Writ Petition – Appointment of Chairperson for Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights – Petitioner challenging the appointment of the 5th respondent and seeking annulment and fresh selection process – Court considering the validity of the appointment under statutory requirements. [Para 1, 7, 9]

Qualifications and Eligibility – Requirements under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 and Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights Rules, 2010 – Examination of the 5th respondent's eligibility as Chairperson based on political affiliation and experience in child rights. [Para 8, 10, 11]

Selection Committee's Decision – Role of the Selection Committee in assessing candidates' qualifications and experiences – Court's limited scope of review over the Committee's decision – Upholding the autonomy and integrity of the selection process. [Para 12, 13, 14]

Judicial Review – Limits of Court's intervention in the selection process for public employment – Reference to the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir emphasizing non-interference unless there is proven arbitrariness or statutory violation. [Para 14]

Decision – Dismissal of the writ petition for lack of merit – Upholding the appointment of the 5th respondent as Chairperson of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. [Para 15]Referred Cases with Citations:

Criminal Petition – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – Petition seeking to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.14766/2021 for offence under Section 420 IPC – Allegation of furnishing false information in application for District Judge post – Petition dismissed. [Para 1, 14, 19]

Judicial Selection Process – Misrepresentation in Application – Applicant's failure to disclose involvement in past criminal/civil proceedings – Impact on candidature for District Judge post – Misrepresentation leading to criminal proceedings under Section 420 IPC. [Para 3, 11, 15]

Criminal Law – Interpretation of Section 420 IPC – Deceptive acts for personal gain – Importance of honest declaration in judicial recruitment – Fraud and misrepresentation as grounds for criminal prosecution. [Para 12, 15, 17]

Legal Ethics – Responsibility of Legal Professionals – Obligation of truthful disclosure by practicing advocates in judicial applications – High standards expected from legal practitioners. [Para 16]

Judicial Proceedings – Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Limitation on High Court’s power to interfere in criminal proceedings at the stage of charge sheet – Observations made in judgment not binding on pending proceedings against petitioner. [Para 18, 19]

Decision – Petition rejected, with observations made solely for consideration under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – No bearing on other proceedings against petitioner. [Para 19]

Challenge against FIR – Petitioner, an MLA, challenging FIR registered by Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on Enforcement Directorate's information – FIR questioned for lack of preliminary inquiry and authorization – Dismissal of petition due to statutory backing of FIR and necessity of investigation. [Paras 1-16]

Preliminary Inquiry – Necessity in Corruption Cases – Contention that no preliminary inquiry conducted before registering FIR – Refuted by court, highlighting the three-month gap between Enforcement Directorate's communication and FIR registration as period of preliminary inquiry. [Paras 6, 10, 14]

Enforcement Directorate's Role – Validity of Information Sharing – Enforcement Directorate's report under Section 66(2) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 used as basis for FIR – Court upholds validity, stating that the report and subsequent ACB's source report justify FIR against the petitioner. [Paras 10-11, 15]

Assets Disproportionate to Income – Allegations of Disproportionate Assets – ACB's source report indicating petitioner's assets disproportionate by 2031% to known income – Court finds prima facie case warranting investigation under Prevention of Corruption Act. [Para 12]

Investigation Proceedings – Interim Stay by Apex Court – Pending petition before Apex Court challenging refusal of interim stay on investigation – High Court suspends operation of its order dismissing the criminal petition for 30 days. [Para 16]

Decision – FIR against MLA for disproportionate assets to continue – Criminal petition challenging FIR dismissed – High Court's order suspended for 30 days considering the pending appeal before Apex Court. [Para 17]

Contract Interpretation – GST Inclusion in Contracts – The petitioner, a successful bidder in tender processes, sought refund for GST payments arguing that the tax regime change post-GST introduction was beyond the contract's contemplation. The court, interpreting the contract, emphasized the necessity of a pragmatic approach, stating that the contract should be interpreted to give efficacy rather than invalidate it. The argument for retrospective application of an oppressive circular was rejected, as the GST was applicable only from its introduction. [Paras 1-4, 20-21, 22, 26-27, 32-33]

Commercial Contracts – Tax Liability – The court held that the GST Act merely subsumed existing indirect taxes like VAT, Sales Tax, etc., without introducing additional taxes. It was found that the petitioner was supposed to bear all indirect taxes as per the contract, which included any similar statutory levies, thus including GST. The petitioner’s liability to pay GST under the contract and statutory obligation as a supplier under the GST Act were affirmed. [Paras 18-19, 24-25, 30-31, 32-33, 35, 37, 38, 43]

Business Efficacy and Commercial Viability – The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding commercial viability and business efficacy. It was stated that the contract's tax clause was clear and unambiguous and that commercial viability does not imply unfair advantages to the contractor. The court emphasized that commercial contracts inherently involve calculated business risks, including tax changes. [Paras 40-43]

Decision – The petitions for refund of GST payments were dismissed, and it was held that the petitioner is liable to pay GST as per the contract and GST Act. The court concluded that no refund direction is warranted in the case. [Paras 45-46]

Amendment of Written Statement – Rejection by Trial Court – Defendants sought to amend their written statement to include new facts challenging the landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff, but the trial court rejected the amendment. The High Court upheld this decision, stating the amendment would change the nature of the defense and dispute previous admissions of the defendants. [Paras 2, 4, 7, 21]

Original Tenancy and Subsequent Legal Proceedings – The defendants, legal heirs of the original tenant, were involved in various legal proceedings challenging eviction suits and lease agreements with the plaintiff. These included cases before the Supreme Court and the High Court, which influenced the current litigation. [Paras 5, 6, 14]

Legal Principles on Amendment of Pleadings – Discussed the applicability and limitations of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of pleadings. Emphasized that amendments should not introduce new facts that change the fundamental nature of the original pleadings or contradict previous admissions. [Paras 8-12, 18-20]

Effect of Previous Admissions and Lease Agreements – The Court found that the defendants’ previous admissions regarding their landlord-tenant relationship with the plaintiff and the established legal history between the parties precluded the acceptance of the proposed amendment to the written statement. [Paras 13, 16, 17, 19, 20]

Decision and Direction for Expeditious Trial – The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirmed the trial court’s order, and directed the trial court to expedite the conclusion of the long-pending suit without unnecessary adjournments. [Paras 22, 24]

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]