Bail in Economic Offenses – The court evaluated the petition for regular bail considering the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. It acknowledged the Supreme Court's stance that while the gravity of economic offenses warrants sensitivity, it does not justify an automatic denial of bail. The court emphasized the need to balance the liberty of the individual against the interests of justice and the state's position​​.

Triple Test for Bail – The court applied the triple test: (i) whether the accused is a flight risk, (ii) whether the accused will tamper with evidence if granted bail, and (iii) whether the accused could influence witnesses if granted bail. The court found no substantial risk under these criteria warranting continued detention​​.

Comparative Analysis – The petitioner sought parity with a co-accused who was granted bail earlier. The court recognized that denying bail to one while granting it to another under similar circumstances would be unjust. Therefore, it allowed bail for the petitioner on parity grounds​​.

Legislative Framework – The petitioner's counsel argued that the offenses related to tax evasion under the Haryana VAT Act, a self-contained code excluding IPC provisions. The court noted that such arguments, though relevant, do not preclude the grant of bail, particularly when investigation and charge-sheets have been filed, reducing the risk of tampering with evidence​​.

Decision:Petition allowed. The petitioner is granted regular bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. The court imposed conditions including the surrender of the passport, maintaining contact details, and refraining from altering any documents or business structures under investigation​​.

Civil Procedure – Return of Unmarked Documents – Dispute on Impounding Documents for Insufficiency of Stamp Duty and Registration – The petitioner, after the dismissal of her suit for a permanent injunction (O.S.No.181 of 2024), sought the return of unmarked documents which the trial court refused due to insufficiency of stamp duty and lack of registration. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh examined precedents governing the return and impounding of such documents. [Paras 1-3, 18-19].

Legal Principles – Impounding of Documents – Application of Stamp and Registration Acts – The court reviewed various judgments to determine if unmarked, improperly stamped, or unregistered documents could be returned to the parties without impounding. It was concluded that documents not tendered in evidence could not be impounded and should be returned, as their impounding only arises at the stage of marking documents as exhibits during trial. [Paras 5-17].

Decision – Allowing the Civil Revision Petition – Held: The Court directed the return of the documents listed in I.A.No.704 of 2023 to the petitioner, overruling the trial court’s decision. This decision was supported by a conjoint reading of Sections 35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act and relevant case law indicating that the duty to impound arises only when documents are tendered in evidence. [Paras 18-20].

Arbitration Law – Application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Dispute over service contract and recovery of dues – High Court dismissed the application for lack of formal notice invoking arbitration – Requirements under the contract for arbitration notice not fulfilled by the applicant [Paras 1, 7-10].

Contractual Obligations – Requirements for initiating arbitration under the contract – Discussion on the necessity of a formal notice as per the contract terms before invoking arbitration – Emphasis on compliance with the contractual procedure for dispute resolution before seeking judicial intervention [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Legal Procedure – Importance of following contractual dispute resolution mechanisms – High Court emphasizes adherence to the precise terms of the contract regarding dispute notices and initiation of arbitration – Application dismissed due to procedural non-compliance by the applicant [Paras 6, 7, 10].

Decision – Dismissal of Arbitration Application – Held – The application for arbitration is dismissed due to the applicant's failure to comply with the procedural requirements stipulated in the contract for initiating arbitration, specifically the absence of a formal notice invoking arbitration clause post-dispute notice period [Para 10].

Service Law - Regularization of Service – Food Corporation of India – Appeal against regularization order – Petitioner employed since 1986 on various temporary and contingent bases, performing duties without full-time status or proper pay scale – Single Judge directed regularization as Safaiwala/housekeeping staff from 06.09.2002, with all benefits – Appellant’s contentions regarding lack of full-time status and post for regularization rejected by court due to long-term service extraction and significant duties performed by respondent [Paras 2-20].

Employment Law – Requirement for Regularization – Qualifications and Age – Court dismisses Corporation’s argument against regularization based on respondent’s age and educational qualifications (only completed 5^th standard) – Regulations allow age relaxation and do not require high qualifications for the respondent’s role – Court criticizes Corporation for not acting sooner and for ignoring previous court mandates and government policy directives on regularization [Paras 13-19].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court’s decision. The High Court concluded that the petitioner’s service merited regularization based on her substantial and sustained contributions to the respondent corporation. The court noted the lack of justification for opposing regularization and mandated compliance with regularization norms to uphold the dignity and rights of long-serving employees [Para 22].

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Validity of Marriage – Appeal challenging the Family Court's decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favor of the respondent – Appellant contended that no marriage took place and that the respondent's claims were fabricated – Respondent provided evidence of marriage through testimonies and documents – Trial court found the marriage to be valid – High Court upheld the Family Court's decision based on consistent and credible evidence supporting the respondent's claims – Appellant's arguments regarding non-maintainability and lack of valid marriage were rejected [Paras 1-40, 100-110].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Allegation of Non-Marriage – Appellant's denial of marriage contradicted by respondent's detailed evidence including marriage certificate, witnesses' testimonies, and photographs – High Court emphasized the importance of examining all evidence in matrimonial disputes – Family Court's reliance on consistent testimonies and documentary evidence deemed appropriate – Appellant's failure to provide credible rebuttal noted [Paras 50-90].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the Family Court, Bhagalpur, affirmed. Appellant directed to restore conjugal rights with the respondent as per the decree.

Administrative Law – Maternity Leave Entitlement – Interpretation of Maternity Leave Regulations – Challenge to rejection of maternity leave for having more than two surviving children – Whether the condition of having less than two surviving children at the time of application applies to children born before employment with respondent – Rejection based on Airports Authority of India Leave Regulations 2003 [Paras 2-6, 10-14].

Constitutional Law – Interpretation of Statutory Benefits under Article 42 – Application of Article 42 in granting maternity benefits – Judicial interpretation ensuring just, humane conditions of work and maternity relief under Article 42 – Review of administrative action denying maternity benefits under constitutional mandates [Paras 12, 16, 22-23].

Decision – Allowance of Maternity Leave – Held – Conditions of Airports Authority of India (Leave) Regulations 2003, specifying less than two surviving children, do not apply to children born prior to the employment with Respondent No.2 – Maternity benefits granted for child born post-employment – Communication denying benefits quashed and set aside – Respondents directed to grant maternity benefits for delivery on 3rd September 2012 [Paras 14, 23-24].

Maintenance Law – Maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC – Enhancement and Cancellation of Maintenance – Application for cancellation of maintenance by husband rejected by Family Court – Application for enhancement of maintenance by wife allowed by Family Court – Husband challenged Family Court’s decision in High Court – High Court examined evidence and confirmed Family Court’s decision to enhance maintenance – High Court upheld the order considering the husband’s capacity to pay and the needs of the wife and son, despite wife’s employment – Revision application dismissed with costs and directions to award interest on arrears of maintenance [Paras 1-13].

Evidence Evaluation – High Court found no material change in circumstances justifying cancellation of maintenance – Wife’s employment did not exonerate husband from paying maintenance – Court rejected husband’s claim of wife using false name and fabricating documents – Name change after marriage considered customary and not fraudulent – Court upheld enhanced maintenance considering cost of living, educational expenses, and husband's substantial income [Paras 4-11].

Decision – Dismissal of Revision Application – Held – The revision application challenging two proceedings of maintenance is dismissed as non-maintainable – High Court found no perversity or impropriety in Family Court’s judgment – Costs imposed on husband for filing meritless revision application – Direction given to award interest on arrears of maintenance to ensure timely payment – Judgment to be circulated among District Judiciary of Maharashtra to set precedent for awarding interest on maintenance [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Unlawful Detention and Bail - Illegal Detention – Detention beyond 24 hours without justification – Petitioner detained for 13 hours beyond statutory limit – Contradictory affidavits from respondents explaining delay – Justifications for delay found to be prima facie unconvincing and an afterthought – Court emphasized the importance of prompt production before a magistrate to avoid misuse of detention powers – Petitioner’s cooperation and prior compliance with investigations noted – Interim bail granted pending final hearing [Paras 1-7].

Procedural Irregularities – Delay in production before magistrate – Respondents' affidavits reveal process took excessive time – Court criticized overnight detention under guise of recording statements – Detention deemed arbitrary and high-handed – Detention practices condemned as they impact individual liberty and reputation [Paras 3, 5].

Decision – Interim Bail Granted – Petitioner granted interim bail on a cash bond of Rs.25,000 for six weeks – Requirement to furnish PR Bond and sureties within six weeks – Next hearing scheduled for 24th June 2024 – Court emphasized the necessity for judicial oversight to prevent misuse of detention by authorities [Paras 7-9].

Income Tax – Search and Seizure – Section 132 of the Income Tax Act – Petitioners challenged the legality of search and seizure actions – Alleged lack of proper authorization and absence of valid information – High Court held that the reasons for the search must be based on valid and reliable information – Satisfaction note found to lack proper foundation – Search and seizure actions quashed – Revenue allowed to use any information gathered in appropriate proceedings. [Paras 1-27]

Search and Seizure – Validity of Authorisation – Section 132(1) of Income Tax Act – Requirements of reasonable belief and possession of valid information not met – Search conducted without proper jurisdiction – Authorisation and subsequent actions quashed – Court emphasises need for due process and adherence to legal safeguards. [Paras 18-24]

Judicial Review – Administrative Actions – Section 132 of Income Tax Act – Court’s role in reviewing administrative decisions related to search and seizure – Emphasis on ensuring administrative actions are based on valid and verified information – Protection against arbitrary use of power. [Paras 16-20]

Decision:

Held: Writ petitions allowed – Search and seizure actions under Section 132 quashed – All consequent actions and notices set aside – Revenue permitted to use information gathered in lawful proceedings. [Para 24-27]