Jurisdiction - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Remittance for re-adjudication - Challenge to the order disposing of the Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner - Allegation of non-receipt of notice due to retrospective cancellation of GST registration - High Court finds merit in petitioner's contention and sets aside the impugned order - Matter remitted to Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petitioner directed to file reply within 30 days - Fresh speaking order to be passed by Proper Officer after affording personal hearing - Compliance with statutory provisions mandated. [Paras 1-8]

Cancellation of GST Registration - Effect on Notice Issuance - Retrospective cancellation rendering petitioner unable to access portal - Impugned order passed without consideration of cancellation effect - High Court holds impugned order unsustainable - Compliance with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness emphasized. [Paras 5-6]

Multiple Proceedings - Issuance of Second Show Cause Notice - Directorate General of Goods and Services Intelligence, Ghaziabad Regional Unit issues separate notice for the same tax period - Court clarifies that disposal of present petition is without prejudice to proceedings initiated by said unit - Rights and defenses of petitioner preserved. [Para 9]

Notification Challenge - Notification No. 9 of 2023 - Initial extension of time - Challenge left open by the Court - No consideration or comment made on merits of contentions - Parties' rights and contentions reserved. [Paras 10-11]

Disposal of Petition - Petition disposed of with directions for re-adjudication - Compliance with statutory provisions mandated - High Court retains jurisdiction over unresolved notification challenge - All rights and contentions of parties reserved. [Para 12]

Extradition Proceedings – Appointment of Advocate for Prosecution – Petition by Samsung Gulf Electronics, FZE seeking the appointment of an advocate for prosecuting the extradition request of Sukhmeet Singh Anand in Spain – Respondent authorities directed to appoint an advocate to assist in extradition proceedings. [Paras 1-18]

Representation in Foreign Legal Proceedings – Analysis – Court considers the necessity of effective legal representation in extradition proceedings in Spain – Emphasizes on the right of the petitioner to assist the prosecution, as permitted by the Indian trial court – Highlights the duty of respondent authorities to ensure effective legal pursuit of the extradition request, noting previous denial due to alleged inadequate representation. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Directs Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Delhi Police) to seek the appointment of an advocate for extradition proceedings – Consideration for appointment at the petitioner's expense – Ministry of External Affairs to communicate the decision to Spanish authorities – Ensures compliance with established legal rights and international legal norms. [Para 17]

FIR and Allegations – FIR No. 0135/2018 under Sections 420, 409 IPC against petitioner Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi, Director of M/s Karuturi Global Limited, for failing to fulfill agreements with the Government of Djibouti and misappropriating funds – Petitioner accused of non-performance and diversion of funds meant for land development in Ethiopia [Para 2].

Petitioner’s Submissions – Argued transactions were bonafide, with losses incurred due to natural calamities (2011-2012 floods in Ethiopia) invoking Force Majeure – Asserted that part of funds was returned and rest utilized for project purposes – Mentioned email correspondence and invoices supporting his claims – Raised issue of delayed prosecution and absence of arbitration or civil proceedings by the complainant [Paras 3-9].

Respondent’s Counter – Emphasized seriousness of economic offence and petitioner’s alleged fraudulent intent – Cited witnesses’ statements to refute petitioner’s claims of fulfilling contractual obligations – Argued against bail, citing potential for evidence tampering and highlighting previous refusal of bail [Paras 13-17].

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Acknowledged completion of investigation, awaited sanction for prosecution under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. – Noted health condition of petitioner and absence of prior offenses – Granted bail considering these factors and likelihood of non-tampering with evidence, subject to conditions including bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and restrictions on travel and communication [Paras 18-32].

Injunction Suit - Boundary Wall Dispute and Litigation Tactics – Petitioners challenged the trial court’s refusal to direct the respondent to restore a boundary wall to its original height post unauthorized alterations during a pending suit – The respondent initially secured an ex parte interim order allowing repairs but not height alteration, violated this by raising the wall height and then withdrew the suit strategically [Paras 2, 10-14, 23-24].

Misapplication of Procedural Rights – Respondent withdrew the suit without providing notice to the petitioners, exploiting the procedural lapse to avoid challenge on the unauthorized construction – Petitioners’ subsequent application for restoration dismissed by the trial court, raising issues of procedural fairness and judicial oversight [Paras 5, 13, 22-25].

Restoration and Restitution under CPC – Application of Section 144 CPC on the principle of restitution, ensuring no party benefits unjustly from the court’s processes – High Court criticized trial court’s failure to address the equity and factual matrix, leading to substantial miscarriage of justice [Paras 16-18, 25-26].

Supervisory Jurisdiction Exercised – High Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, setting aside the trial court’s order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on restoration of status quo ante [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Remanded for fresh consideration on restoration of status quo ante – Trial court directed to proceed expeditiously with the matter, ensuring fair hearing to both parties [Para 28].

Misconduct and Disciplinary Action – Petitioner faced charges of unauthorized absence, misbehaviour, and irregularities, leading to suspension and disciplinary action including barring of increments – Original application to KAT challenging the penalty imposed was dismissed. [Paras 2, 3]

Judicial Review of Tribunal's Order – Petitioner sought High Court intervention under Article 227 of the Constitution – Argued that KAT and respondents ignored previous orders (Annexures A12, A14) absolving him of certain charges, and that the penalty was harsh and procedurally flawed. [Paras 5, 7]

Respondents' Stance – Respondents countered that petitioner did not adhere to stipulated conditions in previous orders and failed to contest multiple other charges – Argued procedural correctness of enquiry and imposition of penalty. [Paras 3, 8]

High Court's Assessment – HC found no violation of natural justice as petitioner didn't participate in enquiry despite notices – Tribunal's decision viewed as just, and petitioner's charges uncontroverted – Penalty deemed proportionate considering the gravity of repeated misconduct. [Paras 12, 13]

Conclusion – HC refrained from interfering with Tribunal's order under Article 227 as it did not find any significant legal or procedural error justifying such intervention – OP (KAT) dismissed, no costs. [Para 13]

Quashing of FIR and Direction for CBI Investigation – Writ Petition – Allegations of Forgery and Trespass – Petitioner seeks direction to entrust investigation to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Petitioner alleges repeated threats and inducements by real estate group to widen road adjacent to his property – Suit filed by petitioner pending consideration before Court with interim injunction – Wife of petitioner files complaint alleging forgery and loss – FIRs registered but petitioner alleges improper investigation – Court examines final reports of related FIRs – Finds incomplete investigation and allegations against Investigating Officer – Directs fair investigation by District Crime Branch – Petition allowed accordingly. [Para 1-15]

Forgery Allegations and Trespass – Investigation – Allegations of forgery and trespass against real estate group and Panchayat Authorities – Complaints filed by petitioner and his wife – Alleged inclusion of petitioner's property in Panchayat's asset register without consent – Suit filed by petitioner with interim injunction against conversion of property into road – Allegations not properly probed, no forensic analysis of documents – Investigation deemed incomplete, further probe by independent agency ordered. [Para 13-14]

Direction for Investigation by District Crime Branch – Fair Probe – Final reports of related FIRs examined – Court finds deficiencies in investigation, including incomplete probe and allegations against Investigating Officer – Orders fair investigation by District Crime Branch into allegations against petitioner and related complaints – Directs immediate transfer of investigation from Edathala Police Station to District Crime Branch. [Para 15]

Conviction and Sentence Challenge – Appellant Thankappan convicted under Section 8(1) and (2) of Kerala Abkari Act for possessing 750 ml arrack – Sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,00,000, with additional 3 months imprisonment in default of fine payment – [Para 2]

Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Trial court examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exhibits P1 to P7, Mos 1 and 2 – PWs 1 and 2 turned hostile, not corroborating prosecution's version – Key evidence from PW3, the Sub Inspector, lacked details on seal's nature used on contraband and sample bottles [Paras 3-4, 7-8]

Procedural Lapses in Evidence Handling – Critique on absence of seal impression in seizure mahazar (Exhibit P1), property list (Exhibit P5), and forwarding note (Exhibit P6) – Delay in property and sample submission to court, raising concerns about sample integrity and chain of custody [Paras 6, 9-11]

Precedent Reference – Citation of Sasidharan v. State of Kerala [2007(1) KLT 720] highlighting the necessity for tamper-proof dispatch and sample integrity for prosecution – Link evidence requirement to prove offence unmet by prosecution [Para 10]

Acquittal and Release – Due to failure in establishing tamper-proof collection and dispatch of sample, appellant/accused granted benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence by trial court set aside – Appellant acquitted and released, bail bond cancelled [Para 12]

Decision: Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted and released; conviction and sentence set aside.

Acquittal – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) – Criminal Appeal against Special Court, Bathinda's judgment convicting under Sections 21 and 22 NDPS Act – High Court sets aside conviction – Finds prosecution's case unconvincing and lacking substantial proof – Highlights flaws in prosecution’s presentation and handling of evidence – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and involvement of independent witness – Held, stringent punishment demands stricter proof – Accused acquitted of all charges. [Paras 9-20]

Recovery of Contraband – Analysis – Prosecution alleged recovery of Methamphetamine and Codeine from appellants – Independent witness negates prosecution’s claim of recovery in his presence – Doubts raised over the credibility of police's version and handling of evidence – High Court finds prosecution's story implausible, particularly with regard to two persons carrying a bag of minor weight jointly – Appellants acquitted due to lack of convincing evidence. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants – High Court observes that prosecution failed to establish a convincing case beyond reasonable doubt – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and inconsistencies in testimonies – Emphasizes the need for stricter proof in cases involving stringent penalties – Conviction under Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges. [Para 19-20]

Delay in filing written statement - Strike off of defence - Civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Petition filed by defendants seeking to set aside order striking off their defence for failure to file written statement within 90 days - Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.15,96,501/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. - Defendants alleged to have good family and business relations with plaintiff - Plaintiff issued cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- to defendants for expansion of their business - Defendants failed to file written statement within stipulated period, resulting in ex parte proceedings - Defendants sought setting aside of ex parte order, which was allowed - However, defendants again failed to file written statement within extended period, leading to striking off of their defence - Defendants challenged said order in revision petition - Held, provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC regarding filing of written statement are directory, not mandatory - Court possesses discretion to condone delay in filing written statement, particularly in non-commercial disputes - Ends of justice served by condoning delay subject to payment of costs - Defendants granted one more opportunity to file written statement - Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside subject to payment of costs - Defendants directed to file written statement within specified time frame, failing which no further opportunity shall be granted - Plaintiff entitled to seek recalling of order if valid grounds presented - Petition disposed accordingly.