Bail Application – NDPS Act – Petitioner seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC for alleged violation of NDPS Act – Commercial quantity of contraband involved – Previous criminal history considered. [Para 1-4, 7-8]

Judicial Discretion in Bail – Criminal History Relevance – Criminal history to include only cases with convictions or pending FIRs where accused is arraigned – Acquittals, discharges, quashed FIRs, withdrawn prosecutions, or closed cases not to be included. [Para 6]

Bail Conditions – NDPS Act – Rigorous Section 37 NDPS Act requires satisfaction of twin conditions for bail – Need for substantial probable cause for believing accused is not guilty – Role of the court in assessing the likelihood of the accused not committing the offence while on bail. [Para 11-12]

Disclosure Statements – Reliability and Admissibility – Skepticism over reliance solely on disclosure statements for implicating accused – Reference to Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu regarding inadmissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act. [Para 10, 14]

Bail Granted – Stringent Conditions Imposed – Petitioner granted bail subject to multiple stringent conditions, including personal bond, surety, restrictions on SIM cards, and surrender of weapons – Conditions tailored to prevent recurrence of offence and ensure trial attendance. [Para 13, 15-26]

Bail Order – Dynamic Applicability – Provisions for adjusting bond amount and modifying bail conditions in case of changed circumstances or hardship to the petitioner – Ensuring balance between individual rights and trial fairness. [Para 28]

Challenge to Order Declining Rejection of Plaint – The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint for recovery of Rs. 19,20,000 due to initial insufficiency of court-fee and alleged delay in making up the deficiency, contending the claim became time-barred – Original plaint filed with Rs. 50 court-fee, with a promise to pay the remaining Rs. 47,550 later – The trial court declined the rejection. [Paras 1-2]

Submission of Court-Fee – The plaintiff filed the required court-fee on 02.08.2023, after the initial insufficiency – This act was in response to the defendant's application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, arguing the required court-fee was Rs. 1,00,100 and the delay rendered the suit time-barred. [Paras 2, 4]

Application of Section 149 CPC – Even though the plaintiff didn’t specify the legal provision under which the additional court-fee was submitted, the action aligns with Section 149 CPC – The Supreme Court's precedent suggests that non-mentioning of a specific legal provision doesn’t invalidate an action if the jurisdiction to act is established. [Para 5]

Provision of Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Clauses (b) and (c) address rejection of plaints for court-fee issues – The plaintiff's submission of the deficit court-fee prior to any court order for correction negates the grounds for plaint rejection under these clauses. [Para 6]

Maintainability of Revision-Petition – The Supreme Court in Sri Rathnavarmaraja vs. Smt. Vimla observed that the issue of proper court-fee is primarily between the plaintiff and the State – The defendant does not have the right to appeal or seek revision against the order regarding court-fee payment. [Para 7]

Precedents' Applicability – Cited judgments (P.K. Palanisamy and K.C. Skaria) don’t support the defendant’s position – The plaintiff did not seek an amendment to increase the claim, nor was such an increase evidenced during the trial, differentiating from the circumstances in K.C. Skaria. [Para 8]

Decision: Revision-petition dismissed due to lack of illegality, irregularity, infirmity, or perversity in the impugned order.

Petition for Quashing Complaint and Proceedings – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners challenging Complaint No.1368 of 2014 and related orders for alleged tax evasion under Sections 276C and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Argument of petitioners centered on no evasion of tax, only delayed payment with interest [Paras 1, 10].

Facts of the Case – Assessment Year 2012-13 – Petitioner No.1, a company, filed income tax return with self-assessment of tax pending – Tax paid with interest after the due date – Prosecution initiated for alleged tax evasion [Paras 2-8].

Legal Contentions – Petitioner's Argument: No willful evasion of tax, only delay in payment – Relied on judgments to argue that delay in tax payment does not amount to evasion – Respondent’s Argument: Willful evasion of tax, causing loss to the department [Paras 10-11].

Legal Analysis and Precedents – Examination of Section 276C of the Act – Reference to various High Court judgments emphasizing that delayed tax payment does not constitute tax evasion if the tax is ultimately paid [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Complaint and Proceedings Quashed – Court finds no evasion of tax, only delayed payment with interest – Held that delayed payment does not amount to tax evasion as per settled legal principles – Complaint No.1368 of 2014, order dated 20.08.2018, order dated 06.09.2018, and all consequential proceedings quashed [Para 16].

Criminal Law - SCST Act – Acquittal -  Factual Background and Conviction by Trial Court – Hari Singh was convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act for insulting Dhanna Singh, a person of Scheduled Caste, during a panchayat meeting on 20.07.2000 – Conviction based on statements from PW1, PW2, and PW3, who alleged derogatory caste-related remarks were made by the appellant and others – Trial court sentenced the appellant to six months rigorous imprisonment with a fine. [Para 1, 2, 5, 14]

Appeal Grounds and Contentions – Appellant claimed false implication, delay in complaint filing, lack of independent corroboration, and argued that the witnesses were biased or unreliable – Challenged the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses and highlighted absence of independent corroboration. [Paras 16, 17]

High Court's Analysis and Decision – Acquittal - High Court observed lack of evidence to prove appellant used caste-related derogatory remarks – Noted inconsistencies and lack of independent corroboration in witness testimonies – Found delay in filing complaint unexplained – Acquitted appellant due to failure of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. [Paras 20-24]

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Civil Revision Petition – Challenging order of Senior Civil Judge in mutual consent divorce petition under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 – Petition returned for want of jurisdiction – Petitioner and respondent, belonging to Lambada Scheduled Tribe, contending their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu customs. [Paras 1-4]

Applicability of Hindu Marriage Act to Scheduled Tribes – Examination of Section 2(2) of the Act – Non-applicability to members of any Scheduled Tribe unless directed by Central Government notification – Article 366 of Constitution defining Scheduled Tribes – Consideration of whether Hindu customs followed by Scheduled Tribe members bring them under the Act’s purview. [Paras 11, 12, 20, 23]

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Supreme Court and High Court judgments on applicability of Hindu Marriage Act to Scheduled Tribes following Hindu customs – Emphasis on parties being substantially Hinduised. [Paras 14, 16, 17, 26]

Decision – Civil Revision Petition allowed – Impugned order set aside – Trial Court directed to number the petition and decide in accordance with the law considering the material on record – No general opinion expressed on applicability of Section 2(2) of the Act to Scheduled Tribes; to be decided based on facts and circumstances of each case. [Paras 27-30]

Specific Performance and Execution Proceedings – Rejection of Application to Deposit Balance Sale Consideration – Petitioner's challenge against the order of the Executing Court, which dismissed his application for depositing balance sale consideration in a specific performance case. [Paras 2, 5-6]

Closure of Execution Proceedings – Executing Court closed execution proceedings temporarily due to non-effective steps by the decree holder, with liberty to reopen after obtaining Commissioner's report. [Para 2]

Application under Section 151 of CPC – Filed by decree holder for permission to deposit balance sale consideration. Executing Court dismissed the application as it was filed without reopening the case. [Paras 2, 5]

High Court's Consideration – Whether rejection of the application by the Executing Court was just and proper. [Para 4]

High Court’s Decision – Order of Executing Court set aside. High Court directed that upon application for reopening the execution proceedings, the Executing Court should accept the application and pass appropriate orders for reopening the case and accepting the balance sale consideration amount. [Paras 6-8]

Suspension Order and Employee Rights – Appeal against temporary injunction preventing the appellant from obstructing the respondent's office work – Challenge to the legality of the suspension order issued by the appellant organization – Alleged procedural irregularities and bias in suspension proceedings. [Paras 2-5, 20-23, 26-27, 29-31, 33-34, 36-37, 39, 43-44, 46-47, 49]

Appellant's Contentions – Appellant argued that suspension followed due process, supported by organizational bye-laws, and was not a punishment but a necessary step for disciplinary proceedings – Reliance on various judicial precedents to justify suspension order's validity. [Paras 6-14, 40-42]

Respondent's Arguments – Respondent contended suspension was without proper authorization and lacked procedural fairness – Alleged absence of board authorization for the suspension, with subsequent ratification being void – Emphasized the need for reasonable opportunity to respond to allegations. [Paras 20-25, 43, 45]

Court Analysis – Detailed examination of organizational bye-laws and personnel policies – Consideration of the factual matrix, including immediate responses to memos, and the absence of prior documentation of misconduct – Determination that suspension lacked adequate procedural justification, appeared pre-determined, and lacked immediate ratification. [Paras 28-31, 33-34, 36-38, 43-44, 46-48]

Judgment – Appeal dismissed, upholding the Trial Court's decision granting temporary injunction – Direction to appellant to pay subsistence allowance to respondent in accordance with law. [Para 49]

Common Issues in Two Petitions – Consolidated Order – Common Issue regarding the validity of the selection process for LPG distributorship – Facts primarily drawn from CWP-9511-2018. [Para 1]

Selection Process for LPG Distributorship – Advertisement and Guidelines – Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Corporation) Advertisement (2013) – Withdrawal and reissue of advertisement – Petitioner and respondent No.4's participation – Lease deed and selection of respondent No.4 – Cancellation and reinstatement of respondent No.4's selection based on various guidelines and instructions from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. [Paras 2, 5-8, 10-12, 14-15]

Eligibility and Land Lease Criteria – Lease Deed Validity – Respondent No.4 as Sole Lessee – Requirement of notarized affidavits from co-owners (lessors) of the leased land – Misreading of guidelines by petitioner – Respondent No.4's compliance with brochure requirements. [Paras 9, 11]

Guidelines of March 2015 – Applicability and Curable Deficiencies – Acceptance of NOC Post-Application – Guidelines declaring certain deficiencies as curable – 'NOC' from co-owners considered a curable defect – Respondent No.4 cured defect before Field Verification Check (FVC). [Paras 14-15]

Mortgage of Leased Land – No Breach of Guidelines – Alternative Land Offered – Respondent No.4’s lease deed not invalidated by prior land mortgage – Acceptance of alternative land by IOC for LPG godown. [Para 16]

Decision – Dismissal of both petitions – Respondent No.4's selection for LPG distributorship upheld – Petitions dismissed based on proper application of relevant guidelines and absence of procedural impropriety. [Para 17]

Summoning of Additional Accused - Challenge against the summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners in a case of alleged assault and death - FIR registered for various offenses including murder, rioting, and criminal conspiracy - Petitioners exonerated in initial investigation but summoned based on complainant's statement. [Paras 1-2]

Investigation and Final Report – The investigating agency, after thorough investigation, exonerated the petitioners, submitting a final report against other accused - Complainant's application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning additional accused accepted by trial court - Present criminal revision petition filed against this order. [Para 3]

Legal Arguments and Precedents – Petitioners' counsel argued against the sustainability of summoning order in absence of cogent evidence - Reliance on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the necessity of strong evidence for summoning additional accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - Response by complainant's counsel highlighting prima facie satisfaction for summoning and reliance on Supreme Court judgment for interpretation of 'evidence' under Section 319 Cr.P.C. [Paras 3-4]

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Examination of the complainant's statement in trial court revealed reiteration of FIR contents without specific role attribution to petitioners - No substantial new evidence against petitioners in trial - Trial court's duty to evaluate material against persons sought to be summoned - High Court set aside summoning order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for lack of credible material against petitioners. [Paras 6-9]

Principle Upheld – Power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and extraordinary, to be exercised on the basis of material available during trial - Absence of credible evidence against a person sought to be summoned warrants non-exercise of this power. [Paras 7-9]

Decision: Impugned summoning order dated 02.06.2022 set aside; petition allowed.