Civil Appeal – Eviction from a tenanted shop under Section 13-B of the Act – Tenant challenges the eviction order – Grounds raised by the tenant for leave to defend the eviction application examined – Tenant disputes the ownership of the landlord and argues that the summary eviction is not maintainable – Tenant also claims that the landlord possesses other shops, which disqualifies the eviction under Section 13-B – High Court and Rent Controller reject the tenant's pleas – Matter brought to the Supreme Court – Court holds that the tenant failed to disclose facts disentitling the landlord from obtaining an eviction order under Section 13-B – Court dismisses the appeal. [Para 13-19]

Civil Appeal – Eviction from a tenanted shop under Section 13-B of the Act – Tenant challenges the eviction order – Grounds raised by the tenant for leave to defend the eviction application examined – Tenant disputes the ownership of the landlord and argues that the summary eviction is not maintainable – Tenant also claims that the landlord possesses other shops, which disqualifies the eviction under Section 13-B – High Court and Rent Controller reject the tenant's pleas – Matter brought to the Supreme Court – Court holds that the tenant failed to disclose facts disentitling the landlord from obtaining an eviction order under Section 13-B – Court dismisses the appeal. [Para 13-19]

Civil Appeal – Eviction proceedings – Challenge to the Order of Eviction – Grounds for eviction under Section 13-B of the Act – Appellant seeks relief from eviction – Maintaining the eviction application – Status of the Respondent as a Non-Resident Indian – Ownership of the tenanted premises – Denial of the landlady-tenant relationship – Maintainability of a joint Application for eviction – Appellant's plea against eviction of a dead person – Dismissal of the Application for leave to defend – Rent Controller's findings in favor of the Respondent – High Court's affirmation of the eviction order – Appellant's limited challenge before the High Court – Scope of consideration in the Civil Appeal – Additional documents filed in a connected Appeal – Failure to make out a case for interference – Appeal dismissed. [Para 1-19]

Civil Appeal – Application for directions to issue Sale letter – Applicant (original Respondent No.6) seeking Sale letter for property based on full and final payment of auction amount with interest – Multiple extensions sought by the Applicant – Compliance with statutory provisions and court orders questioned – Application for directions questioned on grounds of maintainability. [Para 1-18]

Banking and Financial Regulations – Mortgage of property as security for credit facilities – Initiation of proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Applicability of Rule 9 regarding the time of sale and payment of purchase price. [Para 6]

Extension of Time – Court’s previous orders extending time for depositing the balance sale amount due to the COVID-19 pandemic – Statutory limitations and applicability of orders granting extensions – Clarification on when lockdown restrictions were lifted required for precise calculation of extended period. [Para 15-16]

Supreme Court’s Powers – Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Limitations on the exercise of inherent powers – Inability to bypass statutory provisions or extend time limits beyond what is explicitly allowed – Application of Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code. [Para 17-18]

Maintainability of Miscellaneous Application – Filing of repeated applications in the disposed Civil Appeal without legal foundation – Strong disapproval by the Court of such practices – Questioning the maintainability of the application seeking directions. [Para 18]

Remedy – Court clarifies that the applicant is free to seek other permissible remedies under the law, including a refund of the amount deposited. [Para 19-20]

Decision – Miscellaneous Application No.1735 of 2022 dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability and failure to comply with the statutory and court-imposed timelines. [Para 20]

Criminal Appeal – Suspension of Sentence – Applicant seeks suspension of sentence during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal – Conviction for conspiracy and murder – Alleged conspiracy to eliminate the deceased – Conviction under Sections 302, 120B, and 201 IPC – High Court's dismissal of the appeal – Co-accused granted benefit of doubt – Applicant's custody period and medical issues concerning his daughter considered – Sentence suspended, and the applicant directed to be released on bail. [Para 1-6]

Civil Appeal – Extension of Limitation – COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on the filing of written statements – Orders of the Supreme Court extending the period of limitation – High Court's rejection of applications for extension of time – Appellants seek to take their written statements on record – Orders passed post-Sagufa Ahmed case distinguishable – Orders of the Supreme Court dated 08.03.2021 and subsequent orders extended the period for computing outer limits within which delay can be condoned – Applications filed by appellants are within the extended time – High Court's judgment set aside, and written statements directed to be taken on record. [Para 1-22]

Criminal Appeal - Challenge to High Court's Orders - Dismissal of writ petitions by Division Bench - Appellants seeking relief related to arrest orders - Apprehension of action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Interim protection granted by Delhi High Court - Anticipatory bail - Orders of remand questioned - Interpretation of Section 19 of the Act - No challenge to constitutional validity - Request for 'reading down' and 'reading into' the provisions - Allegation of abuse of power and unconstitutional arrest - Writ petitions seeking quashing of arrest and remand orders - Punjab & Haryana High Court's misunderstanding of the nature of the challenge - Division Bench's failure to recognize the distinction - Arrests made in connection with the second ECIR. [Para 2-12]

Arrest Validity - Money Laundering Case - Arrest under Section 19 of the Act of 2002 - Issue of arrest validity and remand orders examined - High Court's casual approach questioned - Compliance with Section 19 requirements crucial. [Para 13]

Legal Safeguards - Analysis of relevant case law - Section 19 of the Act of 2002 - Inbuilt safeguards for arrest - Recording of reasons, informing the grounds of arrest, and timely production before the Court - Stringent standards for arrest in money laundering cases. [Para 14]

Role of Magistrate - Interaction between Section 19 and Section 167 Cr.P.C - Magistrate's duty to ensure compliance with safeguards - Failure to comply may lead to release of the arrestee - Importance of Section 19 requirements. [Para 15-16]

Constitutional Aspect - Arrest's impact on constitutional rights - Remand orders cannot cure constitutional violations during arrest - Importance of judicial scrutiny in remand orders. [Para 17]

Remand Order Scrutiny - Deficiency in the remand order dated 15.06.2023 - Failure to assess compliance with Section 19 - Lack of proper justification for custodial interrogation - Need for a thorough examination of arrest procedures. [Para 18]

Sequence of Events - Chronological overview of the arrest and summons - Ambiguities in summons served - Arrests of Roop Bansal, Basant Bansal, and Pankaj Bansal - Questions raised about the timing and legality of arrests. [Para 19]

Judicial Review - Challenge to Arrest and Remand Orders - Examination of ED's Conduct - Expectation of Transparency and Probity in ED's Actions - Allegations of Abuse of Power and Vindictive Conduct - Consideration of Malafides and Colorable Exercise of Power - Lack of Bonafides Demonstrated in ED's Actions - Failure to Inform Appellants About Second ECIR Before Arrests - Timing and Diligence of Investigation Questioned - [Para 20-25]

Necessity for ED to Inform Arrested Persons About Grounds for Arrest - Constitutional and Statutory Rights Related to Grounds for Arrest - Discrepancies in Conveying Grounds of Arrest in Different Regions - Importance of Providing Written Grounds for Legal Counsel and Due Process - Obligation to Furnish a Written Copy of Grounds of Arrest - [Para 26-35]

Arrest and Remand Orders Set Aside, Appellants to Be Released Unless Required in Another Case - No Costs Awarded. [Para 36]

Service Matter - Employment Dispute – Interpretation of clause 4 of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April 2002 – Whether clause 4 bars departmental proceedings when criminal proceedings for similar offences are pending against an employee – Court's interpretation of clause 4. [Para 1-13]

Simultaneous Proceedings – Permissibility of simultaneous departmental and criminal proceedings – Court's stance on the permissibility and desirability of simultaneous proceedings based on the nature of charges and other factors. [Para 14-15]

Effect of Acquittal – Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically lead to acquittal or discharge in departmental proceedings – Distinct nature and objectives of both proceedings highlighted. [Para 16-17]

Application of Clause 4 – Conditions for the operation of clause 4 – Requirement for at least one year to pass since the initiation of prosecution, reasonable duration for staying departmental proceedings, and application of clause 4 on a case-by-case basis. [Para 16-26]

Compliance with Natural Justice – No plea of violation of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings – Confirmation that natural justice principles were followed. [Para 24-25]

Upholding Dismissal – The dismissal of the delinquent employee from service as per the Memorandum dated 28th March 2003 is restored. [Para 30]

Legal Principles – The importance of higher standards of honesty and integrity for bank officers highlighted, emphasizing the need for good conduct and discipline in a bank's functioning. [Para 27]

Special Leave Petition (Criminal) – Dismissal: The petitioner sought to quash ongoing trial proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – The petition dismissed on grounds of abuse and misuse of legal process.

Abuse of Legal Process – Delay in Court Proceedings: Petitioner failed to appear during the trial, leading to issuance of a non-bailable warrant – Failure to participate further even 16 years after the lodging of the FIR, criticized as a glaring example of how litigants abuse and misuse the process of law.

Imposition of Costs: Due to the abuse of legal process, the court imposed costs amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, to be deposited with the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association Welfare Fund.

Consequences of Non-compliance: The court specified that proof of such deposit must be submitted to the Registry within six weeks, failing which the Registry will list the matter for further orders. [Para 7]

FIR and Trial: The First Information Report was lodged in 2007, and the trial had reached an advanced stage with all prosecution witnesses examined and final arguments commenced – Petitioner's attempt to quash the proceedings at the fag end of the trial disapproved.

Decision: Petition dismissed with costs – All pending applications also stand disposed of.

Delay in Trial Proceedings – Petitioner accused of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Persistent delays in the commencement and continuation of trial for approximately 25-26 years, attributed to the petitioner's filing of multiple frivolous petitions.

Judicial Directions – Multiple directions issued by the High Court and approved by the Supreme Court to conclude the trial within a specified time frame, yet petitioner succeeds in stalling the trial proceedings through frivolous applications.

Judicial Discretion – Exercise of discretion by both the Trial Court and the High Court in dealing with meritless interlocutory applications – No infirmity found in the orders of the High Court.

Abuse of Process – Record of previous impositions of costs for filing frivolous petitions and concealing material facts – Supreme Court holds that misuse and abuse of legal process need to be dealt with firmly.

Cost Imposition – Dismissal of all three petitions filed by the petitioner with costs amounting to Rs. 3 Lakhs to be deposited with the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association for welfare activities.

Miscellaneous – All pending applications stand disposed of, with the stipulation for proof of cost deposit within a specified time frame.