Acquittal Appeal - Presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act - Burden of proof - Rebuttal of presumption - Appeal challenging judgment and order of acquittal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) - Complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) for dishonor of cheque - Complainant alleged default in loan repayment by accused - Cheque issued towards part payment returned with endorsement of "Funds Insufficient" - Demand notice issued but not complied with by accused - Private complaint filed - Trial court acquitted accused - Appeal against acquittal.

Presumption under NI Act - Section 118 & 139 - Rebuttable presumption of consideration and discharge of debt - Duty of accused to rebut presumption - Burden of proof on accused - Complainant must establish legally enforceable debt - Accused need not disprove existence of consideration beyond reasonable doubt - Accused's burden to provide probable defense shifting burden back to complainant - Accused's defense of full repayment dislodging presumption in complainant's favor.

Appellate Review - Powers in appeal against acquittal - Full power to review evidence - No restriction on reappreciation of evidence - Double presumption in favor of accused - Presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal - Extensive powers of appellate court - Reluctance to interfere with acquittal not a limitation on review of evidence.

Decision – High Court confirms judgment and order of acquittal by 20th Additional Senior Civil and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat – Appeal dismissed.

Valuation of Shares – Section 56(2)(viib) Income Tax Act – Appellant challenged ITAT’s upholding of AO’s rejection of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Method in favor of Net Asset Value (NAV) Method for share valuation – ITAT’s decision questioned regarding its authority to substitute the valuation method – ITAT held DCF Method to be unrealistic, substituting it with NAV Method [Paras 1, 3-5, 9].

Assessing Officer’s (AO) Authority and Methodology – Questioning AO’s authority to reject the valuation method selected by the assessee and independently evaluate FMV of shares using a different method – AO doubted veracity of Valuation Report based on DCF Method, but adopted NAV Method for valuation without substantiated reasons [Paras 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 17].

Legal Position – Rule 11UA(2), Income Tax Rules – Rule 11UA(2) gives the assessee the option to choose between DCF Method and NAV Method for valuation – AO’s role is to scrutinize the valuation report within the chosen method, not to substitute it with a different method [Paras 14-16, 18, 20-21].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Bombay High Court’s decision in Vodafone M-Pesa Limited and other ITAT judgments emphasizing that the AO cannot substitute the method of valuation chosen by the assessee [Paras 11, 18-21].

Decision – Appeal allowed, setting aside ITAT’s order – Matter remitted to AO for valuation afresh using DCF Method – Liberty granted to AO to have FMV determined independently by a Valuer using DCF Method [Paras 22-23].

Petition for Quashing Award and Directing Consequential Benefits – Dismissed – Workman Status Not Proven – Petitioner sought quashing of the award passed by the Labour Court and consequential benefits. Court found that petitioner failed to prove his status as a ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and his claim of illegal termination. Discrepancies in petitioner’s testimonies regarding his role and the circumstances of termination led to the conclusion that the claim was unsubstantiated. Tribunal’s findings, not being arbitrary or unreasonable, were upheld by the High Court. [Paras 1-56]

Role of Petitioner as Workman – Analysis and Conclusion – Examination of the petitioner’s role revealed contradictions in his claims. Petitioner failed to establish through consistent testimony or credible evidence that he was employed in a capacity other than a ‘deliveryman’, as alleged by him. Tribunal’s observation of petitioner’s varying claims and unreliable testimonies underpinned its conclusion that he was not a workman under the Act. [Paras 27-31, 43-45]

Termination of Services – Legal Scrutiny – Petitioner's account of his termination lacked consistency and reliability, leading to the Tribunal's dismissal of his claim of illegal termination. The High Court, reviewing the Tribunal's approach and findings, agreed that the petitioner had not substantiated his claims of wrongful termination. [Paras 46-51]

Judicial Review under Article 226 – Limited Interference – High Court exercised restraint in its review under Article 226 of the Constitution, respecting the findings of the Tribunal where no perversity or arbitrariness was evident. The Court emphasized its role in judicial review as not to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence but to ensure legal propriety and adherence to principles of natural justice. [Paras 39-41, 54]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – In light of the above findings and discussions, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit. The impugned award was upheld, confirming the Tribunal’s conclusions. [Para 55]

Jurisdiction - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Remittance for re-adjudication - Challenge to the order disposing of the Show Cause Notice proposing a demand against the petitioner - Allegation of non-receipt of notice due to retrospective cancellation of GST registration - High Court finds merit in petitioner's contention and sets aside the impugned order - Matter remitted to Proper Officer for re-adjudication - Petitioner directed to file reply within 30 days - Fresh speaking order to be passed by Proper Officer after affording personal hearing - Compliance with statutory provisions mandated. [Paras 1-8]

Cancellation of GST Registration - Effect on Notice Issuance - Retrospective cancellation rendering petitioner unable to access portal - Impugned order passed without consideration of cancellation effect - High Court holds impugned order unsustainable - Compliance with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness emphasized. [Paras 5-6]

Multiple Proceedings - Issuance of Second Show Cause Notice - Directorate General of Goods and Services Intelligence, Ghaziabad Regional Unit issues separate notice for the same tax period - Court clarifies that disposal of present petition is without prejudice to proceedings initiated by said unit - Rights and defenses of petitioner preserved. [Para 9]

Notification Challenge - Notification No. 9 of 2023 - Initial extension of time - Challenge left open by the Court - No consideration or comment made on merits of contentions - Parties' rights and contentions reserved. [Paras 10-11]

Disposal of Petition - Petition disposed of with directions for re-adjudication - Compliance with statutory provisions mandated - High Court retains jurisdiction over unresolved notification challenge - All rights and contentions of parties reserved. [Para 12]

Extradition Proceedings – Appointment of Advocate for Prosecution – Petition by Samsung Gulf Electronics, FZE seeking the appointment of an advocate for prosecuting the extradition request of Sukhmeet Singh Anand in Spain – Respondent authorities directed to appoint an advocate to assist in extradition proceedings. [Paras 1-18]

Representation in Foreign Legal Proceedings – Analysis – Court considers the necessity of effective legal representation in extradition proceedings in Spain – Emphasizes on the right of the petitioner to assist the prosecution, as permitted by the Indian trial court – Highlights the duty of respondent authorities to ensure effective legal pursuit of the extradition request, noting previous denial due to alleged inadequate representation. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Directs Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Delhi Police) to seek the appointment of an advocate for extradition proceedings – Consideration for appointment at the petitioner's expense – Ministry of External Affairs to communicate the decision to Spanish authorities – Ensures compliance with established legal rights and international legal norms. [Para 17]

FIR and Allegations – FIR No. 0135/2018 under Sections 420, 409 IPC against petitioner Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi, Director of M/s Karuturi Global Limited, for failing to fulfill agreements with the Government of Djibouti and misappropriating funds – Petitioner accused of non-performance and diversion of funds meant for land development in Ethiopia [Para 2].

Petitioner’s Submissions – Argued transactions were bonafide, with losses incurred due to natural calamities (2011-2012 floods in Ethiopia) invoking Force Majeure – Asserted that part of funds was returned and rest utilized for project purposes – Mentioned email correspondence and invoices supporting his claims – Raised issue of delayed prosecution and absence of arbitration or civil proceedings by the complainant [Paras 3-9].

Respondent’s Counter – Emphasized seriousness of economic offence and petitioner’s alleged fraudulent intent – Cited witnesses’ statements to refute petitioner’s claims of fulfilling contractual obligations – Argued against bail, citing potential for evidence tampering and highlighting previous refusal of bail [Paras 13-17].

Court’s Analysis and Decision – Acknowledged completion of investigation, awaited sanction for prosecution under Section 188 of the Cr.P.C. – Noted health condition of petitioner and absence of prior offenses – Granted bail considering these factors and likelihood of non-tampering with evidence, subject to conditions including bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- and restrictions on travel and communication [Paras 18-32].

Injunction Suit - Boundary Wall Dispute and Litigation Tactics – Petitioners challenged the trial court’s refusal to direct the respondent to restore a boundary wall to its original height post unauthorized alterations during a pending suit – The respondent initially secured an ex parte interim order allowing repairs but not height alteration, violated this by raising the wall height and then withdrew the suit strategically [Paras 2, 10-14, 23-24].

Misapplication of Procedural Rights – Respondent withdrew the suit without providing notice to the petitioners, exploiting the procedural lapse to avoid challenge on the unauthorized construction – Petitioners’ subsequent application for restoration dismissed by the trial court, raising issues of procedural fairness and judicial oversight [Paras 5, 13, 22-25].

Restoration and Restitution under CPC – Application of Section 144 CPC on the principle of restitution, ensuring no party benefits unjustly from the court’s processes – High Court criticized trial court’s failure to address the equity and factual matrix, leading to substantial miscarriage of justice [Paras 16-18, 25-26].

Supervisory Jurisdiction Exercised – High Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, setting aside the trial court’s order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on restoration of status quo ante [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Impugned order set aside – Remanded for fresh consideration on restoration of status quo ante – Trial court directed to proceed expeditiously with the matter, ensuring fair hearing to both parties [Para 28].

Acquittal – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) – Criminal Appeal against Special Court, Bathinda's judgment convicting under Sections 21 and 22 NDPS Act – High Court sets aside conviction – Finds prosecution's case unconvincing and lacking substantial proof – Highlights flaws in prosecution’s presentation and handling of evidence – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and involvement of independent witness – Held, stringent punishment demands stricter proof – Accused acquitted of all charges. [Paras 9-20]

Recovery of Contraband – Analysis – Prosecution alleged recovery of Methamphetamine and Codeine from appellants – Independent witness negates prosecution’s claim of recovery in his presence – Doubts raised over the credibility of police's version and handling of evidence – High Court finds prosecution's story implausible, particularly with regard to two persons carrying a bag of minor weight jointly – Appellants acquitted due to lack of convincing evidence. [Paras 14, 17-18]

Decision – Acquittal of Appellants – High Court observes that prosecution failed to establish a convincing case beyond reasonable doubt – Noted discrepancies in recovery process and inconsistencies in testimonies – Emphasizes the need for stricter proof in cases involving stringent penalties – Conviction under Sections 21 and 22 of NDPS Act set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges. [Para 19-20]

Delay in filing written statement - Strike off of defence - Civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - Petition filed by defendants seeking to set aside order striking off their defence for failure to file written statement within 90 days - Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of Rs.15,96,501/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. - Defendants alleged to have good family and business relations with plaintiff - Plaintiff issued cheque of Rs.1,25,000/- to defendants for expansion of their business - Defendants failed to file written statement within stipulated period, resulting in ex parte proceedings - Defendants sought setting aside of ex parte order, which was allowed - However, defendants again failed to file written statement within extended period, leading to striking off of their defence - Defendants challenged said order in revision petition - Held, provisions of Order 8 Rule 1 CPC regarding filing of written statement are directory, not mandatory - Court possesses discretion to condone delay in filing written statement, particularly in non-commercial disputes - Ends of justice served by condoning delay subject to payment of costs - Defendants granted one more opportunity to file written statement - Revision petition allowed, impugned order set aside subject to payment of costs - Defendants directed to file written statement within specified time frame, failing which no further opportunity shall be granted - Plaintiff entitled to seek recalling of order if valid grounds presented - Petition disposed accordingly.