court observed that the investigation conducted by the local police was not shown to be biased or improper – The ongoing civil dispute cannot form the basis for seeking a change in the investigative agency – [Paras 30-33].