Central Excise – Refund Claims – Appellant sought refund of Central Excise Duty for supplies made under International Competitive Bidding (ICB) deemed exports scheme – Refund claims initially filed with DGFT, then redirected to Central Excise Authorities following Notification dated 18.04.2013 – Claims partly rejected by lower authorities as time-barred under Section 11B – Appeals allowed, setting aside CESTAT order rejecting claims as time-barred – Held, period spent before DGFT to be excluded from limitation calculation [Paras 1-21].

Limitation Act – Applicability to Quasi-Judicial Authorities – Reference made to Supreme Court ruling in “M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise” (2017) regarding applicability of Limitation Act, 1963, to quasi-judicial authorities – Held, time spent pursuing remedy before wrong forum to be excluded from limitation period [Paras 17-19].

Relevant Notifications – Notification dated 18.04.2013 amended FTP, shifting refund jurisdiction from DGFT to Central Excise Authorities – Clarified that refunds for supplies against ICB should be filed with Central Excise – Held, applications made within one year from 18.04.2013 deemed timely [Paras 7, 20].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – CESTAT order dated 01.07.2016 set aside – Directed respondents to release refund of Rs. 21,09,929/- with interest under Section 11BB within six weeks [Para 21].
 

Labour Law – Preliminary Issues – Domestic Enquiry – Petitioner’s application to decide the issue of violation of principles of natural justice in domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue rejected by the Labour Court – Petitioner argued that this issue should be decided first as it is critical for the adjudication process – Labour Court and respondent opposed, stating it requires evidence and should be decided simultaneously with other issues – Held, Labour Court erred in rejecting application – Issue of natural justice should be addressed as a preliminary issue [Paras 1-14].

Supreme Court Precedents – Shankar Chakravarti vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd & Another – M.L. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank – Kurukshetra University vs. Prithvi Singh – Established principle that issue of natural justice must be decided as a preliminary issue before proceeding with other matters – Labour Court's order rejecting application quashed – Directed to decide preliminary issue first [Paras 7-13].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order dated 18.11.2023 passed by Labour Court quashed – Labour Court directed to decide the issue of natural justice as a preliminary issue – Parties to avoid unnecessary adjournments – Labour Court to expedite the adjudication process [Para 14].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise of Power under Article 226 – Discretionary Nature – Rule of Self-Imposed Limitation – High Court’s power to issue certiorari for legality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety – Not barred by statutory remedy if fundamental rights violation or public policy at stake [Paras 7-8].

Building Plan Sanction – Requirement of Registered Agreement – Sanction Plan for Ratan Heights over 86 Kathas – Revision without authority’s approval – False representation in L.S. Case No. 39 of 2009 – Illegal new building plan over 46 Kathas quashed – Violations of FAR and ground coverage norms – Directions for demolition upheld [Paras 10-12, 63-67].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Effect on Legal Proceedings – Orders obtained by fraud – Proceedings in L.S. Case No. 39 of 2009 vitiated – Fraudulent revised map – Reference to “Ram Chandra Singh” and “Lazarus Estates Ltd.” – Fraud unravels all judicial acts [Paras 15, 67].

Common Areas and Facilities – Definition under Jharkhand Apartment Ownership Act – Rights of Flat Owners – Earmarking of 46 Kathas for common facilities – Undivided interest cannot be altered without written consent of all flat owners – Infringement of residents’ rights by unauthorized construction [Paras 12, 63-64].

Demolition and Safety – Imminent Threat to Residents – Structural integrity compromised – Evaluation by Director (Technical), MECON – Directions to demolish unsafe constructions justified – Pre-violation protection under Article 21 [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Writ court’s directions upheld – Sanction plan over 86 Kathas for common facilities maintained – Unauthorized construction over 46 Kathas to be demolished – Landowners and new builder directed to restore area for common use [Paras 16].
 

Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – Petition by father seeking custody of minor child born while mother resided at her maternal home – Court finds no evidence of illegal custody by mother – Mother’s custody of child presumed lawful in absence of material suggesting illegal alteration of custody – Court emphasizes welfare of child as paramount consideration in such cases [Paras 1-27].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope and Limitations – Habeas corpus petitions in child custody matters are to be entertained only when custody is illegal or without authority – Court highlights extraordinary nature of writ and necessity for exceptional circumstances to change custody from mother to another person, including the father – Detailed inquiry required for disputed facts may be directed to appropriate legal forum [Paras 9-24].

Visitation Rights – Court notes petitioner's claim for visitation rights but dismisses habeas corpus petition – Petitioner not precluded from pursuing guardianship, custody, and visitation rights through proper statutory proceedings [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – Custody of minor child with mother deemed lawful – Petitioner (father) advised to seek substantive statutory remedy for guardianship and visitation rights [Paras 26-27].

Service Law – Recruitment Rules – The court upheld the validity of the recruitment process for Industrial Training Instructors under the Rules of 2018. The petitioners' challenge based on the non-publication of these rules in the official gazette at the time of the advertisement was rejected, as the rules did not impose penalties or compliance obligations on citizens and were meant to regulate service terms [Paras 16-25].

CITS Qualification – Desirable vs. Mandatory – The court ruled that the CITS qualification is a desirable, not mandatory, requirement for Trade Instructors, aligning with executive instructions under Article 73 of the Constitution. The court recognized the equivalence of regular and RPL CITS, directing the state to consider both streams equally in the selection process [Paras 13-15, 30-32].

Weightage for Contractual Employees – The court found the weightage given to contractual employees in the selection process to be justified and did not extend the same benefit to Short Term/Guest Lecturers, noting the distinct nature of their appointments [Paras 28-29].

Decision:

Writ petitions partly allowed – The court permitted RPL CITS to be considered equivalent to regular CITS but rejected other grounds raised by the petitioners. The state was directed to complete the selection and appointment process, incorporating the court's directions [Para 32].

Preventive Detention – Validity of Detention Order – Petition challenging the detention order under Section 3 of the PITNDPS Act on grounds of non-provision of translated documents and non-application of mind – Court held that the petitioner was provided with the detention documents in the language understood by him and explained by the Executing Officer – No merit found in the contention regarding the non-application of mind as the detaining authority considered only the relevant FIRs [Paras 1-10].

Preventive Detention – Link between Incidents and Detention – Contention that there is no live and proximate link between the alleged activities and the detention order – Court found that the petitioner’s continuous involvement in illicit trafficking from 2011 to 2023, with specific reliance on three recent FIRs, justified the detention order – Bail not a sufficient measure to curb illegal activities [Paras 2, 6-7, 10-12].

Preventive Detention – Challenge to Bail Orders – Argument that respondents should have challenged bail instead of detaining petitioner – Court observed that ordinary law was insufficient as the petitioner continued illicit activities despite bail, supporting the necessity for preventive detention under PITNDPS Act [Paras 10-11].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Detention order upheld – Petitioner’s continuous involvement in illicit drug trafficking justified preventive detention, rendering ordinary criminal proceedings inadequate [Para 13].

Mining Lease – Cancellation and Forfeiture – The court upheld the cancellation of the “In Principal Sanction Order” for the mining lease and the forfeiture of the deposited amounts due to non-compliance with the terms of the tender and delays in obtaining necessary clearances. The petitioner’s failure to execute the lease deed within the stipulated time and the ongoing illegal mining activities on the site were critical factors [Paras 21-26, 30-36].

Impossibility and Frustration of Contract – The court considered the doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, ruling that the disappearance of the motorable road and illegal mining activities did not render the contract impossible or void, as the petitioner did not take timely action to address these issues [Paras 37-39].

Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection – The court emphasized the balance between economic development and environmental protection, directing the state to implement measures to prevent illegal mining and maintain sustainable development in mining activities, in line with Articles 48A and 51A of the Constitution [Paras 27-29, 40-42].

Decision:

Writ Petition dismissed – The court affirmed the cancellation of the “In Principal Sanction Order” and the forfeiture of deposits, instructing the state to take measures against illegal mining and ensure the restoration of necessary infrastructure to support mining activities [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Procedure – Recalling of Witness – Application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to recall a minor victim in a POCSO case – Special Court under POCSO Act rejected the application citing Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act – Petitioner’s counsel contends no absolute bar exists and cites various judgments to support the argument that recall of the victim can be permitted for fair trial [Paras 2-4].

Section 33(5) of POCSO Act – Bar on Repeated Summoning – The Act ensures the child is not called repeatedly to testify to prevent harassment – Balancing of rights under Section 33(5) POCSO Act and Section 311 Cr.P.C. is necessary – Cross-examination is a valuable right of the accused and non-cross-examination can lead to prejudice [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Precedents – Referenced judgments establish no absolute bar under Section 33(5) POCSO Act for recalling victim witnesses – Consideration of the victim’s age and necessity of cross-examination for the defense – Emphasis on ensuring justice and preventing miscarriage of justice [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The Court found no merit in recalling P.W.6 as the proposed questions were already addressed during previous cross-examinations – Dismissal does not preclude recalling other relevant witnesses – Emphasis on the statutory bar and necessity to prevent undue harassment of the victim [Paras 5-6].

Property Law – Declaration of Sale Deed and Will – The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a sale deed executed in 1959 and a Will executed in 1999 were null and void. The trial court had dismissed the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claims, the suit was barred by limitation, and the possession of the defendants was lawful. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing the lack of evidence for fraud and the failure to exercise due diligence by the plaintiffs [Paras 1-106].

Limitation and Fraud – Discovery and Due Diligence – The court held that the plaintiffs had sufficient time from the execution of the sale deed in 1959 and the death of Shri H.R. Chopra in 1967 to discover any alleged fraud. The plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence to inspect or challenge the sale deed and did not act within the prescribed period of limitation. The doctrine of laches applied, barring the suit due to the plaintiffs' inaction [Paras 78-81].

Evidence – Admissibility and Proof – The court examined the evidence presented, including the testimonies and documents. It found that the references to Shri H.R. Chopra in the sale deed and the subsequent use of the property by Shri S.N. Chopra did not substantiate the plaintiffs' claims of fraud or wrongful possession. The trial court's findings on issues of possession, title, and validity of documents were affirmed [Paras 54-94].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed. The trial court's judgment and decree were upheld, and all 12 issues framed were settled correctly. The plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation, and they failed to prove their claims of fraud and entitlement to the property [Paras 105-106].