Promotion Eligibility – Kerala Water Authority Assistant Engineers – Determination of eligibility for further promotion based on entry quota (Degree or Diploma) for Assistant Engineers. Assessment of legal validity of Ext.P12 Final Seniority List including Diploma holders for further promotion. [Para 1-4, 13-14]

Kerala Public Health Engineering Service Rules – Analysis of Special Rules for Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service and Service Special Rules. Examination of appointment methods and qualification requirements for Assistant Engineers and their impact on promotions. [Para 3-3.10, 11-13]

Seniority and Promotion Dispute – Assistant Engineers in Kerala Water Authority – Conflict between directly recruited Assistant Engineers (Degree quota) and promoted Assistant Engineers (Diploma quota) over seniority and promotion rights. Examination of rules governing promotions to higher posts based on initial recruitment quota. [Para 4-5, 13-14]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Division Bench and Single Judge decisions in similar cases. Application of established legal principles to the current dispute over promotion and seniority among Assistant Engineers in Kerala Water Authority. [Para 15-17]

Decision – Invalidity of including Diploma quota promotees in Degree quota seniority list for further promotions. Directive to recast Ext.P17 promotion order and seniority lists in accordance with established rules and precedents. Dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 27817/2023 and allowance of W.P.(C) No. 5277/2023. [Para 18-19

Kidnapping for Ransom – Conviction of Two Accused Upheld, One Acquitted – Appellants Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh convicted for kidnapping minor for ransom – Prabhjot Singh acquitted due to insufficient evidence – Victim kidnapped on 18.01.2014, recovery and arrest details substantiated – Conviction under Sections 364-A and 365 read with Section 120-B IPC upheld for Sukhjinder and Sukhdev, but acquitted under Section 25 of Arms Act. [Paras 11, 31-34]

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Inconsistent Testimonies and Unproven Allegations – Inconsistencies in witnesses' testimonies regarding kidnappers' identity and role – Victim's inconsistent statements about kidnappers – Insufficient evidence to link Prabhjot Singh to the kidnapping, leading to his acquittal. [Paras 16-28]

Phone Surveillance and Ransom Demands – Establishing Kidnapping for Ransom – Phone surveillance and recorded calls used to establish ransom demands – Expert testimony and call records implicated Sukhjinder Singh in ransom negotiation – Victim's recovery from custody of Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh corroborates kidnapping for ransom. [Paras 32-34]

Acquittal of Accused under Arms Act – Lack of credible evidence linking Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh to illegal possession of firearms – Acquitted under Section 25 of Arms Act, but conviction for kidnapping upheld. [Paras 29, 35]

Decision – Prabhjot Singh acquitted due to lack of convincing evidence – Sukhjinder Singh and Sukhdev Singh's convictions for kidnapping upheld, but acquitted of Arms Act charges – Appeals of Sukhjinder and Sukhdev partly allowed, Prabhjot's appeal fully allowed. [Para 35]

Petitioner’s Appointment and Subsequent Cancellation – Petitioner appointed as Patwari following advertisement dated 17.1.2020 – Appointment cancelled due to past criminal convictions revealed during police verification – Petitioner convicted in two cases under IPC sections 147, 149, 447, 323, 325 but given probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. [Para 1-2]

Legal Challenge to Cancellation – Petitioner argued that mere conviction should not be a disqualification for appointment, citing the Rajasthan Revenue (Land Records, Settlement and Colonization) Subordinate Service Rules, 1970 – Relied on Supreme Court judgments in Pramod Singh Kirar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. and Ashok Ram Parhad & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Para 3]

Respondents’ Defence – Respondents cited circulars by the Department of Personnel, specifying ineligibility for government service for candidates with certain offences – Referenced a similar case (Bhinya Ram Jajra Vs. State of Rajasthan) where the court upheld the employer's right to consider suitability for employment based on government orders/instructions/rules. [Para 4]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – The Court referenced guidelines from Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case regarding the employment of candidates with criminal antecedents – Concluded that the petitioner’s past offences fall within the prohibited categories as per the circulars dated 15.7.2016 and 4.12.2019 – Upheld the respondents' decision to cancel the petitioner's appointment. [Para 5-7]

Bribery and Misconduct Allegation – Acquittal of Doddi Narasimha Rao, Tap Inspector, Guntur – Accused of demanding a bribe for installing a water tap connection. State alleged offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Key witness, PW1, turned hostile, altering the prosecution’s narrative. [Paras 3, 4, 14-15]

Evidence and Witness Credibility – Hostile witness PW1 altered testimony, affecting the credibility of the prosecution’s case. PW2 and PW3’s testimonies, cited as post-trap incident witnesses, did not support the prosecution’s version. Recovery of tainted money from the accused not conclusively linked to bribery demand. [Paras 14-15, 17, 20-21]

Presumption Under Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 20 – Prosecution failed to establish foundational facts necessary to invoke presumption of guilt under Section 20. The Supreme Court’s precedent in Neeraj Dutta v. State emphasized the need for foundational facts for presumption applicability. [Para 21]

Judicial Reasoning and Decision – Appeal dismissed, confirming the acquittal judgment of the Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada. The court found the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent. [Paras 22-23]

Criminal Procedure Law – Non-Bailable Warrants – Improper Issuance – Trial Court issued NBWs against petitioner for late appearance on the same day – Petitioner reached court post-first call due to traffic caused by political rally – Application for cancellation of NBWs filed the same day but rejected later – Held: Issuance of NBWs on first call unjustified, especially where presence was later marked – Orders dated 03.01.2023 and 17.01.2023 set aside [Paras 1, 8–9].

Judicial Discipline – Ignoring Binding Precedents – High Court noted a disturbing trend of Trial Courts issuing coercive process in disregard of settled legal position and earlier judgments – Warned against mechanical issuance of NBWs without due consideration [Para 10].

Guidelines – Issuance and Cancellation of Warrants – In exercise of inherent powers, High Court laid down procedural safeguards to guide Trial Courts in issuing NBWs, stressing restraint, discretion, and written reasoning in exceptional cases – Directions include: NBWs not to be issued pre-lunch on first call, appearance through advocate to be respected, prompt consideration of cancellation applications, and record-based justification for coercive steps [Para 12].

Judicial Administration – Directions to Subordinate Courts – Order directed to be circulated to all Principal District and Sessions Judges in Delhi for compliance by all criminal Trial Courts [Para 13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Orders dated 03.01.2023 (NBW issuance) and 17.01.2023 (rejection of cancellation) quashed – Guidelines issued to Trial Courts on issuance and cancellation of warrants.

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process – Associate Decor Limited – Challenge to the minutes of the 22^nd Committee of Creditors meeting for being non est and illegal – Petitioner contending inadequate notice period for Committee of Creditors’ meeting contrary to Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 19 of the IBBI Regulations. [Paras 3, 7, 9, 13-15]

Notice Requirements and Legal Provisions – Insufficiency in notice period for the Committee of Creditors meeting – Section 24 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and Regulation 19 of the IBBI Regulations necessitate a minimum notice period, reducible to 24 hours – Inadequate notice rendering the meeting and its resolutions unsustainable and non est. [Paras 14-15]

Resolution Professional Conduct – Allegations against the resolution professional’s conduct in the insolvency resolution process – Petitioner’s claims of hurried proceedings and erroneous information memorandum – Court reserving the petitioner’s liberty to file a complaint with the IBBI under Section 196 of the Code. [Paras 15-16]

Reconsideration of Restructuring Proposal – Directive for the Committee of Creditors to reconsider the petitioner’s restructuring proposal under Section 12A of the Code in light of the quashed resolutions. [Para 17]

Decision – Writ petition allowed in part – Resolutions of the 19^th Committee of Creditors meeting dated 11-02-2020 and the minutes of the 22^nd meeting dated 21-12-2022 quashed – Petitioner granted liberty to file a complaint with the IBBI – Committee of Creditors directed to reconsider the restructuring proposal. [Paras 18(i)-(vi)]

Input Tax Credit & Special Rebate under KVAT Act – Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2012-13 – Petitioners, rubber dealers, entitled to input tax credit and special rebate under Sections 11 and 12 of KVAT Act for tax paid on local rubber purchases. [Para 2]

Exemption Notifications and Inter-State Sales – Notification under Section 8(5) of CST Act exempting natural rubber from CST – Impact on input tax credit for inter-state sales exempted from tax under 3^rd proviso to Section 11(3) and Section 12(1) of KVAT Act. [Paras 3, 7]

Assessment Authority’s View – Disallowance of input tax credit and special rebate for inter-state sales of exempted goods under Annexures-I and II notifications, despite actual payment of CST under Section 8(1) of CST Act. [Para 3]

Appellate Tribunal Decision – Adjustment of CST paid on inter-state sales against demands raised due to disallowance of input tax credit, based on Annexure-VII notification clarifying the optionality of Annexures-I and II notifications. [Para 4]

High Court Judgment – Disposal of revisions without modification, affirming Tribunal’s limited relief. Exemption notifications not optional in statutory context, affecting input tax credit entitlement. Questions of law answered against assesses and in favor of Revenue. [Para 7]

Bail Application – Regular Bail under Section 439 Cr.PC – Petitioner charged under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Recovery of contraband – Allegation of non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner's claim of false implication – First-time offender – Lengthy custody period – Reference to Supreme Court judgments on bail in similar cases [Para 1-9]

Bail – Consideration of bail in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act – Recovery of commercial quantity of contraband – Substantial compliance with Section 37 – Importance of Article 21 (right to a speedy trial) – Grant of bail without expressing views on merits of the case – Conditions imposed on petitioner's release [Para 8-12]

Registration of Rice Mill - Petitioner seeks setting aside of order rejecting its application for final registration of rice mill - Petitioner purchased mill in auction and applied for allotment of paddy - Respondent rejected registration on the ground of inadequate land size - Petitioner claims to have obtained additional land on lease - Court examines relevant policy and instructions. [Para 1-3]

Ownership of Land - Instructions state that a new mill should be established on own land and cannot be on leased land - Petitioner purchased mill along with land in public auction - Court finds no dispute regarding ownership of the land - Petitioner is having sufficient plant and machinery - Policy allows rice millers to obtain land on lease within 4 kilometers. [Para 7-8]

Allocation of Paddy - Respondent had previously allotted paddy to the petitioner from 2017 to 2022 - Claim rejected based on instructions dated 13.08.2013 - Court considers the time-sensitive nature of the paddy allocation - Directs the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's claim for paddy allotment within two weeks. [Para 9-10]

Decision - Court orders the respondent to reconsider the petitioner's claim for paddy allotment based on the petitioner's ownership of land and compliance with policy provisions regarding additional leased land - Needful to be done within two weeks. [Para 11]