Commercial Taxes – Recovery Notice Challenged: Petitioner challenges recovery notice seeking Rs.11,63,24,233/- for AY 2014-15 and 2015-16, alleging non-receipt of assessment order and issues with electronic filing. [Paras 2-5]

Cyber Crime Allegation and FIR - Allegations of unauthorized use of the petitioner’s login ID, resulting in fraudulent transactions. Complaint registered with the Cyber Crime Cell, leading to an FIR. [Paras 6, 14]

Respondents’ Position: Justification for non-interference with recovery notice. Petitioner’s non-participation in assessment proceedings noted, along with continuation of business under new ID post-GST, and eventual cessation in 2018. [Paras 7-9]

Judicial Analysis and Precedent Reference: Reference to a similar case involving misuse of login ID (W.P.Nos.37044 & 37045 of 2016, M/s.Hansa Enterprises). Direction for investigation by Commercial Tax Officer and Cyber Crime Wing. [Paras 12-13]

Interim Court Orders: Impleadment of Cyber Crime Cell Inspector for investigation. Suspension of revenue recovery pending investigation, with a deadline of 18 months. Asset attachment to continue. [Paras 15-17]

Decision: Writ petition disposed with specific directions for investigation and interim asset attachment. [Para 19]

Criminal Appeal – Homicide – Appellant convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC – Evidence of homicide established – Altered to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to sudden and grave provocation – Sentence reduced to time already served. [Paras 6, 8-12]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Appellant convicted by the trial court for the murder of the deceased with a lathi – Appellant sentenced to life imprisonment and fine, with a default sentence for non-payment. [Para 1]

Murder – Evidence of eye-witness (P.W.8) – Mother of the deceased testified seeing the appellant assault the deceased and the appellant’s wife (P.W.1) suspecting an illicit affair – Evidence corroborated by recovery of the weapon of offense at the appellant's instance. [Para 6, 8-10]

Provocation – Defense contention of grave and sudden provocation – Appellant allegedly witnessed his wife in the company of the deceased in a compromising situation, leading to a loss of self-control and assault – Court considered whether such provocation would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. [Para 11]

Conviction Modified – Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Court found the offense fell under Exception 4, indicating culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside, altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC. [Para 11]

Sentence – Considering the appellant's age, time already spent in custody, and the time elapsed since the offense, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. [Para 11-12]

Appeal – Partially Allowed – Conviction modified, and the appellant sentenced to time served – Directed the trial court to take necessary action based on the judgment. [Para 12]

Dowry Death – Conviction under Section 304-B IPC set aside – Lack of evidence of cruelty or harassment connected with dowry demand – Death within seven years of marriage and under abnormal circumstances established, but no proximate link between cruelty and death. [Para 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

Cruelty – Conviction under Section 498-A IPC upheld – Evidence of cruelty by the appellant towards the deceased, including mental torture, as indicated in the letter Ext.4 written by the deceased to her father. [Para 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]

Marital Dispute – Evidence of domestic problems and assault, but no conclusive proof of dowry-related harassment – Letters and statements fail to establish dowry demand as a motive for cruelty. [Para 5, 6, 7, 8]

Judicial Analysis – Appreciation of circumstantial evidence and letters – Importance of analyzing evidence in its entirety to ascertain the truth in dowry death cases. [Para 8, 9]

Decision – Conviction U/S 304-B set aside  –  found guilty u/s 498-A IPC - Appellant has already served the sentence for the offence under Section 498-A IPC – No further custody required. [Para 10]

Cheque Dishonour – Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Reversal of conviction by the appellate court challenged – Trial court convicted the accused for dishonour of cheque amounting to ₹1,75,000; Appellate court acquitted the accused – High Court finds misappreciation of evidence by appellate court, reinstates trial court's conviction. [Para 1, 18-42]

Delay in Filing Appeal – Condonation of delay in filing appeal – Accused's application for condonation of delay erroneously allowed by the appellate court without proper justification – High Court finds accused's conduct and reasons for delay unjustifiable, reverses appellate court's decision on this point. [Para 16-17, 37]

Presumption Under Section 139 of NI Act – Accused admitted to issuing the cheque in question – High Court observed that once signature on cheque is admitted, presumption under Section 139 is in favour of the complainant – Accused failed to probabilize his defence adequately. [Para 20-27, 31-34]

Appeal Judgment Misappreciation – Appellate court's judgment based on conjectures and surmises – High Court finds that appellate court misread evidence and ignored crucial admissions by accused – Appellate court's judgment set aside. [Para 36, 41]

Sentence Restored – Conduct of the accused considered – High Court finds no infirmity in trial court's order of sentence, thereby restoring the same – Accused directed to surrender within 15 days. [Para 43-44]

Decision – Appellate Court's judgment set aside – Trial Court's conviction and sentence order restored – Accused directed to surrender for serving sentence. [Para 42-44]

Recruitment Process – Eligibility Criteria – Determination of Cut-off Date – The Union Public Service Commission (‘UPSC’) had advertised for recruitment to the post of Principal under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. The advertisement was initially issued on April 24, 2021, with a closing date of May 13, 2021, but was reissued on July 10, 2021, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, with a new closing date of July 29, 2021. The eligibility criteria, however, were to be considered as on May 13, 2021. Respondents contended that eligibility should be determined as of July 29, 2021, in line with the reissued advertisement. [Para 1-5]

Central Administrative Tribunal – Interpretation of Advertisement – The Tribunal, through its order dated May 15, 2023, directed the UPSC to allow the respondents to participate in the selection process, considering the eligibility as of July 29, 2021, based on a clause in the advertisement. The Tribunal found the advertisement self-contradictory regarding the closing date of eligibility criteria. [Para 6-9]

High Court – Review of Tribunal’s Order – The High Court reviewed the Tribunal’s order and the clauses of the advertisement in detail. The Court noted that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the initial advertisement could not be taken forward, and thus it was reissued with only the closing date for receipt of applications changed to July 29, 2021, while other conditions remained unchanged from the initial advertisement dated April 24, 2021. [Para 15-19]

Intent of UPSC – Protection of Eligibility – The Court observed that the intent of the UPSC was to protect the eligibility of candidates as of May 13, 2021, given that some candidates who were eligible on May 13, 2021, might become ineligible by July 29, 2021, due to age or other factors. The Court upheld the UPSC’s determination that eligibility should be considered as of May 13, 2021, and not July 29, 2021. [Para 17-19]

Decision – Setting Aside Tribunal’s Order – The High Court set aside the common order of the Tribunal dated May 15, 2023, thereby upholding the UPSC’s stance of considering eligibility as of May 13, 2021. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the advertisement clauses. [Para 20-26]

Appeal Against Premature Retirement and Pension Denial – Appeal lodged by Punjab National Bank challenging the order of learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petition of the Respondent for release of pension post premature retirement – Dispute surrounds the interpretation and application of Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and Punjab National Bank (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995, alongside a Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement signed at industry level allowing a second option to join the pension scheme. [Para 1-3]

Eligibility for Pension upon Premature Retirement – Respondent, prematurely retired in 2004, sought to exercise the 2nd option for pension following a Circular in 2018 – Appellant Bank's refusal based on distinction between "premature retirement" and "compulsory retirement" under Pension Regulations, claiming the Subject Circular for 2nd pension option applicable only to compulsorily retired employees. [Para 4-9]

Joint Note/Bipartite Settlement Interpretation – No distinction made in Joint Note between premature and compulsory retirement regarding eligibility for 2nd pension option – Subject Circular and IBA Circular not to be read restrictively, extending benefits of Joint Note to all qualifying employees regardless of retirement type. [Para 17-19]

Judicial Endorsement of Pension Eligibility – Court holds Respondent met criteria set in Joint Note for 2nd pension option, rejecting Appellant’s restrictive interpretation – Recognizes the Respondent's right to pension benefits, thereby upholding Single Judge's directive for release of retiral benefits to the Respondent. – Appeal Dismissed.[Para 20-23]

Second Appeal – Civil Property Dispute – Hiba (Gift) - Appellants challenge the decision of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Shajapur, in RCA No.20A/2014 which upheld the lower court's judgment in RCS No.32A/2013. The suit was initiated for a declaration of title and permanent injunction concerning a property purportedly gifted ('Hiba') by Sugrabai to the plaintiffs. [Para 1-3]

Validity of 'Hiba' – Oral Gift – Plaintiffs' Witnesses - Appellants claim that Sugrabai's oral 'Hiba' to them fulfills all legal requisites. Citing testimonies of witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 and Apex Court precedent in Hafeeza Bibi and others Vs. Shaikh Farid, they contend that the courts below failed to properly assess evidence supporting the 'Hiba'. [Para 4]

Respondents' Counterclaim – No Prior Claim on 'Hiba' - Respondents argue that the appellants never claimed the property based on the 'Hiba' in any prior proceedings. Contend that the 'Hiba' claim is an afterthought and thus both lower courts rightly dismissed the appellants' suit and appeal. [Para 6]

High Court's Scope of Interference – Concurrent Findings of Facts - High Court questions when it may interfere with concurrent findings of facts by the lower courts. Cites Apex Court decisions detailing circumstances under which High Court may overturn lower courts' findings. [Para 9]

Jurisdictional Limitations – Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC - Apex Court's clarification that a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC is permissible only when it involves a 'substantial question of law'. Draws attention to the High Court's limited jurisdiction in re-examining facts under this section. Appeal Dismissed. [Para 10]

Debts Recovery Tribunal Jurisdiction - Interpretation of Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act - Whether the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the RDB Act exercises original jurisdiction for the recovery of debts under the SARFAESI Act - Examination of the legislative intent - Applicability of pecuniary jurisdiction under the RDB Act to applications made under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act - Legislative amendments and their impact - Right of borrowers and creditors to file appeals and counterclaims under the RDB Act - Interplay between the SARFAESI Act and the RDB Act - Consideration of jurisdiction in light of threshold limits - The role of Debts Recovery Tribunals in original and appellate proceedings - Clarity on the applicability of the RDB Act in cases involving the SARFAESI Act. [Para 18-25]

Interpretation of Section 1(4) of the RDB Act - Applicability of pecuniary limits to the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunals - Amendment to Section 1(4) and its impact - Examination of the legislative framework - Jurisdictional implications of Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act - The need for a comprehensive reading of relevant provisions - Ensuring access to remedy for debtors - Distinction between original and appellate jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunals - Clarification on the scope of the RDB Act in cases involving the SARFAESI Act. [Para 26-36]

Impact of legislative amendments on the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunals - Analysis of Section 249 of the IBC - Amendments to the RDB Act - Introduction of the phrase "save as otherwise provided" - Implications for the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunals - Examination of Sections 3 and 17 of the RDB Act in light of amendments - The role of Debts Recovery Tribunals as Adjudicating Authorities - Determination of jurisdiction in cases involving insolvency of individuals and firms - Clarity on the extent of jurisdiction conferred on Debts Recovery Tribunals. [Para 30-36]

Role of Debts Recovery Tribunals in adjudicating claims under the SARFAESI Act - Provisions governing the procedure for recovery of shortfall of secured debt - Analysis of Rule 11 of the SIE Rules - Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction in relation to applications under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act - Consideration of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction - Need for clarity in specifying the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal - Implications for the rights of creditors and borrowers - Ensuring access to justice and the right to appeal - Distinction between actions under the RDB Act and the SARFAESI Act - Legislative intent and its impact on jurisdiction. [Para 37-48]

Impact of jurisdictional limits on debtor's remedies - Comparison with provisions under the RDB Act - Analysis of Section 19(5)(1) of the RDB Act regarding set off and counterclaims - Need to harmonize remedies for debtors under different statutes - Ensuring equitable treatment of secured and unsecured creditors - Importance of addressing lacunae in legislation - Implications for debtor's access to justice and remedies - Role of Debts Recovery Tribunals in issuing recovery certificates - Contrast with SARFAESI Act provisions - Clarification on the availability of remedies and appeals. [Para 49-52]

Decision – Jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal under SARFAESI Act clarified – Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction extends to cases under Section 13(10) of the SARFAESI Act – Pecuniary jurisdiction under the RDB Act not applicable to SARFAESI Act claims – Borrower's right to file counterclaims recognized – Appeal against Debts Recovery Tribunal's orders available – SARFAESI Act provides for remedies and procedure for debt recovery – Debts Recovery Tribunal empowered to issue recovery certificate – RDB Act's pecuniary limits do not restrict SARFAESI Act claims – Borrowers have a remedy under SARFAESI Act for amounts less than ₹10,00,000 – Judgment upholds jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal for original SARFAESI Act claims and appeals.

Appointment of Local Commissioner – Inspection and Verification of Infringement Claims – Plaintiffs sought appointment of a local commissioner to inspect Defendants' premises concerning alleged infringement of Plaintiffs' patent IN '145 by Defendants' Preconditioned Air Units (PCAs). [Para 1]

Scope of Appointment – The application aimed at confirming alleged infringement through physical assessment, relying on various provisions including Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC, and DHC Patent Rules to substantiate the Court's authority for such appointment. [Para 8]

applicability of Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC - plaintiff's request for appointment of a local commission for inspection of defendant's products to confirm alleged patent infringement - three essential ingredients for invoking Order XXVI Rule 10A - a question involving scientific investigation, the infeasibility of conducting such investigation before the court - necessity or expediency in the interests of justice for issuance of the commission. [Para 27-30]

Insufficiency of Justification for Commission - plaintiffs, by their own submission, had sufficient proof of the alleged infringement and sought the commission to obtain what they termed as "best evidence." - intention was deemed inconsistent with the purpose of Order XXVI Rule 10A, which is not to assist parties in obtaining better evidence, but to aid the court when scientific investigation is necessary for issue determination. [Para 36-37]

Inapplicability of Other Provisions - Court found that other provisions cited by the plaintiffs like Order XI Rule 3(2), Order XI Rule 5(4) of the CPC, and Rule 5(i) and (iii) of the DHC Patent Rules were not applicable in the present scenario as they do not cater to the specific kind of relief sought by the plaintiffs in their application. [Para 59-64]

Civil Procedure Code (CPC) Provisions – Utilization of provisions in the CPC by either party to a lawsuit for obtaining information or evidence – Right to seek interrogatories from defendants acknowledged – Court's limitation on stepping outside the legitimate boundaries of the CPC to act as an agent for evidence gathering emphasized. [Para 66]

Local Commissioner Appointment – Court's authority under Order XXVI Rule 10A of the CPC to appoint a local commissioner for conducting scientific investigation, where necessary to resolve issues in a suit – Stipulation that such appointment is not for securing evidence to support either party’s case – Criteria for an application under Order XXVI Rule 10A outlined including necessity of scientific investigation, inability to conduct such investigation before the Court, and necessity or expediency of such appointment in the interests of justice. [Para 66, 68]

Application Dismissal – Lack of justification for the prayers in the application under any legal provisions of the CPC or precedent – Dismissal of the application as misconceived. [Para 67, 70, 71]