Bail Application – Regular Bail in Multiple FIRs – Petitioner seeks regular bail in four FIRs (No. 42/2019, No. 33/2019, No. 10/2019, and No. 43/2019) under IPC Sections 420/406/120B related to allegations of cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust by Amrapali Group's directors in residential projects – Charges yet to be framed. [Para 1, 3, 4]

Allegations and Investigations – Accusations of stalled or incomplete residential projects despite payment by homebuyers – Misrepresentation of obtaining requisite permissions – Financial irregularities highlighted through ROC data and forensic audit ordered by the Supreme Court. [Para 2, 5, 7]

Applicant's Role and Arrests – Applicant, a director in accused companies with limited involvement in financial affairs – Arrest dates in respective FIRs detailed – Chargesheets filed, but charges not framed. [Para 6, 8, 9, 13, 18]

Legal Proceedings and Bail History of Applicant – Regular bail granted in other FIRs – Cooperative conduct in investigations – Prior judicial custody since 9th October 2018 in other FIRs. [Para 12, 16, 17]

Supreme Court's Involvement and Asset Recovery – Supreme Court overseeing project completion and homebuyer possession – Recovery of Rs. 8.36 crores from applicant and family as per Supreme Court order. [Para 21, 22]

Bail Considerations and Principles – Documentary nature of evidence reduces risk of tampering – Bail viewed as a rule, not exception, emphasizing personal liberty and right to speedy trial. [Para 23, 25, 26, 27]

Decision and Bail Conditions – Bail granted with conditions including Rs. 1,00,000/- bond, court appearance, investigation cooperation, and no contact with witnesses or involvement in criminal activities. [Para 27, 28, 29, 30]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 37(1) Appeal – Challenge against order passed by ADJ dismissing application under Section 34 of A&C Act – Appeal dismissed, affirming Sole Arbitrator’s award. [Para 1, 6, 25]

Arbitration Agreement – Enforcement and interpretation – Arbitrator’s jurisdiction encompassed disputes arising from all relevant invoices and bills, despite initial notices referencing a limited period – Arbitrator’s interpretation upheld. [Para 16-23]

Contractual Dispute – Claim for outstanding payments and interest on supplies between parties – Arbitrator’s calculation of dues based on running account and mutual agreements – Appellant’s challenge on invoices considered beyond the scope of arbitration, dismissed. [Para 2, 4, 5, 22]

Arbitration Award – Assessment of interest on outstanding amount – Award of 7.5% p.a. simple interest from due date to realization date, justified and upheld. [Para 5, 14, 24]

Legal Principles – Scope of judicial interference in arbitration awards – Limited to ensuring no patent illegality or decision beyond the scope of submission – Court upholds principle of minimal interference in arbitral awards. [Para 12-14, 17, 24]

Decision – Dismissal of appeal against ADJ’s order – Sole Arbitrator’s award on disputes of payment and interest, upheld in entirety. [Para 25, 26]

Bail Application – Medical Grounds – Petitioner’s Daughter’s Mental Health: Petitioner seeks interim bail due to his daughter’s mental health condition, particularly Paranoid Schizophrenia and suicidal tendencies. Recent incidents of acute anxiety and suicidal behavior by the daughter cited as grounds for bail. [Para 1-4]

Respondent’s Argument – Enforcement Directorate (ED): ED opposes the bail application. Emphasizes that the daughter’s medical supervision does not necessitate the petitioner’s presence. References petitioner’s past conduct, including frequent changes of mobile phones, to argue against bail. [Para 5]

Court’s Analysis and Decision: The Court recognizes the mental health struggles of the petitioner’s daughter but notes the availability of her mother and other relatives for support. Acknowledges the importance of familial support for the child but considers the petitioner’s criminal involvement and ongoing judicial custody. Denies interim bail but allows video conferencing between petitioner and his daughter for emotional support. [Paras 6-19]

Final Order: Interim bail application denied. Directions given for video conferencing between petitioner and daughter. Court acknowledges the psychological impact on the child and the need for parental support but balances it against the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner. [Paras 16-20]

Contempt of Court – Civil Contempt – Alleged disobedience of final order and decree in C.S. (Comm.) No. 182/2017 – Petitioner company seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for non-compliance with settlement agreement – Contempt not established due to financial constraints of respondents. [Para 1-17]

Lease Agreement – Non-payment of Rent – Lease agreement expired, but respondent company continued possession on a month-to-month basis – Claim for arrears of rent and interest due to non-payment since October 2015. [Para 2-3]

Settlement Agreement – Compliance – Allegation of respondents’ failure to vacate premises and pay outstanding dues as per settlement agreement – Respondents vacated premises late and failed to honor payment commitments due to financial difficulties. [Para 4-7, 15-16]

Respondents’ Financial Position – Impact on Compliance – Respondents’ financial difficulties acknowledged – Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against respondent company impacting ability to comply with settlement terms. [Para 9, 15]

Judicial Analysis – Determination of Wilfulness in Contempt – Examination of whether non-compliance was willful – Factors considered include respondents’ understanding of obligations, financial situation, and legal proceedings. [Para 11-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Contempt Petition – Non-compliance attributed to compelling financial circumstances of respondents – Petition for initiation of contempt proceedings dismissed. [Para 16-17]

Railways Act, 1989 – Compensation Claim – Train Accident Death – Appeal against dismissal of compensation claim by Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) – Deceased died in train accident, appellant sought compensation under Section 23 of the Railways Act, 1989. [Para 1]

Evidence and Witnesses – Credibility of witnesses in proving deceased was a bona fide train passenger – RCT's dismissal based on disbelief of witness' testimony, but High Court found testimony credible and consistent. [Para 3, 7-12]

Contradiction in Testimony – Apparent contradictions in testimony regarding deceased's luggage – High Court noted these contradictions were not decisive to defeat the claim. [Para 12]

Post-Mortem Report – Injuries consistent with accidental fall from train – Post-mortem report confirmed nature of injuries, supporting claim of untoward incident. [Para 13]

Final Decision – Compensation Awarded – High Court concluded deceased was a bona fide passenger, met with an untoward incident as defined in The Railways Act – Compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs with 9% interest per annum from incident date awarded. [Para 14-15]

Directive to Railway Claims Tribunal – RCT directed to deposit compensation within four weeks, failing which interest would accrue from judgment date. [Para 16]

Decision – RCT's judgment set aside, appeal allowed, and compensation awarded to appellant. [Para 15-17]

Probate of Will - Petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Grant of probate for Will dated 27.09.2012 of late Ms. Kanval Dhillon - Testatrix's Will contested by her sisters (Respondents 2 and 3) - Petitioners (executors) are close friends of the testatrix - Authenticity and validity of the Will challenged due to overwriting and cuttings. [Para 1-3]

Testamentary Suit - Issues regarding the authenticity and legal validity of the Will - Consideration of whether the Will, as propounded by the petitioners, is the last valid Will of the deceased - Examination of the impact of factual mistakes, cutting, overwriting, and other alleged suspicious circumstances on the validity of the Will. [Para 5]

Evidence and Witness Testimony - Analysis of evidence presented by petitioners and respondents - Examination of seven witnesses by petitioners, including themselves and the attesting witness - Respondents' counter-evidence through six witnesses, including family friends and domestic help - Testimony of Ms. Seema Bansal (PW4), the attesting witness, crucial in establishing the execution of the Will. [Para 6-7]

Legal Arguments and Court's Analysis - Detailed discussion of legal submissions by counsel for both parties - Consideration of legal principles and precedents regarding execution and attestation of Wills - Court's interpretation of Section 63 of the Succession Act and the requirement of the testator's acknowledgment of the Will's execution - Evaluation of the mental state and intentions of the testatrix at the time of Will execution. [Para 8-23]

Decision on Probate - Court's conclusion on the validity of the Will in its original form - Disregard of unsigned cuttings and overwriting as per Section 71 of the Succession Act - Grant of Letters of Administration to the petitioners with respect to the Will dated 27.09.2012 of late Ms. Kanval Dhillon, subject to necessary legal formalities. [Para 24-36]

Judicial Reasoning - Emphasis on the intention and mental state of the testatrix - Recognition of the testatrix’s sound mind during Will execution - Analysis of the relationships between the testatrix, petitioners, and respondents - Acknowledgment of minor changes in the Will as not impacting its overall validity and intent. [Para 17, 22, 32-34]

Education – Implementation of 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission (CPC) in Private Unaided and Minority Schools – Private unaided schools, including minority schools, directed to implement 6th and 7th CPC recommendations for staff salaries and benefits. Compliance with Section 10 of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 (DSE) mandated, ensuring salaries and benefits are on par with government-aided schools. [Paras 49-57, 158-172]

Constitutional Rights – Minority Educational Institutions – Minority unaided schools bound by Section 10 of DSE – Required to provide salaries and benefits to staff equivalent to those in government-aided schools, notwithstanding minority status. [Paras 150-170]

Administrative Law – High-Powered Committee Establishment – Formation of Zonal and Central level committees for overseeing and ensuring implementation of CPC recommendations in private unaided schools, addressing staff grievances regarding pay and arrears. [Paras 200-206]

Delay and Laches – Claims for Arrears – Staff claims for arrears based on Pay Commission recommendations not barred by delay or laches – Schools responsible for timely implementation and payment irrespective of claim timing. [Paras 173-182, 186-191]

Decision – Mandate for private unaided and minority schools to adhere to Pay Commission recommendations – Establishment of committees for streamlined implementation and redressal of staff grievances. [Paras 202-206, 208]

Validity of Tax Assessment on a Social Club Under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996 – Challenge to the order by Delhi Gymkhana Club regarding tax assessment for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996 – Club argued based on principles of mutuality and its status as a not-for-profit company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 – Held, the club falls within the ambit of "establishment" and "hotelier" as defined in the Act, thus liable for luxury tax as per Section 3. [Para 1, 2, 3, 11]

Impact of Amendments in the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 2012 on Assessment – Examination of the Act's provisions pre and post the 2012 Amendment – Noted that the amendment expanded the scope of establishments liable for luxury tax but did not directly affect the club's liability for the assessment years in question – The principle of mutuality not applicable due to the club's provision of residential accommodation. [Para 4, 16, 17, 19]

Principles of Mutuality and Applicability to Tax Levies – Reference to Supreme Court decisions on the doctrine of mutuality in relation to club activities and tax levies – Observations on the difference in context and statutory provisions between the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act and cases cited – Held, principles of mutuality inapplicable to the club's case for the assessment years under consideration. [Para 22, 23]

Conclusion and Implications for Future Assessments – The Court upheld the Commissioner's order for the assessment periods FY 2009-10 to 2011-12, noting the specific statutory provisions applicable during those years – Emphasized that this decision should not be treated as a precedent for periods post the 2012 Amendment Act. [Para 25, 26]

Decision – Delhi Gymkhana Club's challenge to the tax assessment under the Delhi Tax on Luxuries Act, 1996, dismissed – Club held liable for luxury tax for FYs 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 – Observations made regarding the non-applicability of mutuality principles and impact of the 2012 Amendment Act limited to the assessment years in question. [Para 26]

Income Tax – Reassessment proceedings under Section 148 – Challenge against issuance of notice for reassessment – Impugned notice based on ‘reason to believe’ that income had escaped assessment – Writ petition filed against proceedings. [Paras 1-6]

Income Tax Return – Filing and processing of return – Return for Assessment Year 2011-12 processed under Section 143(1) – Subsequent issuance of notice under Section 148 after six years and nine months. [Paras 4-6]

Assessing Officer’s Duties – ‘Reason to believe’ for reassessment – Failure to furnish reasons alongside notice – Petitioner’s request for ‘reason to believe’ document and subsequent response from AO. [Paras 8-9]

Legal Principles – Reassessment based on ‘reason to believe’ versus ‘reason to suspect’ – Distinction critical for initiating reassessment proceedings – Assessment based on suspicion not sufficient. [Para 17.5]

Procedural Irregularities – Non-disclosure of relevant documents and information by AO – AO’s reliance on information not shared with petitioner – Misalignment of periods in question for reassessment. [Paras 16-17, 17.2-17.3]

Judicial Review – High Court’s examination of reassessment proceedings – Lack of tangible material to support AO’s belief – Quashing of the impugned notice under Section 148. [Paras 18-20]

Decision – Quashing of impugned notice for reassessment under Section 148 – Petition disposed of with no order as to costs. [Paras 20-23]