Interim Bail – Medical Grounds – PMLA Investigation – Held: Applicant granted interim bail from 25/11/2024 to 15/12/2024 to care for his father-in-law undergoing surgery – Bail granted considering specific medical circumstances, notwithstanding the nature of allegations under PMLA – Applicant directed to comply with strict conditions to ensure non-interference with the ongoing investigation [Paras 6-9].

Twin Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA – Interim Bail Jurisprudence – Held: The court acknowledged the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA but emphasized that the interim relief was granted based on unique humanitarian grounds without undermining the larger investigation [Para 8].

Money Laundering – ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam – Allegations: The Directorate of Enforcement alleged large-scale misappropriation of funds meant for SC/ST/OBC students under the Post Matric Scholarship Scheme, involving shell companies, forged documents, and fraudulent claims – Applicant accused of significant involvement in creating shell entities to divert scholarship funds into personal accounts [Paras 4.1-4.15].

Conditions of Bail – Compliance Mandated – Held: The court imposed strict conditions, including surrender on 16/12/2024, restrictions on movement, non-tampering of evidence, and non-inducement of witnesses – ED reserved the right to seek cancellation upon violation of these conditions [Para 9-12].

Decision:

Interim bail was granted to the applicant from 25/11/2024 to 15/12/2024 under stringent conditions, including a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties, compliance with investigation protocols, and geographical restrictions. The applicant was ordered to surrender on 16/12/2024 positively.

Matrimonial Law - Concealment of Thalassemia Status – Cruelty – Decree of Divorce Upheld – The wife failed to disclose that she was a Thalassemia Minor during premarital discussions, which came to light only when she conceived a child with similar complications – The concealment led to medical and emotional strain in the marital relationship, justifying divorce on grounds of cruelty – The husband's evidence of concealment was corroborated by G-mail chats and medical records – The wife's narrative of being compelled to abort due to family preference for a male child was disbelieved, as it lacked corroborative evidence – Held: Non-disclosure of a significant medical condition constitutes cruelty sufficient to grant a decree of divorce [Paras 4.2, 7.4, 7.8] – Decision: Divorce decree upheld.

False Allegations Against Husband and Family – Cruelty Established – The wife made baseless allegations of abuse and forced abortion, including claims that her in-laws made her consult a priest for changing the child’s gender – The claims were found to be fabricated, especially given the high educational qualifications of the wife and husband (both doctors) – Additionally, complaints filed through an MLA to the husband's employer, alleging extramarital affairs, damaged the husband's professional reputation and constituted cruelty – Held: The conduct of the wife amounted to mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage [Paras 7.5, 7.6, 7.7] – Decision: Divorce decree upheld.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Appeal Dismissed – Evidence of Incompatibility and Cruelty – The wife's plea for restitution was deemed inconsistent with her conduct, as evidence showed her unwillingness to reconcile with her in-laws and her repeated abuse of the husband’s family – Held: The dismissal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was justified [Paras 7, 8] – Decision: Appeal for restitution dismissed.

Alimony and Maintenance – No Alimony Granted – Child’s Welfare Considered – The husband had already spent Rs. 25 lakhs on the bone marrow treatment of the couple's Thalassemia-affected daughter and was paying Rs. 20,000 monthly for her maintenance – Considering the financial contributions made by the husband and his continued support for the child, the Court directed the payment of an additional Rs. 10 lakhs to the wife for the child’s welfare – Held: No spousal alimony awarded, but compensation granted for the child’s welfare [Para 7.9] – Decision: Rs. 10 lakhs to be paid by the husband.

Judicial Notice of Facts – Applicability of Sections 56 and 57 of Evidence Act – No Overreach by Family Court – The Family Court’s reliance on judicial notice to dismiss the wife’s claim of sex-change medicines being administered by her in-laws was upheld – The Court observed that the claim was too far-fetched for two qualified doctors and lacked supporting evidence – Held: The Family Court did not err in considering the facts of the case under Sections 56 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act [Para 7.8] – Decision: Judgment of Family Court upheld.
 

Bail – Delay in arrest and insufficient recovery – Bail granted - The petitioner, accused of transporting cattle for illegal slaughter and firing at informants, argued that he was implicated solely based on the co-accused's disclosure. He was not arrested at the scene nor was any recovery made from him. Additionally, co-accused persons had been granted bail earlier. The Court held that pre-trial incarceration of five months was sufficient in the absence of conclusive evidence directly linking the petitioner to the offence – Bail granted, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds [Paras 3-5].

Right to bail – Judicial discretion and presumption of innocence - Reiterating principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Court observed that pre-trial detention should not extend unnecessarily. The Court cited precedents asserting that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception," emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – The petitioner was granted bail on the principle that denial of liberty should not amount to pre-conviction punishment [Paras 4-5].

Other pending cases – No automatic denial of bail - The Court noted that the petitioner's involvement in other cases did not justify automatic denial of bail in the current matter. Criminal antecedents may be relevant, but each case must be evaluated independently based on its own merits – The petitioner’s custody in this FIR was deemed unwarranted for further detention [Para 4].

Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate concerned. The Court clarified that the observations made in the judgment would not prejudice the trial's merits.
 

Judicial Review of Speaker’s Inaction – Permissible Scope – Directions Issued Valid – Appellant contended that the High Court cannot direct the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions within a timeframe – Court held that inordinate delay in deciding disqualification petitions violates constitutional mandates – Judicial review under Article 226 is permissible where the Speaker’s inaction undermines democracy – Held: Single judge's directions justified and upheld [Paras 34-38, 60-62].

Tenth Schedule – Role of Speaker as Tribunal – Judicial Superintendence Permissible – Speaker acts as a tribunal while deciding disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule – Court relied on Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu to affirm that judicial review is confined to jurisdictional errors, mala fides, and constitutional violations – Held: Speaker’s inaction may warrant judicial interference to preserve democratic processes [Paras 39-41, 60(ii)].

Nature of Rules Under Tenth Schedule – Directory and Not Mandatory – Appellant argued the procedural rules under the Tenth Schedule are directory – Court held this does not exempt the Speaker from adhering to constitutional obligations – Delay beyond three months deemed unreasonable, warranting judicial intervention [Paras 42-44, 60(vi)].

Precedents – Supreme Court’s Guidance on Disqualification Petitions – Court extensively referred to decisions in Kihoto Hollohan, Rajendra Singh Rana, Keisham Meghachandra Singh, and Subhash Desai, holding that disqualification petitions should generally be decided within three months, barring exceptional circumstances – Held: Speaker must adhere to this principle [Paras 45-48, 61].

Ratio Decidendi and Judicial Precedents – Application of Principles – Court emphasized the importance of following binding precedents and the doctrine of ratio decidendi – Observed that the Speaker must decide the petitions within a reasonable time to uphold the constitutional intent of the Tenth Schedule [Paras 54-58].

Decision: The appeals were disposed of as follows:
The common order dated 09/09/2024 passed by the single judge directing the Secretary of the Telangana Legislative Assembly to place disqualification petitions before the Speaker was set aside.
The Speaker of the Telangana Legislative Assembly was directed to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable time, bearing in mind the pendency period, the object of the Tenth Schedule, and the Assembly's tenure.
Miscellaneous applications were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
 

Taxation Law - GST – Liability of Government Entity – Flawed Adjudication – Order Quashed – Petitioner challenged GST liability of ₹99,05,74,260/- and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority under the CGST/SGST Acts – Court noted contradictions in the adjudication order, including conflicting findings on the ownership of goods – Held: Adjudication order quashed due to non-application of mind, with directions for fresh consideration [Paras 10-16].

Consideration Requirement – Section 7 of the CGST Act – Court observed that the adjudicating authority failed to establish receipt of consideration for the alleged “supply” of goods and services – Grants from KIIFB (a government-controlled statutory body) were held not to constitute consideration – Held: Mere receipt of government grants does not render the activity a taxable supply under Section 7 [Paras 7-8].

Applicability of Exemptions – Notification No. 35/2017 – Petitioner contended that the supply was exempt under Notification No. 35/2017 issued under Section 11 of the CGST Act – Court directed the adjudicating authority to reconsider the applicability of exemptions and the nature of grants under this notification [Para 9].

Rule of Law and Administrative Fairness – Violations Identified – Court relied on Prodair Air Products India Private Limited v. State of Kerala to emphasize that administrative orders must be coherent, transparent, and responsive – Adjudication order failed this standard [Paras 8-9].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned adjudication order was quashed, and the matter remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The court directed the adjudicating authority to decide within three months, excluding the period of the earlier adjudication from limitation. All observations were stated to be prima facie and not binding on subsequent proceedings.
 

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Local Commissioner – Discretion of Court – Revisional Jurisdiction – Application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner to ascertain the age of a house dismissed by the trial court – Held: Trial court acted within its discretion, observing that the determination of the building’s age was irrelevant to the main issue of possession and injunction – Appointment of a Local Commissioner is an enabling provision and not a vested right – Discretion of the trial court in such matters is not subject to revisional interference unless grave injustice or legal irregularity is apparent – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 5-7].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Article 227 of the Constitution – Supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reappreciate evidence or correct mere errors of law or fact unless there is manifest illegality or gross injustice – Refusal to appoint a Local Commissioner does not decide the substantive rights of parties and is not revisable – Held: Petition under Article 227 dismissed as meritless [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Precedents – Applicability in Local Commissioner Applications – Refusal to appoint Local Commissioner held non-revisable in Pritam Singh v. Sunder Lal, 1990(2) PLR 191, and subsequent decisions – Petition under Article 227 for similar relief impermissible as established by judicial precedents [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – No costs.
 

Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Environmental Compliance – Post-violation rectification – Proceedings redirected to trial court - The petitioners were initially subjected to proceedings under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, for failing to adhere to statutory requirements. They subsequently resolved deficiencies and obtained "Consent to Operate" valid until 31/03/2027. Noting the Punjab Pollution Control Board's policy to encourage compliance and withdraw cases against rectified violations, the Court directed the parties to seek appropriate relief from the trial court, with the respondent's undertaking to not pursue the case further [Paras 3-5].

Policy Consideration – Discontinuation of proceedings post-compliance - Highlighting the Punjab Pollution Control Board's policy aimed at promoting environmental compliance rather than punitive measures, the Court emphasized that rectification of violations should lead to a constructive approach in enforcement. This policy supports fostering adherence to environmental laws [Para 4].
 

Civil Law - Recovery of Dues – Burden of Proof – Absence of Proof of Service – Invoice Terms Prevail – Payment Liability Affirmed - The appellant argued non-delivery of courier consignments and failure to provide proof of delivery absolved payment obligations – Respondent claimed proof was to be provided only upon request per invoice terms, which was never sought – Courts held the respondent discharged the initial burden by producing invoices and other evidence, while appellant failed to prove service deficiency or request for proof – Liability affirmed for unpaid invoices with interest [Paras 1-8, 17-19, 28-30].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Scope of Section 100 CPC - Appellant sought interference with concurrent factual findings citing procedural and evidentiary flaws – Held: High Court interference under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law; no perversity or material irregularity in findings demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-25, 36-37].

Electronic Evidence – Section 65B of Evidence Act – Compliance Essential – Documents Excluded - Appellant produced an email alleging undelivered packages but failed to comply with Section 65B certification requirements – Trial Court rightfully excluded the email, and appellant could not rely on it to prove claims [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Trial Court and First Appellate Court decrees affirmed. Appellant directed to pay the outstanding amount of ₹1,76,128/- with interest at 12% per annum from the invoice date until realization, along with suit costs [Para 38].

Parole – Premature Release Pending Governor’s Decision – Granted – Petitioner, serving life imprisonment, sought release on parole pending the Governor’s decision on premature release – Court relied on Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where premature release policies were deemed applicable without arbitrary delays – Held: Parole granted for 90 days to prevent undue incarceration during pendency of the Governor’s decision [Paras 10-15].

Premature Release Policies – Timely Processing by Committees Mandated – Advisory Committee recommended premature release, yet the final decision was delayed – Court directed the Life Convicts Release Committee to meet bi-monthly to expedite pending applications, following Rashidul Jafar principles – Held: Delay in convening meetings cannot deny eligible convicts their rights under remission policies [Paras 12-13].

Parole Conditions – Accountability and Conduct – Court imposed conditions for parole: no involvement in criminal activities and liberty to seek extension if required – Directed jail authorities to communicate compliance via electronic means [Para 18].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The petitioner was granted parole for 90 days, with liberty to seek an extension. The court directed the respondents to ensure the parole conditions were complied with and ordered the Registry to communicate the decision electronically to the jail authorities.