Criminal Law – Bail Application – Applicant accused in connection with Delhi riots involving murder and multiple felonies – Bail sought under Section 439 CrPC after being implicated in the murder and riots as part of a violent mob based on eyewitness and police testimonies – Charges under multiple sections of IPC including murder, rioting, and destruction of property – Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC used for prosecution, with discrepancies in identification and roles ascribed to the applicant in court testimonies – Prosecution relied on presence and general accusation in mob for invoking Section 149 IPC, but primary public witnesses did not confirm applicant’s specific role in violent acts [Paras 1-20]

Evidence and Trial – Contradictions in witness statements concerning the applicant’s direct involvement – Senior counsel for applicant highlights discrepancies and no direct identification in key testimonies – Prosecution stressed on collective liability under Section 149 IPC, but lacks specific evidence against the applicant directly linking him to the murder or commanding role in riots [Paras 11-20]

Court Analysis – Acknowledgment of grave nature of accusations but consideration of the quality and relevance of evidence against the specific role of applicant – References made to precedents on bail considerations and principles, stressing not to delve deep into evidence credibility at bail stage – Discussion on legal standards and judicial discretion in bail matters, emphasizing nature and seriousness of offence, likelihood of fleeing, community ties, and impact on society [Paras 21-34]

Decision – Bail granted based on cumulative discrepancies in witness identification, the non-specific role of the applicant provided in testimonies, and substantial period already spent in custody – Bail conditions set including surety, regular court appearances, and restrictions on interactions with witnesses and co-accused – Observations made without prejudice to the merits of the main trial [Paras 35-40]

Procedural Violation in Show-Cause Notice – Appellant contested the show-cause notice issued by the WBGST Authorities on the grounds of procedural violations and denial of credit without verification from the supplier’s end – High Court found the show-cause notice and subsequent order denying Input Tax Credit (ITC) to the appellant as procedurally flawed and lacking jurisdiction– Held: Show-cause notice and subsequent orders set aside, authorities directed to first proceed against the supplier and only then consider penalizing the appellant under exceptional circumstances. Allowed.[Para 3-9]

Labour Law - Contract Law – Payment for completed work – Institute issued completion certificate confirming work done satisfactorily, yet withheld final payments, leading contractors to seek judicial remedy – Initial writ petitions allowed, directing institute to release payments with interest – Appeals challenge these directions on grounds including the validity of financial obligations and procedural lapses. [Paras 1-7]

Institute’s Authority – Questions raised regarding the financial authority of the chairman and the oversight by NIT, Durgapur during the mentorship period – Disputes related to payment approvals and procedural compliance with financial rules highlighted – Significant reliance placed on a CAG report indicating procedural lapses and questioning expenditure legitimacy. [Paras 9, 19-25]

Judicial Review – Writ Court’s jurisdiction to entertain disputes of contractual nature involving entities amenable to Article 226 – Supreme Court precedents discussed, emphasizing when contractual disputes may fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction, especially if actions of public bodies are arbitrary or capricious – Examination of whether matters lie entirely within the private realm and if serious genuine disputes exist over financial liabilities. [Paras 14-37]

Limitation and Laches – Consideration of reasonable time for filing writ petitions paralleled with the Limitation Act for analogous civil suits – Delay in approaching the court held against the principles of prompt pursuit of judicial remedies – Writ petition filed seven years after last bill submission deemed unreasonable, influencing decision to deny relief under Article 226. [Paras 34-36]

Decision – Appeals allowed, reversing the decision of the Single Judge – Writ petitions dismissed as non-maintainable on grounds of maintainability, delay, and disputed contractual and financial issues – Parties left to seek remedies in appropriate forums, ensuring observations in judgment do not prejudice future proceedings. [Paras 38-41]

Income Tax – Reassessment Notice Validity – Challenge against reassessment notice issued under Section 148 and subsequent order under Section 148A(d) – Notice based on transactions with Mr. Manoj Sethi, alleged to have unexplained cash deposits – Petitioner contends all transactions were through cheques and fully disclosed during original assessments – Court finds no improper assumption of jurisdiction by AO under Section 147 as the petitioner failed to disclose cash transactions in the original proceedings – Petitioner’s claim of full disclosure in original assessments rejected – Reassessment proceedings held valid. [Paras 1-30]

Duty of Disclosure under Income Tax Law – Emphasis on the requirement for assessee to ‘fully and truly’ disclose all material facts necessary for assessment – Mere production of accounts or evidence from which material evidence could be discovered by AO does not amount to disclosure – Supreme Court precedents stressed on the duty of the assessee to facilitate the AO’s discovery of material facts. [Paras 18-22]

Legal Interpretation of ‘True and Full Disclosure’ – High Court elaborates on the scope of true and full disclosure under Section 147, influenced by Supreme Court’s interpretation – Disclosure must include all material facts that could lead to a higher income assessment than originally made – Failure to disclose such facts justifies reassessment. Petition Dismissed. [Paras 19, 20, 23]

Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation – The claimant, a mechanic, was injured due to the negligent driving of another mechanic without a heavy vehicle driving license – Claimant sustained multiple injuries and sought compensation of Rs. 20,00,000; awarded Rs. 3,40,000 by the Tribunal – The claim was contested on the grounds of alleged pre-existing conditions and delay in reporting the accident – Tribunal awarded based on evidence of rash and negligent act leading to injuries. [Paras 1-8]

Appeal by APSRTC – Disputed facts regarding negligence and the quantum of compensation – Appeal led to reduction in compensation from Rs. 3,40,000 to Rs. 2,15,000 based on scrutinized medical and other expenditure proofs presented – Tribunal’s findings on negligence upheld; adjustments made in compensation allocations. [Paras 9-22]

Negligence Established – Confirmed by the first respondent’s rash and negligent driving, supported by FIR and chargesheet – Tribunal’s conclusion based on substantive evidence of claimant’s injuries and related medical treatments [Para 14].

Compensation Breakdown – Final award included Rs. 50,000 for loss of earnings, Rs. 75,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000 for extra nourishment, Rs. 20,000 for transportation, and Rs. 50,000 for permanent discomfort [Para 21].

Reduction of Compensation – Court reduced total compensation due to lack of sufficient proof for some of the claimed expenses [Paras 19-21].

Medical Treatment Entitlement – Writ of Mandamus sought for advance payment of 90% of estimated costs for a lung transplantation, cited non-response to petitioner’s requests as illegal and unconstitutional – Petitioner, a school teacher with significant accolades, diagnosed with severe lung disease, requires transplantation; cited two Office Memorandums promising financial aid for such conditions – Court recognizes a mismatch in funds allocation by the respondent authorities, with only Rs. 20,00,000 approved against an estimated Rs. 70,00,000 from KIMS and Rs. 50,00,000 from Apollo Hospital [Para 2-11].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to several cases supporting state responsibility in providing health services under Article 21 of the Constitution – Mentioned Manoj M vs. State of Kerala, Mohd. Ahmed (Minor) vs. Union of India & Ors, and Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India to assert the state’s duty to finance rare disease treatments [Para 7-10].

Court’s Decision – Directed immediate issuance of additional funds totaling Rs. 45,00,000 inclusive of post-operative costs, aligning more closely with the lower estimate provided by Apollo Hospital – Emphasized the state’s responsibility to ensure adequate medical treatment without solely relying on state resources, suggesting possible supplementation through public and private contributions [Para 12-13].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Second FIR – Criminal Miscellaneous Application – Quashing of the orders dated 05.03.2016 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chhapra, and the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra, directing the lodging of a second FIR in connection with Chhapra Town P.S. Case No. 52 of 2013 – Application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. citing the impermissibility of a second FIR for the same occurrence – Supreme Court precedents including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 relied upon – Held that the second FIR and subsequent proceedings are an abuse of the process of law – Orders quashed. [Paras 1-12]

Second FIR – Legal Prohibition – Analysis – Held – The Supreme Court’s judgments in T.T. Antony and Bhajan Lal cases clearly prohibit the lodging of a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offense – The lodging of a second FIR would lead to a fresh investigation, which is not permissible – The court finds the actions to be manifestly attended with mala fide intentions and amounts to misuse of the judicial process. [Paras 8-10]

Decision – Quashing of Second FIR – Court quashes the orders directing the lodging of the second FIR and sets aside all consequential proceedings – Application allowed. [Para 11-12]

Writ of Mandamus – Selection as Para Teacher – Petitioner’s claim for appointment as additional para teacher in Geography at Chouhata Adarsha Vidyapith based on participation and alleged top performance in relevant selection interview – Controversy over notice details and gender-specific reservation for the post – Discrepancies in documentary evidence regarding interview and selection processes highlighted – Factual disputes identified concerning the selection notice and interview process, requiring thorough trial, not suitable for determination via writ due to complexity and need for extensive evidence [Paras 1-19].

Judicial Review – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court finds substantial factual disputes, particularly regarding whether petitioner was interviewed and the appointment of an expert in Geography – Issues necessitate full-fledged trial rather than resolution through affidavit exchange in writ proceedings – Writ petition dismissed, petitioner permitted to seek relief through appropriate forum [Paras 19-20].

Patent Law – Pre-grant opposition – Appeal against High Court’s order not to entertain writ petition challenging the Controller’s rejection of pre-grant opposition on grounds of alternative remedy – Invention related to an artificial liquid cream for unsweetened cooking and whipping, claimed not novel due to prior art patent (D1) owned by appellant, which had expired – Controller and Single Judge found that the specific composition and process claimed by TFPL were novel and not disclosed in D1, hence patentable – Appeal dismissed on grounds that Controller’s order was not manifestly erroneous, and alternatives remedies were available. [Paras 1-21]

Role of Prior Art in Patent Eligibility – Discussion – Held – Controller’s rejection of RPC’s pre-grant opposition was based on findings that prior patent D1 did not disclose the specific stabilizer system comprising of Xanthan Gum and Hydroxypropyl Methyl Cellulose (HPMC) in the claimed composition, which was held as novel by the Controller. The Court upholds the Controller’s decision and rejects RPC’s appeal, indicating no jurisdictional error or misapplication of law in the Controller’s decision. [Paras 10-14, 17, 20]

Judicial Review Limitations – Analysis – Held – The Court emphasizes the discretionary nature of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when an alternate statutory remedy is available. The Court concurs with the learned Single Judge that there was no manifest error in the Controller’s decision warranting interference, and that the remedies post-grant should be pursued as provided under the Patents Act. [Paras 10, 16-20]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The High Court upholds the decision of the learned Single Judge, affirming the rejection of the pre-grant opposition by the Controller, thereby dismissing the intra-court appeal filed by RPC. The decision underscores the adequate alternate remedies available under the Patents Act for challenging patent grants. [Para 21]