Daily Judgments of 12 March
Stay informed with our daily judgment summaries from the Supreme Court and major High Courts. We bring you key legal insights, ensuring you never miss an important ruling.
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)-1919/2020
Parties: JANKI NEWSPRINT LTD Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, AIR CARGO IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Area of Law: Tax Law
The High Court held that the Petitioner, Janki Newsprint Ltd., is not eligible to avail the CENVAT Credit for the countervailing duty (CVD) paid on the imported capital goods, as the differential customs duty was ultimately deposited along with interest much later in 2018, after the Petitioner approached the Settlement Commission. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Osram Surya (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, which held that the limitation introduced via amendment to the rules would be applicable against any manufacturer claiming credits after the amendment came into force. The Court also referred to the Madras High Court's decision in Supreme Petrochem Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Tax & C. Ex., Chennai, which held that once the proceedings before the Settlement Commission have attained finality, the same cannot be re-opened or modified for claiming any benefit under the CENVAT Credit Rules. Accordingly, the High Court upheld the decision of the Settlement Commission in rejecting the Petitioner's claim for CENVAT Credit as being time-barred.
MAT.APP.(F.C.)-106/2025
Parties: RAHUL GULATI Vs JYOTSNA GULATI
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
Area of Law: Family Law
The High Court partially modified the lower court's order that granted overnight visitation rights to the respondent mother. The court held that instead of overnight visitation, the respondent would be allowed day-time visitation with the twin children on March 14 and 15, 2025, without the appellant father being present.
The court noted that the respondent had not enjoyed overnight visitation rights for nearly two years, and thus allowed the limited day-time visitation as an interim arrangement. The court clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appellant's contention that the children may be uncomfortable spending the night with the respondent. The parties were directed to seek further remedies as per law once the complete copy of the lower court's order is made available.
W.P.(C)-3203/2025
Parties: PRASHANT KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court held that the petitioner's challenge to the Physical Standard Test (PST) result, which declared him "Unfit" for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector due to his height being 169.5 cm (below the required 170 cm), has merit.
The court noted that the petitioner was previously declared qualified in the PST in 2020, 2022, and 2023 for the same post, raising a genuine doubt on the latest Impugned Report.
The court directed the petitioner's height to be re-measured at Safdarjung Hospital, and if he meets the PST standards, he shall be declared qualified and allowed to appear in the written examination with the next batch of candidates. If the petitioner is eventually found successful, he shall be offered employment along with the next batch of selected candidates. The court did not find the delay in the petitioner approaching the court to be fatal to his claim.
O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.)-3/2023
Parties: MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG (PREVIOUSLY DAIMLER AG) Vs MINDA CORPORATION LIMITED
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court of Delhi has enforced a foreign arbitral award dated 29th November 2021 passed by an arbitral tribunal in Germany under the ICC Rules. The award was a consent award arising from a settlement agreement between Mercedes-Benz Group AG (the decree holder) and Minda Corporation Limited (the judgment debtor). The court rejected the objections raised by the judgment debtor, finding them to be dishonest and an attempt to obstruct enforcement. The court directed the judgment debtor to remit the full award amount of EUR 5.5 million (approximately INR 52 crores) which has already been deposited with the court registry.
CS(COMM)-560/2023
Parties: M/S PC JAIN TEXTILE PVT LTD THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE Vs SH. SHYAM SUNDER SURI AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
Area of Law: Tenancy Law
The High Court held that the defendants must be granted conditional leave to defend the summary suit filed by the plaintiff seeking rendition of accounts and recovery of contractual amounts due under two lease deeds. While the defendants did not have a substantial defense against the plaintiff's claim for the outstanding rent, the court granted them leave to defend on the issues of cheque bouncing charges, delayed rent, and damages, subject to the defendants depositing the outstanding rent amount of Rs. 73,44,969 with the court within four weeks. The court found that the defendants' defense on the limitation issue was a triable one, and did not express any view on it at this stage.
CRL.A.-378/2002
Parties: SUSHIL KUMAR ALIAS RAJU Vs STATE
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court has allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant, Sushil Kumar, under Section 302 IPC (murder). The court found that the prosecution's case, based on circumstantial evidence, suffered from several gaps and inconsistencies, and the testimony of the defense witnesses raised reasonable doubts about the prosecution's version of events. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The impugned judgment convicting the appellant and the order on sentence have been set aside, and the appellant has been ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
CRL.A.-2/2020
Parties: NAVAL KISHORE KAPOOR Vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
Judge(s): JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the accused, Naval Kishore Kapoor, against the rejection of his bail application by the Additional Sessions Judge. The court held that there are reasonable grounds to believe the allegations against the appellant to be prima facie true, as required under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The court analyzed the material collected by the investigation agency, including documentary evidence and statements of witnesses, and found that the appellant was intrinsically linked to the co-accused, Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, and had allegedly aided and assisted him in channeling funds from fake and bogus companies in the UAE to the secessionists and separatists in the Kashmir valley. The court also referred to its earlier judgment in the case of the co-accused Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, where the Supreme Court had found reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against him to be prima facie true.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, the High Court concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe the allegations against the appellant to be prima facie true, and hence, dismissed his bail application.
W.P.(CRL)-2743/2024
Parties: MONU @ SANDEEP Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court upheld the detention order passed against the petitioner, Monu @ Sandeep @ Rickey, under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PITNDPS) Act, 1988. The court found that the detaining authority had applied its mind properly and had sufficient material to be satisfied that the petitioner, who was already in custody, was likely to be released on bail and would continue to engage in the illicit trafficking of drugs if released.
The court noted that the petitioner had a long criminal history, with involvement in over 109 cases since 1997, and had repeatedly applied for bail in the pending NDPS cases, which was a relevant factor for the detaining authority to consider.
Bombay High Court
CA/332/2019
Parties: JAIKISHAN NARANG HUF THROUGH ITS KARTA KAHAN CHAND NARANG AND ANOTHER Vs THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR OF SURENDRA ENGINEERING CORP LTD. AND 2 OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE MANISH PITALE
Area of Law: Company Law
The High Court allowed the application filed by the landlords under Section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956, and directed the official liquidator to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the two premises taken on monthly tenancy by the company in liquidation. The court found that the need projected by the official liquidator for retaining the premises was not genuine, as the official liquidator did not provide sufficient justification for requiring the premises and the tenancy rights of the company in liquidation cannot be considered as "assets" of the company. The court held that the official liquidator cannot insist on retaining the premises without a justifiable reason.
WP/3359/2024
Parties: RAMADAS KS Vs TATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR, JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court upheld the decision of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) to suspend a PhD student for 2 years for violating the institute's rules and regulations. The court found that the student had participated in a politically-motivated protest march using the TISS name, and posted content on social media related to a documentary screening, which was in breach of the institute's Code of Conduct and Honour Code.
The court also considered the student's past conduct, which included unauthorized events and demonstrations, in deciding that the 2-year suspension was a proportionate punishment. The court held that the student, while receiving a government fellowship, was bound by the institute's rules and regulations, and could not use the institute's name for his own political views and protests.
Calcutta High Court
WPA/25774/2024
Parties: HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED vs THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court held that the principal employer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, is liable to pay gratuity to the contract workers (Respondent Nos. 4 to 18) employed through the contractor, M/s. NIS Management Limited. The court relied on the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which define the liability of the principal employer for payment of "wages" including gratuity.
The court found that even though the contract workers were appointed and paid by the contractor, the principal employer remained a constant factor throughout their employment. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the court held that the principal employer is liable to pay the gratuity. However, the court modified the order to allow the principal employer to recover the gratuity amount paid from the contractor, as per the provisions of the Contract Labour Act.
Overall, the court upheld the orders of the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority, with a minor modification regarding the recovery of the gratuity amount from the contractor.
CO/3407/2015
Parties: SHRI GAUTAM KUMAR PINCHA vs SMT. ASHA DEVI BAJAJ & ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE BISWAJIT BASU
Area of Law: Civil Law
The High Court held that the maintainability of the suit for specific performance of the agreement regarding the government land should be decided based on a consideration of all the relevant documents, including those submitted by the plaintiff pursuant to the Supreme Court's earlier order. The court set aside the lower court's previous order dismissing the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, and allowed the petitioner to amend the application to include all the grounds and documents on which the maintainability of the suit is to be determined. The matter was remanded to the trial court to decide the maintainability issue expeditiously after providing the plaintiff an opportunity to file a written objection to the amended application.
CRR/1783/2018
Parties: MD. YUNUS @ MD. YOUNUS AND OTHERS vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANOTHER
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Municipal Law
The High Court set aside the convictions of the petitioners (Md. Yunus, Md. Asif, and Md. Nousad) under Section 401A of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners were responsible for the unauthorized construction at 14/5 B.T. Road, Kolkata, which was found to be dangerous.
The evidence showed the petitioners were either tenants or trespassers at the nearby premises of 14 B.T. Road, owned by different landlords. While an unauthorized construction existed at 14/5 B.T. Road, the High Court noted that the prosecution could not establish the petitioners' involvement in it. Relying on a previous High Court order regarding the same premises, the High Court concluded the building at 14/5 B.T. Road was an old structure, more than 20 years old, without any new construction. Therefore, the High Court set aside the convictions by the lower courts.
CRR/2060/2018
Parties: SUBIR SARKAR vs MISS BITHI GUHA & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Banking Law
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner, Subir Sarkar, and upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The Court held that the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was deemed to be properly served on the petitioner, based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments. The High Court also found that the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, as the petitioner's claim that it was an accommodation loan was not substantiated. The High Court affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act and the sentence awarded by the trial court.
MAT/332/2025
Parties: BISWAS ENTERPRISES vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Judge(s): CHIEF T.S. SIVAGNANAM, JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)
Area of Law: Administrative Law
The High Court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition challenging the tender notification for the supply of Vannamei Shrimp seeds. The court held that the tender inviting authority's decision to centralize the tender process based on audit observations pointing to losses due to fragmented procurements was not arbitrary or irrational. The court further noted that the appellant failed to meet the eligibility criteria for the tender, and therefore, could not maintain the writ petition, which was also filed belatedly after the bid closing date.
CRA (DB)/260/2024
Parties: SUJOY @ SUJAN MONDAL & OTHERS vs THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE, JUSTICE APURBA SINHA RAY
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court at Calcutta held that the cancellation of the appellants' statutory bail by the NIA Court was not sustainable. The court found that the NIA Court had not properly considered the circumstances around the filing of the chargesheet, particularly the fact that it was filed after court hours on the 90th day, resulting in the grant of statutory bail.
The court also noted that the NIA Court had erroneously applied an order related to a different accused, Buddhadeb Mondal, to the present appellants. Additionally, the court found that the NIA Court had acted as an appellate forum over the order of interim bail granted by the Special Court at Tamluk, which it did not have the authority to do.