Contempt Case – Respondents/contemnors wilfully disobeyed court orders dated 06.09.2022 and 22.12.2022 – Failure to implement the court’s orders in WP No.28407 of 2022 – Court finds respondents guilty of contempt – Sentences respondents No.2 and 3 to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each – In default of payment of fine, respondents to undergo one week of simple imprisonment – Directed to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial) by 27.07.2023.(Para No. 4-7)

Judicial Decisions - Finality to Competent Court Judgments - Importance of Rule of Law:

The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is an essential part of the rule of law, and such decisions should be given finality. Even an erroneous decision on a question of law operates as res judicata between the parties and cannot be reopened, except in cases of fraud that vitiates the decision and renders it null and void. [Para 15]

Change in Law - Res Judicata - Effect on Earlier Judgments:

A change in law, even by subsequent judicial decisions, does not automatically overturn earlier judgments. The principle of res judicata continues to apply to the judgments rendered before the change in law. [Para 17]

Delay and Laches - Effect on Writ Petition - Discretion of the Court:

When a writ petition is filed with inordinate delay and unexplained laches, the court may decline to exercise its discretion in favor of the petitioner. The doctrine of res judicata and estoppel applies, and even subsequent judgments altering the law do not warrant the reopening of matters that have attained finality. Delay and laches extinguish the right to claim relief, and the court should not entertain stale causes. [Para 20, 21]

Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - Discretionary Nature:

The jurisdiction exercised by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extraordinary. The court's innate sense of justice guides its decisions, and self-imposed limitations are exercised wisely, depending on the facts of the case. [Para 21]

Adversarial Litigation - Public Law:

Distinction between adversarial litigation and public law cases - Principles of res judicata and estoppel are applicable to adversarial litigation and bind the parties when a decision has attained finality. Public law cases involving challenges to the validity of provisions operate under different considerations and may involve public interest and equity. [Para 19]

Apex Court Decisions - Article 141 of Constitution - Binding Effect:

Decisions rendered by the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution have binding effect not only on the parties before the Court but also on similar issues involving other cases. However, this principle does not apply to adversarial litigation decided by coordinate benches where principles of res judicata and estoppel are applicable. [Para 19]

Discretion of the Court - Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience:

While the court exercises discretion based on justice, equity, and good conscience, these grounds are not sufficient to excuse gross delay and laches. The court should consider the impact of delay on the rights of other parties involved. [Para 21]

Relief Sought - Restoration of Possession - Inordinate Delay:

When the relief sought in the writ petition is the restoration of possession of a property, and the petitioner has caused an inordinate delay of several years, the court may decline to grant the relief on the ground of delay. [Para 21]

Erosion of Rights - Subsequent Developments:

Subsequent developments in a case may erode the rights of the petitioners, and the court should consider such developments while exercising discretionary jurisdiction. [Para 21]

Conclusion - Writ Petition Dismissed:

Based on the principles of res judicata, laches, and the inordinate delay of the petitioners, the court dismisses the writ petition. [Para 21]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 60(6), Section 96 – Personal Guarantee – Debt Recovery Proceedings – Writ of Prohibition – Validity of Demand Notice – Resolution Plan – Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas Principle.

Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas Principle – Applicability in Indian Context – Distinction from Present Case – Discharge of Principal Debtor’s Liability and its Effect on Personal Guarantor’s Liability – The Court elaborates on the Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas principle, which deals with the discharge of a principal debtor’s liability and its implications on the liability of the personal guarantor. It clarifies that the principle operates in a different legal domain than the present case’s concerns regarding the Reservation of Rights Clause in the Resolution Plan.

Resolution Plan – Exclusion of Personal Guarantee – Reservation of Rights Clause – Compatibility with Absolute Discharge – Impact on Creditor’s Rights – Jurisdictional Validity of Demand Notice – The Court analyzes the Resolution Plan in question, which specifically excludes the personal guarantee and includes a Reservation of Rights Clause for the creditor. It examines the compatibility of such a clause with the absolute discharge of the principal debtor’s liability and its impact on the creditor’s rights to proceed against the personal guarantor. The Court also discusses the jurisdictional validity of the demand notice in light of these contractual arrangements.

Jurisdiction – Debt Recovery Proceedings under IBC – Petition Challenging Demand Notice – Availability of Writ of Prohibition – Demonstrating Absence of Jurisdiction – Right of Guarantor to be Heard – The Court addresses the issue of jurisdiction in debt recovery proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and considers whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate. It explains that a petitioner must demonstrate the absence of jurisdiction in order to seek such a writ. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of allowing the personal guarantor the right to be heard at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – Competent Authority to Adjudicate on Merits – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Matters to be Decided by NCLT – Observations on Merits Prima Facie and Subject to NCLT’s Decision – The Court clarifies that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is the competent authority to adjudicate on the merits of the case. It dismisses the writ petition and refers the matter to the NCLT for its consideration. The court’s observations on the merits of the case are considered prima facie and are subject to the NCLT’s final decision.

Petitioner’s Contention – Impugned Demand Notice Challenged – Barred Recovery due to Principal Debtor’s Liability Discharge – Reliance on Hutchens Principle – The Court acknowledges the petitioner’s contention that the demand notice is challenged based on the belief that the recovery is barred due to the discharge of the principal debtor’s liability, relying on the Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas principle.

Reservation Clause – Preservation of Creditor’s Rights – Incompatibility with Absolute Release of Principal Debtor – No Impact on Hutchens Applicability or Jurisdiction – The Court analyzes the Reservation of Rights Clause and its purpose in preserving the creditor’s rights to proceed against the personal guarantor. It clarifies that such a clause is incompatible with an absolute release of the principal debtor’s liability. However, it reiterates that this contractual aspect does not affect the applicability of the Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas principle in the present case or the court’s jurisdiction.

Writ Petition – Dismissal – Matter Referred to NCLT – Right to be Heard Affirmed – Observations Prima Facie and Subject to Competent Court’s

Decision – The Court ultimately dismisses the writ petition and refers the matter to the NCLT for further consideration. It affirms the personal guarantor’s right to be heard at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. The court’s observations on the merits of the case are considered prima facie and are subject to the final decision of the competent court or tribunal, i.e., the NCLT.

Suo Moto Cancellation of Bail– Alleged Sexual Assault on Children – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) – Grant of Bail to Accused Yumken Bagra, Hostel Warden of Government Residential School – Sexual Assault on 21 Children (15 girls and 6 boys) Aged 6 to 12 years between 2019 to 2022 – Offences under Sections 10/12/14(1)/15(1)/2 of POCSO Act and Section 376AB of Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Non-adherence to Section 439(1A) of Cr.PC mandating presence of informant or authorized person during bail hearing – Objected by Special Public Prosecutor due to successive bail applications and risk of witness tampering – Casual grant of bail by Special Court despite serious nature of offences and non-appearance of co-accused Daniel Pertin – Concerns for victims’ safety after accused’s release on bail – Notice issued to accused for bail cancellation proceedings – Advocate General of Arunachal Pradesh instructed to ensure service of notice – Accused’s right to engage counsel or avail free legal aid – Directions for strict Witness Protection Scheme implementation – Advocate General to inform court of measures for protecting minor victims of sexual assault in Arunachal Pradesh – Emphasis on sensitization of Special Judges handling POCSO Act cases in Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram, and Arunachal Pradesh – Juvenile Justice Committee to take necessary action – Copies of order communicated to Itanagar Permanent Bench Registrar and Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh – Next listing date: 27^th July 2023.

Question of Law – The Court re-framed the issue as to whether the ITAT was justified in finding the assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bad, when no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of initiation under Section 153A. [Para 2]

Factual Background – The original assessment of the respondent for the year 2002-03 was completed under Section 143(3) and subsequently set aside by the 1st Appellate Authority under Section 263. A search under Section 132 led to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. [Para 3-4]

Legal Framework – The Tribunal relied on the High Court of Delhi's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla, summarized the legal position on assessment and re-assessment under Section 153A, stressing the significance of 'pending assessments' and 'completed assessments'. [Para 6]

Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction – The Assessing Officer is empowered to proceed with assessments under Section 153A only when some incriminating material is disclosed during the search or when an assessment is pending. [Para 7]

Decision – Affirming the Tribunal's findings, the Court held that the assessment for the year 2002-03 had been completed prior to the search and Section 153A proceedings. The Court answered the re-framed question in favor of the assessee and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. [Para 8]

Civil Appeal – Cheque Bounce – Acquittal of the accused – Appellant challenges the judgment of acquittal – Complainant alleges the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and issued a cheque, which was returned unpaid with remarks 'Account Closed' – Lack of clear evidence regarding the loan and issuance of the cheque – Presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque rebuttable – No conclusive evidence to establish the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Burden of proof on the complainant – Trial court's findings upheld. [Para 1-10]

Criminal Procedure - Regular Bail Application - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 439 Cr.P.C - Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 NDPS Act added later) - Alleged recovery of contraband from co-accused (petitioner's husband) - Petitioner's custody for 7 months and 8 days - Petitioner's contention of false implication - No recovery from the petitioner - No criminal antecedents - Charges framed but no witnesses examined - Trial likely to take time. [Para 1-3]

Court's Observations - Considering the facts and circumstances - No recovery from petitioner - Not involved in any other case - Trial at an early stage - Petitioner's further incarceration serves no useful purpose. [Para 6]

Court's Decision - Petitioner granted regular bail - Conditions imposed: (i) No tampering with evidence, (ii) No pressurizing/intimidating witnesses, (iii) Mandatory appearance before the trial court, (iv) Not to commit a similar offense, (v) No coercion or tampering with evidence, (vi) No misuse of liberty, (vii) Furnishing address and mobile number to the trial court, (viii) No leaving the country without permission, (ix) Trial court may impose additional conditions. [Para 7]

FACTS: Indus Towers Ltd. Appealed against the resolution (No. 7) of the Grampanchayat of Chikhalhol, which directed the company to halt the construction of a mobile tower, responding to objections raised by local villagers concerning health effects of the tower’s radiation.

ISSUES & RULINGS:

1. Whether the Grampanchayat, after issuing a No Objection Certificate (NOC), had the authority to pass a resolution directing the cessation of the tower’s construction [Para 1-3].

    Ruling: The court held that once an NOC is issued by the Grampanchayat as per the Government Resolution dated 11^th December 2015, it loses control over the erection of the mobile tower. Hence, the Grampanchayat lacked authority in passing Resolution No.7, which was deemed illegal [Para 4-5].

2. Whether the villagers’ apprehensions about the tower’s radiation were justified and could serve as a ground for prohibiting the construction [Para 3].

   Ruling: Referencing the case of Biju K. Balan and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2019, the court concluded that fears not based on facts or supported by reliable scientific evidence could not be used to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court found no change in the absence of scientific material establishing the harmful effects of mobile tower radiation, thereby dismissing the villagers’ apprehensions as baseless [Para 6-7].

ORDER: The impugned resolution, Resolution No.7, dated 22^nd July 2022, passed by the respondent no.1Grampanchayat, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed not to obstruct the petitioner from operating the mobile tower so long as the operation is in accordance with the law [Para 8-9].

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 – Section 439 – Regular Bail – Grant of bail to petitioner in connection with FIR No.304 dated 30.06.2022 under Sections 15(c), 27-A, 29 of the NDPS Act – Allegations of illegal trafficking and selling of doda post – Petitioner’s involvement in the offence – Petitioner named in co-accused’s disclosure statement – Contention of false implication and inadmissibility of co-accused’s statement – Citing petitioner’s criminal antecedents – Co-accused already granted bail – No recovery made from petitioner – Court observes inadmissibility of co-accused’s statement and holds further incarceration not required – Regular bail granted to the petitioner.

NDPS ACT, 1985 – Sections 15(c), 27-A, 29 – Illegal trafficking and selling of doda post – Petitioner’s alleged role in transportation and sale – Inadmissibility of co-accused’s disclosure statement – Co-accused already granted bail – No recovery from petitioner – Regular bail granted.

CRIMINAL ANTECEDENTS – Petitioner’s criminal antecedents – Two co-accused granted bail – No prosecution witnesses examined – Court deems further incarceration unnecessary – Regular bail granted.