Tender Process – Evaluation of Technical Bid – Clause 21.5 of ITB – Petitioner’s bid declared L1 after a lottery draw – Bid subsequently cancelled due to alleged submission of a false tax invoice for a “Wet Mix Plant” – Clause 21.5 only applicable during technical evaluation, not after financial bid opening – Cancellation deemed arbitrary and without proper verification – Principles of natural justice violated by lack of opportunity for petitioner to defend against allegations [Paras 1-11].

Cancellation of Bid – False Document Allegations – Petitioner accused of submitting a fake tax invoice – Allegations based on an email from the alleged supplier denying issuance of the invoice – Supplier’s email not authenticated during proceedings – Authority’s action found to be unjustified and lacking legal scrutiny – Decision to cancel bid quashed for procedural irregularities and failure to provide a fair hearing [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Cancellation of bid under Clause 21.5 of ITB found to be erroneous – Authority’s order quashed – Emphasized need for proper verification and adherence to natural justice in tender evaluations [Para 12].
 

Rent Enhancement – Fair Rent Assessment – Petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s order directing payment of enhanced fair rent and current rent – Contention that the Tribunal granted final relief on an interlocutory application and erroneously applied precedents without factual alignment – Order set aside and directions issued for proper assessment by the Tribunal [Paras 1-56].

Lease Expiry and Tenancy Rights – Examined the validity of tenants’ rights post-lease expiry – Issue of whether tenants can claim rent after lease expiry – Noted that final relief on interlocutory application is improper, emphasizing the need for fair procedural conduct [Paras 30-53].

Interlocutory Relief – Enforcement of Orders Pending Appeal – Discussion on the propriety of enforcing orders under appeal through interlocutory applications – Highlighted the significance of not rendering appeals ineffective by granting final relief prematurely – Directed deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs and continued rent payments under specified conditions [Paras 50-55].

Costs Imposition – Justification and Reasonableness – Reviewed the basis for imposing substantial costs – Emphasized need for clear justification and special circumstances for imposing high costs – Adjusted costs to a reasonable amount considering the conduct of the petitioners [Paras 41-43].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders of the learned Tribunal set aside – Directed petitioners to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs with the Tribunal and continue paying rent at Rs. 5000 per month – Costs imposed at Rs. 20,000 – Mandated expeditious disposal of original applications by the Tribunal [Paras 54-55].
 

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 52A(2) – Bail Application – Appellant convicted for possession of 610 gms of smack under Section 8(C) read with 21(c) of the NDPS Act. Bail application based on alleged non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 52A(2) of the Act, which requires the presence of a Magistrate during the sampling and certification of seized contraband – Appellant argued that non-compliance vitiated the trial, making conviction unsustainable – Respondent claimed compliance with procedural requirements – Court found prima facie non-compliance with Section 52A(2), warranting bail [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Custody and Sentence – Non-compliance Impact – Appellant in judicial custody since the date of conviction (30.08.2022) and sentenced to 15 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 – Appellant argued that almost three years in custody and procedural lapses in the trial justified bail – Court granted bail without expressing final opinion on appeal’s merits, emphasizing that bail decisions do not affect the final outcome of the appeal [Paras 4-15].

Decision – Bail Granted – Bail application allowed – Appellant to be released on executing personal bond and two sureties – Observations made are for bail application disposal only, without affecting the criminal appeal’s merits – Listed for final hearing in due course [Paras 13-16].
 

Income Tax – Characterization of Receipts – Settlement Agreement – Rs. 32.42 crores received by ITC from ELEL under a settlement agreement related to disputes over a hotel operating license agreement – Issue of whether the sum is capital or revenue receipt – ITAT held it as a long-term capital gain – High Court reversed, determining it as a revenue receipt, taxable as business income [Paras 1-32].

Licenses and Trading Contracts – Legal Nature – Examination of the operating license agreement dated May 3, 1986, between ITC and ELEL – Agreement found to be a trading contract with no right, title, or interest conferred on ITC – Termination and subsequent settlement considered part of ITC’s ordinary business activities – Held that the sum received is a revenue receipt [Paras 14-21].

Evidentiary Considerations – Treatment of Receipts – Analysis of the purpose and nature of the settlement payment – Reliance on precedents distinguishing capital from revenue receipts – Court concluded that the settlement was compensation for the termination of a trading contract, thus revenue in nature [Paras 24-29].

Legal Precedents – Application of Judicial Principles – Cited Supreme Court judgments to distinguish between capital and revenue receipts – Compensation related to trading operations generally considered revenue receipts unless related to loss of a source of income – Settlement for termination of trading contracts treated as revenue receipts [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – ITAT’s finding reversed – Rs. 32.42 crores held to be revenue receipt and taxable accordingly – High Court’s judgment upheld [Para 32].
 

Trusts and Estates – Development Agreement – Originating Summons for Opinion – Plaintiff sought court’s opinion on executing a Development Agreement concerning Raghunath Chatterjee Street property for the benefit of deities – Agreement to include adult male descendants as confirming parties – Court affirmed benefit for deities and consent from family members – Deities’ safety considered paramount, proposals for property development approved [Paras 1-20].

Maintenance and Security of Deities – Funds Insufficiency – Plaintiff highlighted financial challenges in maintaining properties and deities – Proposal by defendant no. 13 for property development included financial benefits for deities and allocation of ground floor – Court approved proposals ensuring safety and upliftment of deities, considering current financial state and property conditions [Paras 7-19].

Procedural Aspects – Compliance with KMC Regulations – Court directed compliance with Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) rules for property development – Proposals modified in accordance with FAR and permissible construction area – Court emphasized adherence to municipal guidelines and proper planning [Paras 13-20].

Decision: CSOS 1 of 2023 disposed of – Court affirmed the benefit of executing Development Agreement for deities – Approved proposals ensuring deities’ safety and financial upliftment – Confirming parties from family directed to join Agreement [Para 21].
 

Bail – Discretion of Court – Judicial Custody and Completion of Investigation – Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the accused, Dr. Efthickar Ahamed, who has been in judicial custody for 45 days, with the investigation completed and the final report filed – Supreme Court precedents emphasize bail as the rule and jail as the exception, with a focus on Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Antecedents – Impact on Bail Decision – Prosecution’s opposition based on accused’s involvement in a similar crime – Court acknowledges previous criminal antecedents but stresses the completion of investigation and lack of need for further detention – Bail granted subject to conditions to ensure no further offenses and no tampering with evidence [Paras 4-6, 11].

Right to Bail – Constitutional Perspective – Court references Supreme Court decisions underscoring the right to bail as integral to personal liberty under Article 21 – Emphasizes that once the charge sheet is filed, continued detention requires strong justification – Accused’s continued detention deemed unnecessary post-investigation [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioner directed to be released on executing a bond with two solvent sureties – Specific conditions imposed to ensure appearance before the investigating officer, prevent inducement or threat to witnesses, prohibit further offenses, and restrict movement within certain areas [Paras 11-12].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 and 139 – Dishonour of Cheque –

Petitioner sought to file appeal against acquittal of respondent – Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between petitioner and respondent involving business transaction – Cheque issued by respondent towards part-payment of legally enforceable debt – Dishonour of cheque due to “Stop Payment” instruction – Petitioner argued failure of respondent to rebut presumption under Section 139 of the Act – Respondent claimed payments made to petitioner were not credited – Court emphasized that grant of leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is not a matter of routine, must be on just and equitable basis.

Criminal Procedure – Appeal against Acquittal – Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. –

Grant of leave to appeal is discretionary – Requires careful scrutiny of materials – Presumption of innocence in favour of acquitted person – Petitioner failed to demonstrate perversity or miscarriage of justice in trial court’s findings – In absence of legally enforceable debt for entire cheque amount, Section 138 not attracted – Petition dismissed.

Decision:

Criminal Original Petition dismissed – No infirmities warranting interference with acquittal – Criminal appeal rejected at the SR stage itself [Paras 1-25].

Trusteeship Removal – Grounds of Removal – The appellant was removed from his position as hereditary trustee due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, unauthorized leasing of temple properties, improper handling of property registers, and unauthorized collection of donations for temple renovations. The court found that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these charges, justifying his removal [Paras 1-26].

Preparation and Maintenance of Property Registers – The appellant omitted certain properties from the new property register and failed to submit the old property register, violating Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records and the statutory obligations under the Act [Paras 10-16].

Unauthorized Leasing of Properties – The appellant leased out temple properties without the necessary permissions from the Commissioner, violating Section 34 of the Act. The court upheld the respondent’s finding that this constituted a serious breach of trust and justified removal from trusteeship [Paras 17-20].

Improper Collection of Donations – The appellant collected donations without forming a Thiruppani committee and without proper authorization, violating Rules 53 and 56. The court underscored the procedural requirements for collecting donations and the appellant’s failure to comply with them [Paras 21-25].

Decision - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. The order of removal passed by the respondent is upheld, and the appellant’s removal from the position of hereditary trustee is confirmed [Para 26].

Contract Law – Dealer Agreement – Appellant, a public sector oil corporation, introduced digital e-locking and VSAT systems in retail outlets – Imposed monthly and annual charges on the respondent-dealer without explicit consent – Single Judge held such unilateral imposition invalid under dealership agreement terms – Appeal by appellant dismissed – Corporation required to bear installation and maintenance costs as per agreement [Paras 1-16].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – Appellant contended writ petition not maintainable due to arbitration clause – High Court held alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes involving public authorities, relying on Supreme Court precedent – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Responsibility for installing and maintaining e-locking and VSAT systems lies with appellant-corporation – Imposition of charges on respondent-dealer without consent invalid – Writ petition maintainable despite arbitration clause – Costs not awarded – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 13-16].