Refund of Tax – Settlement Scheme – Adjustment of Refund – Petitioner claimed refund of Rs. 10,69,89,606/- for the year 2011-2012 which was adjusted against dues for the year 2010-2011 – Petitioner already paid the dues for 2010-2011 under the Settlement Scheme – Adjustment by Respondents made without authority – High Court ordered refund with interest [Paras 1-20].

Legality of Adjustment Orders – Section 11 of the Settlement Scheme – Rule 55 of MVAT Rules – Respondents’ adjustment of refund after the petitioner’s payment under the Settlement Scheme found illegal – Refund adjustment order quashed – Importance of adherence to statutory provisions emphasized [Paras 9-14].

Interest on Refund – Rule 88 of MVAT Rules – Petitioner entitled to interest on refunded amount from 1^st June 2019 until the date of payment – Court highlighted that state authorities must not retain excess amounts [Para 19].

Decision – Petition allowed – Orders by Respondents set aside – Respondents directed to refund Rs. 10,69,89,606/- with interest at 6% per annum from 1^st June 2019 – Petitioner to provide bank details for refund processing [Para 19].

Pre-arrest Bail – Economic Offences – Judicial Discretion – Petitioners, accused of breach of trust and cheating in granting loans and fixing deposit interests contrary to circulars, sought pre-arrest bail – High Court denied the bail, emphasizing the serious nature of the economic offences and the necessity for custodial interrogation – Court underscored that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be granted sparingly, particularly in complex economic offences with deep-rooted conspiracies [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Principles – Application for Bail – The Court noted that detailed examination of evidence is not required at bail stage, but there should be a prima facie case and consideration of the nature and gravity of the accusations – Reference made to Supreme Court’s guidelines on dealing with economic offences and judicial discretion in bail matters [Paras 9-14].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Held – Custodial interrogation necessary for thorough investigation – Granting bail could impede the investigation and affect public interest adversely [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Corruption – Conviction and Sentencing – Appellant, a clerk, convicted for accepting a bribe of Rs. 2000 to expedite the processing of a telephone PCO booth application – Trial court’s judgment affirmed with modification in sentencing – Sentences under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 upheld – Sentencing reduced from two years to one year due to prolonged trial and appellant’s age [Paras 1-24].

Trap Procedure and Evidence – Verification and Trap – Detailed recounting of pre-trap and post-trap procedures – Phenolphthalein test used to establish acceptance of bribe – Recovery of tainted money corroborated by multiple witnesses – Compliance with procedural requirements confirmed [Paras 11-17.2].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Multiple witnesses including CBI officers and independent witnesses corroborated the prosecution’s case – Defense’s argument of appellant’s absence due to leave disproved by witness testimonies [Paras 9.1-9.12].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity – Prosecution sanction provided by competent authority – Detailed perusal of relevant documents confirmed by General Manager, Dhanbad Circle [Para 18].

Quantum of Sentence – Mitigating Factors – Appellant faced trial for over 23 years – Age of appellant considered – Sentence reduced to minimum one year prescribed under the Act [Paras 20-21.2].

Decision:

Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction Affirmed – Sentence Reduced – Appellant’s bail bonds cancelled – Directed to surrender for serving remaining sentence [Paras 22-24].

Family Pension – Entitlement of Disabled Dependent – Petitioner, suffering from 60% disability, claimed family pension following the death of his mother. His claim was rejected by the Senior Accounts Officer on grounds of his prior ability to run a public call office (PCO). The High Court found the rejection improper, noting the petitioner’s entitlement under the government order dated 20.05.1997. It held that the committee assessing the claim lacked the requisite medical expertise to override the Chief Medical Officer’s disability certificate and emphasized the validity of such certificates unless questioned by a medical board or higher medical authority [Paras 1-12].

Medical Evidence – Validity and Assessment – The committee’s decision, lacking medical expertise, was deemed unsustainable. The court underscored that disability assessments for pension purposes should be conducted by qualified medical professionals and not by administrative officers without medical training [Paras 6-10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed. The rejection order dated 12.11.2020 was set aside. The respondents were directed to grant family pension to the petitioner within one month of the presentation of a certified copy of this order [Paras 12-13].

Civil Procedure – DNA Test – Dispute over parentage – Petitioner challenges trial court order permitting DNA test to determine if respondent is the daughter of Harphool Singh – Petitioner contends respondent consistently claimed to be the daughter of Shiv Dayal in previous litigations – Supreme Court precedents establish DNA test not to be ordered routinely, only when a strong prima facie case exists – Consideration of respondent's privacy and proportionality of the request – Held, trial court order allowing DNA test set aside [Paras 1-11].

Right to Privacy – DNA Testing – Supreme Court rulings emphasize balancing privacy rights against quest for truth – DNA tests should not be ordered lightly; significant evidence already provided by respondent’s previous declarations – Burden of proof lies on the respondent to substantiate her claim of lineage without compelling petitioner for DNA test [Paras 6-10].

Adverse Inference – Refusal of DNA Test – While adverse inference can be drawn from refusal to undergo DNA testing, it must be weighed against existing evidence and context – Courts must avoid routine directives for DNA tests, particularly in absence of strong prima facie case [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned trial court order set aside – Respondent to prove her claim through other cogent evidence – DNA test not warranted based on presented facts and legal standards [Para 11].

Jurisdiction – Commercial Nature of Dispute – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court returned the plaint due to lack of jurisdiction, classifying the dispute as commercial in nature – Petitioner’s application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act dismissed – High Court emphasizes that the suit should be transferred to the appropriate Commercial Court instead of being returned – Orders of the Trial Court set aside and the suit transferred to the Commercial Court for trial from the current stage [Paras 1-23].

Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Exclusion of Time – Petitioner’s application for exclusion of time under Section 14 due to previous proceedings in a court without jurisdiction – High Court allows exclusion of time and mandates consideration of the application by the Commercial Court [Paras 20-23].

Transfer of Suit under Section 24 CPC – High Court exercises power under Section 24 to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure judicial efficiency – Emphasizes that non-compliance with special pleadings can be rectified upon transfer [Paras 20-23].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Impugned orders of the ADJ set aside – Suit transferred to the Court of learned District Judge (Commercial)-02, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, for trial from the current stage – All objections including limitation to be considered by the transferee court – Parties directed to appear before the Commercial Court on 15.07.2024 [Para 23].

Procedural Law – Application and Transition – Savings Clause – FIR registered before the enactment of BNSS, 2023, must be dealt with under the provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973, as per Section 531(2)(a) of BNSS – Petition initially filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was converted to Section 528 BNSS due to a registry objection – High Court clarified that ongoing investigations prior to BNSS enforcement should continue under the old code – Petition treated under Section 482 Cr.P.C. [Paras 2-9].

Investigation Fairness – Legal Remedies – Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with the investigation – Court directed petitioner to seek remedies through Section 36 Cr.P.C. or approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for further investigation – High Court emphasized the need for procedural propriety and exploring all legal avenues before approaching higher judiciary [Paras 10-15].

Decision: Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forums if advised. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of [Paras 15-16].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction Based on Ballistic Evidence – Appellant Wazir Singh challenged his conviction for murder and arms possession – Trial court’s decision upheld based on ballistic expert’s testimony linking the recovered bullet to the appellant’s firearm – Eyewitnesses turned hostile, failing to identify the appellant – The court emphasized the significance of ballistic evidence in establishing the appellant’s guilt despite the witnesses’ hostility [Paras 1-28].

Hostile Witnesses – Impact on Prosecution – Both key eyewitnesses, including the complainant, declared hostile, denying identification of the appellant as the assailant – The court relied heavily on circumstantial and ballistic evidence due to the witnesses’ unreliability – Reinforces that hostility of witnesses does not automatically weaken the prosecution if other substantial evidence supports the case [Paras 10-20].

Ballistic Evidence – Forensic Link – Ballistic expert’s report crucial in confirming that the bullet retrieved from the crime scene matched the revolver recovered from the appellant – Highlights the importance of forensic evidence in criminal trials where direct witness testimony is compromised [Paras 18-20].

Test Identification Parade – Refusal by Accused – Appellant’s refusal to participate in a test identification parade taken as corroborative evidence against him – Court discusses precedent on adverse inferences drawn from such refusals, stressing the need for corroborative material before reaching a verdict [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Appellant’s conviction and sentence upheld – Court finds the forensic evidence and circumstances sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Orders immediate arrest of appellant to serve the remaining sentence [Paras 27-28].

Land Encroachment – Possession Certificate Cancellation – Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their possession certificates for house sites granted by the government and the threat of demolition by state authorities – State respondents argued the certificates were invalid due to a prior civil court decree favoring a third party – High Court ruled cancellation without a hearing violated principles of natural justice – Decree execution should be sought through proper legal channels by the third party [Paras 1-21].

Procedural Fairness – Principles of Natural Justice – Cancellation of possession certificates without prior notice or hearing to the affected parties deemed unlawful – High Court emphasized the necessity of following due process before taking adverse actions impacting civil rights [Paras 20-21].

Interim Orders – Continuation of Status Quo – Interim relief granted to maintain status quo on house sites pending final adjudication – Petitioners allowed to retain possession until lawful eviction or cancellation procedures are followed [Paras 6-7, 19].

Decision: W.P. No. 199 of 2018: Allowed – State respondents directed not to demolish petitioners’ houses on their patta lands without following due process.

W.P. No. 23333 of 2018: Allowed – Notice cancelling possession certificate quashed – State respondents may issue fresh notice after giving opportunity of hearing.