Preventive Detention – Non-Application of Mind – Failure to Consider Bail Orders – Detention order quashed  - The petitioner was granted bail in all the FIRs mentioned in the detention order, yet the detention order failed to mention the grant of bail – Held: Non-mentioning of bail orders indicates non-application of mind by the detaining authority, thus rendering the detention order invalid [Paras 10-11].

Delay in Passing Detention Order – Absence of Proximate Link with FIRs – The detention order was passed nine months after the registration of the last FIR – Held: Lack of a proximate link between the grounds of detention and the FIRs undermines the legitimacy of the detention order [Paras 13-14].

Failure to Consider Representation – Violation of Constitutional Rights – The petitioner’s representation was not considered by the authorities despite being submitted through proper channels – Held: Non-consideration of the representation constitutes a violation of the constitutional and legal guarantees, further invalidating the detention order [Paras 15-16].

Provision of Grounds of Detention – No Prejudice Caused to Petitioner – The petitioner was provided with the grounds of detention and requisite documents within the statutory period, and he was informed of his right to make a representation – Held: The petitioner’s contention that he was not informed about his rights to make a representation is baseless [Para 14].

Decision: Detention order quashed – The court held that the failure to consider bail orders and the delay in passing the detention order demonstrated non-application of mind – The non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation violated constitutional rights – Accordingly, the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua, is quashed, and the petitioner is to be released from custody unless required in any other case [Paras 17-19].

Criminal Law – Passport Renewal – Petitioner sought renewal of his passport, which was denied by the trial court citing lack of jurisdiction – Petitioner was implicated in a pending criminal case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC – Court held that under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to a passport is a fundamental right – Notifications issued by the Ministry of External Affairs (1993 and 2019) allow for passport issuance even in pending criminal cases with court permission – Trial court's denial was found to lack application of judicial mind and failure to consider relevant legal provisions – Held: Impugned order set aside, petitioner entitled to apply for passport renewal [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Constitutional Law – Right to Travel Abroad – Fundamental Right – Court referred to Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) to emphasize that the right to travel abroad is part of personal liberty under Article 21 – Denial of passport without justification violates this right – No absolute bar on issuing passport to those facing trial, subject to court’s discretion based on facts and circumstances [Paras 8, 9].

Administrative Law – Notification and Guidelines – Ministry of External Affairs notification (1993) and Office Memorandum (2019) permit issuance of passports to individuals with pending criminal cases if the court grants permission – Court found that these were ignored by the trial court – Proper procedure requires police verification and court permission before issuing a passport, and any decision must be in compliance with these guidelines [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Trial court order quashed – Petitioner directed to apply afresh for passport renewal – Passport authority to decide within one month following due legal process – Petitioner to seek trial court’s permission before traveling abroad during the case pendency [Paras 10, 11].

Service Law - University Appointments – Requisite Qualifications for Lecturer Post – UGC Regulations Compliance – Petitioner sought permanent approval for appointment as a lecturer in Computer Science in respondent No. 4 college, initially appointed in 2003 with MCA qualification and later acquiring M. Phil in 2009 – Petitioner argued M. Phil acquisition prior to 11.07.2009 exempted him from NET under UGC 2009 regulations – Held: The qualifications at the time of appointment in 2003 govern the eligibility; petitioner did not meet the required qualifications (NET/M.Phil) at the time of appointment – His subsequent M. Phil acquisition in 2009 does not retroactively validate the initial appointment – Petition dismissed [Paras 21-23, 32-33].

UGC Regulations – NET Exemption for Lecturers – Date of Appointment Critical – The Court clarified that UGC Regulations (2000, 2002, 2006, 2009) provided specific criteria for NET exemption, and these criteria must be met at the time of appointment – Exemptions based on M. Phil or Ph.D. qualifications apply only if acquired before the stipulated cutoff dates at the time of appointment – The petitioner’s acquisition of M. Phil in 2009 did not qualify for retrospective exemption – The petitioner’s appointment in 2003 was not valid as per the regulations in force then [Paras 23, 25, 33].

Selection Process – Improper Appointment Procedure – Approval of University – The petitioner’s selection process did not involve a properly constituted selection committee as required under the applicable statutes – The court noted that the petitioner’s appointment orders were signed by the college principal without the involvement of the respondent No. 6 management – There was an unexplained delay of nine years in seeking university approval, raising doubts about the regularity of the appointment – Held: Appointment was not in accordance with law [Paras 26-29].

Equivalence of Qualifications – MCA vs. Computer Science – Petitioner claimed his Master’s degree in Computer Applications (MCA) was equivalent to a Master’s in Computer Science – However, this equivalence was only recognized in a circular dated 04.12.2023, well after the petitioner’s appointment in 2003 – The Court held that equivalence granted in 2023 was inconsequential for the appointment in 2003 – MCA was not considered equivalent to a Master’s in Computer Science at the time of the appointment [Paras 29-30].

Salary and Compensation – No Entitlement for Permanent Salary Approval – Petitioner sought salary disbursement as per Government Resolution dated 04.04.2012 – Court held that there was no material on record showing the petitioner had not been paid salary/honorarium during his ad hoc appointment – Relief for salary disbursement denied due to lack of evidence [Paras 34-35].

Decision – Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – Interim relief extended for two weeks to allow the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court [Paras 35-38].

Application of Section 319 CrPC – Addition of Accused Based on New Evidence – Contradictory Testimony – The petitioner, mother of the deceased, was added as an accused based on new evidence presented during trial under Section 319 CrPC – while earlier witnesses claimed the death was accidental, evidence emerged suggesting the death resulted from manual strangulation – Held: The trial court rightly exercised its discretion under Section 319 CrPC to summon the petitioner as an accused, based on the contradictions in witness testimonies and the postmortem report suggesting manual strangulation [Paras 10-15].

Contradictory Family Testimony – Protection of Accused Family Members – Hostile Witnesses – The family members initially testified that the deceased died from an accidental fall in the bathroom – however, subsequent testimony from P.W.16, a family friend, indicated possible foul play involving the petitioner – the court noted the suspicious protection of family members by hostile witnesses – Held: The court, using its powers under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, interrogated witnesses to establish the truth, supporting the inclusion of the petitioner as an accused [Paras 12-15].

Postmortem Evidence – Cause of Death Contradicts Family’s Narrative – The postmortem report revealed that the deceased had died due to manual strangulation – contradicting the family’s version of an accidental fall – Held: The medical evidence was crucial and consistent with foul play, leading to the petitioner’s addition as an accused [Para 14].

Motive for Murder – Forced Marriage – Love Affair – The prosecution introduced evidence that the deceased had been forced into an unwanted marriage, despite a prior romantic relationship – this served as a potential motive for the petitioner’s involvement in her daughter’s murder – Held: P.W.16’s testimony regarding the deceased’s unhappy marriage was a critical factor in supporting the prosecution’s theory, justifying the petitioner’s summoning as an accused [Paras 10-13].

Section 319 CrPC Invocation – Allowed Even in Advanced Stage of Trial – The petitioner argued that her addition as an accused under Section 319 CrPC was unjustified since the trial was nearing completion – Held: The court ruled that the timing of the invocation of Section 319 was immaterial, provided new evidence emerged justifying the addition of the accused [Para 15].

Decision: Petition dismissed – the court upheld the trial court’s order to summon the petitioner as an accused in the ongoing trial – the case was remanded to the trial court to continue proceedings, with the petitioner granted the right to present her defense [Paras 16].
 

Labour Law - Majithia Wage Board Classification – Reliance on Wikipedia – Reconsideration Ordered – The petitioner, DB Corp Limited, challenged the Labour Court's classification of the company under Class-I as per the Majithia Wage Board based on gross revenue data sourced from Wikipedia – Held: The Tribunal was forced to rely on Wikipedia as the petitioner failed to submit its balance-sheets or unit-wise revenue data at the Tribunal level – Petitioners later submitted these records before the High Court, showing the average gross revenue was below Rs. 1,000 crores – The classification of DB Corp needs to be reconsidered based on the newly submitted financial data – Matter remanded back to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration [Paras 9-10].

Limitation Period – Section 33-C(2), Industrial Disputes Act – No Limitation Period – The petitioners erroneously claimed that the workman’s application for wage recovery was barred by limitation, relying on Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act – Held: Section 33-C(2) does not prescribe any limitation period, and hence, the limitation period under Section 33-C(1) cannot be imported for applications under Section 33-C(2) or Section 17 of the 1955 Act – The Labour Court correctly rejected the limitation plea [Para 8].

Maintainability of Petition – Findings of Labour Court Upheld – The petitioners' objections to the maintainability of the workman’s application were dismissed by the Labour Court – Held: No infirmity found in the Labour Court's reasoning on maintainability – High Court upholds the Tribunal’s findings on this issue [Para 8].

Decision:

The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

The classification of DB Corp Limited under the Majithia Wage Board recommendations is to be reconsidered by the Industrial Tribunal based on the newly submitted financial documents, including balance-sheets and unit-wise revenue data.

The matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal for a fresh determination of the petitioner’s classification in light of the evidence now submitted.

The parties are directed to appear before the Industrial Tribunal on 27.09.2024 for further proceedings.

Taxation Law - Bad Debts Write-Off – Section 36(1)(vii) vs. Provision for Bad Debts – Section 36(1)(viia) – Separate and Independent Deductions Allowed – The appellant claimed deductions under both Section 36(1)(vii) for actual bad debts written off and Section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad debts, arguing that both provisions are independent – Court held: The deductions under these sections are distinct and independent, and both can be claimed as long as the bad debts do not exceed the credit balance in the provision for bad debts – No double deduction was claimed, and the appellant followed the statutory limits [Paras 10-14].

Application of Opening Balance in Provision Account – CBDT Circular Clarification – The revenue argued that the deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) should be limited by considering both the opening and closing balances of the provision for bad debts under Section 36(1)(viia) – Court held: As per CBDT Circular No. 17/2008, the deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) should be reduced only by the opening balance of the provision for bad debts account and not the closing balance [Paras 15-16].

Reliance on Precedents – UTI Bank and Catholic Syrian Bank Cases – The court relied on the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in UTI Bank Ltd. and the Supreme Court's judgment in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., affirming that the deductions under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) are separate and that no double deduction is permissible, ensuring compliance with the legislative intent [Paras 16-17].

Revenue's Misapplication of South Indian Bank Case – The revenue cited South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. CIT to deny the appellant’s claim – Court held: The facts of the present case are distinguishable from South Indian Bank, and the decision does not apply here as the appellant complied with the statutory provisions for claiming the deductions [Paras 18].

Decision: The appeals are allowed – The appellant was entitled to claim deductions under Section 36(1)(vii) for bad debts written off and under Section 36(1)(viia) for provisions for bad debts, in line with the prescribed statutory limits – The questions of law are answered in favor of the appellant and against the revenue [Paras 19-20].

Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 Cr.P.C. – Application for Anticipatory Bail Post-Cancellation of Bail – Maintainability Challenged – The petitioner sought anticipatory bail after the addition of a graver offence (Section 376 I.P.C.) during investigation. The State challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner should have either surrendered and sought regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. or filed a revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C. after the bail was cancelled. Held: Once the accused participated in the proceedings, contested the cancellation, and suffered an adverse order, a subsequent application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. The correct remedy would be to seek revision of the cancellation order [Paras 1, 2, 30, 31]. 

Cancellation of Bail – Addition of Graver Offence – Section 376 I.P.C. – The victim's complaint initially led to registration of a case under Sections 341, 417, 506, and 509 I.P.C. Subsequently, based on her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecution sought to add Section 376 I.P.C. The trial court cancelled the petitioner’s bail after adding this graver non-bailable section – Held: Addition of a graver offence post-grant of bail requires the accused to either surrender and seek bail for the newly added offence or challenge the cancellation in revision. Filing an anticipatory bail application post-cancellation is not permissible [Paras 13, 30, 31]. 

Anticipatory Bail – Liberal Interpretation – Article 21 of the Constitution – The petitioner argued that anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be interpreted liberally in light of Article 21 of the Constitution, as held in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs. State of Gujarat and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab – Held: While anticipatory bail protects personal liberty, it cannot be used as a recourse after bail cancellation following a contested hearing [Paras 9, 10, 26]. 

Procedure Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. – The Court emphasized that any application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. must comply with the procedure under Section 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. The magistrate must ensure that the procedure is followed before directing investigation [Paras 7, 8]. 

Decision – The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as not maintainable, as the petitioner had participated in the cancellation hearing and failed to seek anticipatory bail prior to the cancellation order. The petitioner is at liberty to seek other appropriate remedies in law [Paras 30, 31, 32]. 

Criminal Procedure – Section 125 CrPC – Second Maintenance Application – Res Judicata – The applicant sought to quash the order of the Family Court entertaining a second application under Section 125 CrPC by the respondent wife despite the first application being dismissed without liberty to file a fresh case – The applicant contended that the second application was barred by res judicata – The Court, while referring to various judgments including Sanjeev Kapoor vs. Chandana Kapoor and Sarguja Transport Service vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, held that proceedings under Section 125 CrPC aim at providing social justice and preventing vagrancy and destitution – Since these are summary proceedings and the duty to provide maintenance is continuous, the principle of res judicata does not apply [Paras 23-24].

Continuing Duty – Refusal to Maintain Wife – The Court emphasized that the obligation to maintain a wife is a continuous one – It reiterated that refusal by a husband to maintain his wife creates a recurring wrong – Even if the first application was dismissed, a fresh cause of action arises due to the ongoing obligation under law, and the second application is maintainable [Paras 5, 23, 38].

Decision: Application dismissed – The Court held that the second application under Section 125 CrPC was maintainable despite the earlier case being dismissed without permission to refile – The ongoing duty of the husband to maintain his wife under Section 125 CrPC is not extinguished by the dismissal of an earlier application [Paras 38-40].

Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Prayer for Further Investigation – Alleged Death by Burn Injuries – Dismissal of Application Challenged – The petitioner sought further investigation into the death of his niece, alleging that her husband (the accused) made a video call to a relative instead of rescuing her while she was ablaze – Investigation was initially directed under Section 304B I.P.C., but the court found Section 304B inapplicable as the death occurred after seven years of marriage – The Investigating Officer did not include charges under Section 302 I.P.C. despite the petitioner’s requests – The Magistrate dismissed the petitioner’s application for further investigation – Held: The Court found that further investigation would not serve any fruitful purpose as the Investigating Officer was already permitted to continue investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and would file a supplementary charge sheet if necessary [Paras 1, 9]. 

Witness Statements – Conflicting Testimonies – Victim's Statement to Doctor Contradictory – The petitioner alleged that the accused’s conduct during the incident indicated his guilt, while the Investigating Officer relied on statements from doctors and witnesses suggesting the victim set herself ablaze due to marital discord – The attending doctor stated that the victim claimed to have set herself on fire, while other evidence suggested foul play – Held: Discrepancies in witness testimonies do not necessitate further investigation at this stage, but the trial court may consider invoking Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine witnesses if needed during trial [Paras 6, 7, 8]. 

Consideration of Section 302 I.P.C. during Trial – Although the investigating agency did not add Section 302 I.P.C. in the charge sheet, the trial court is expected to consider all charges, including Section 302 I.P.C., based on the evidence produced during the trial – Held: The trial court shall be at liberty to amend charges if relevant evidence of murder surfaces [Para 10]. 

Decision – Criminal revision application dismissed – Further investigation not required as the Investigating Officer was allowed to continue the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – The trial court shall consider the applicability of Section 302 I.P.C. during the trial, and summon additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C. if necessary [Paras 9, 10, 11].