Daily Judgments of 26 March
Supreme Court of India
Crl.A. No.-001405-001405 - 2019
Parties: STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION CHENNAI CITY I DEPARTMEN VS G. EASWARAN
Judge(s): JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. The Court found that the High Court had exceeded the well-established principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by revisiting the earlier findings of the Special Court and the High Court, which had dismissed the respondent's discharge application and found a prima facie case against him. The Supreme Court also ruled that the High Court's conclusions regarding the invalidity of the sanction to prosecute the respondent were premature, as the validity of the sanction is an issue to be examined during the course of the trial.
C.A. No.-004383-004383 - 2025
Parties: THE CHIEF OFFICER, NAGPUR HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD (A MHADA UNIT) VS MANOHAR BURDE
Judge(s): JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI, JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
Area of Law: Consumer Protection Law
The Court held that the NCDRC had reasonably awarded the buyer a refund of the amount paid with 9% interest per annum, considering the delay in delivery of the flat. The Court found that the High Court's decision to increase the interest rate to 15% per annum was excessive. Additionally, the Court reduced the compensation payable to the buyer from ₹10 lakhs to ₹7.5 lakhs, considering the State instrumentality nature of the appellant and the lack of personal animosity.
Crl.A. No.-000724-000724 - 2025
Parties: REKHA SHARAD USHIR VS SAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Area of Law: Banking and Negotiable Instruments Law
The Court held that the respondent's complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was an abuse of the process of law, as the respondent had suppressed material facts and documents in the complaint. The court found that the appellant had demanded the loan documents relied upon in the demand notice, but the respondent failed to provide them. Suppressing this information in the complaint and statement under Section 200 CrPC amounted to an abuse of the process. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the high court's order and quashed the complaint and the order of cognizance.
Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)-3124/2025
Parties: DR O P SINGH Vs DELHI SKILL AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP UNIVERSITY & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court of Delhi held that the appointment of respondent No. 2 as the Campus Director of the PUSA Campus of the Delhi Skill and Entrepreneurship University (DSEU) by the Vice Chancellor was legally valid, even though the Board of Management (BOM) is the principal executive authority under the DSEU Act and Statutes.
The court found that the Vice Chancellor has been conferred wide powers under the Act and Statutes, including the power to exercise the powers of the BOM in emergent cases, and to assign additional responsibilities to teachers. The impending retirement of the petitioner, who was only an "Officiating Principal" and never regularly appointed, was held to be a sufficient reason for the Vice Chancellor to make the temporary appointment.
The court rejected the petitioner's allegations of mala fides, noting that he had already continued in the officiating position well beyond the normal 5-year tenure prescribed for a regular Principal under the AICTE Regulations. The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to hand over charge to respondent No. 2 within 3 days.
W.P.(C)-9800/2024
Parties: APARNA MISHRA & ORS. Vs NATIONAL EDUCATION SOCIETY FOR TRIBAL STUDENTS THROUGH COMMISSIONER & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Area of Law: Education Law
The High Court held that Master of Arts (Drawing and Painting) or Master of Arts (Painting) degrees from recognized universities satisfy the "Degree in Fine Art/Crafts from a Recognized University" qualification prescribed for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Art) by the National Education Society for Tribal Students. However, the court found that diploma qualifications held by some petitioners do not qualify as a "Degree in Fine Arts/Crafts from a Recognized University" as per the UGC Act. The court accordingly directed NESTS to treat the M.A. degree holders as qualified and process their applications, but dismissed the writ petitions of the diploma holders.
BAIL APPLN.-781/2025
Parties: AAMIN Vs THE STATE NCT OF DELHI
Judge(s): JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, a TSR (three-wheeler) driver, who was accused of being in possession of 21 kg of ganja (cannabis) along with a co-accused passenger. The court found that the prosecution's story was not convincing, as the positioning of the trolley bags containing the drugs did not align with the claim of joint involvement. While the prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in a conspiracy to supply the drugs to a kingpin named Md. Mojjam, the court noted that the ownership of the second phone number linked to the kingpin had not been conclusively established. The court concluded that at most, the material showed the petitioner was found carrying a trolley bag containing 8.3 kg of ganja, which is not a commercial quantity. Considering the circumstances, the court granted bail to the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond and surety.
BAIL APPLN.-2349/2024
Parties: ONYEKACHI ANYA FRIDAY Vs THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that:
1. The requirements of Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act were duly complied with by the police during the search and seizure. The court relied on the Supreme Court's guidelines in Ranjan Kumar Chadha v State of Himachal Pradesh.
2. The recovery of 205 grams of contraband from the petitioner's rented accommodation can be attributed to him, as it was found to be in his exclusive possession based on the landlord's statement.
3. The delay in drawing the sample as per Section 52A of the NDPS Act was a procedural irregularity that would not vitiate the trial, as per the Supreme Court's rulings in Narcotics Control Bureau v Kashif and Union of India v Mohan Lal.
4. Given the commercial quantity of the recovered contraband, the embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, and there are no grounds to grant bail to the petitioner.
W.P.(C)-3711/2025
Parties: BACKBONE OVERSEAS Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, FOREIGN POST OFFICE , NEW DELHI AND ANR & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH, JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Area of Law: Customs Law
The High Court held that the Customs Department's detention of the petitioner's export goods (ladies PVC slippers) without issuing a seizure memo or providing any reasons was unacceptable. The court relied on the CBIC Circular No. 30/2013, which emphasizes the need for expedited clearing of export goods unless they are prohibited. The court directed the Customs Department to take a decision on the matter and provisionally release the goods within 7 days, subject to any reasonable conditions. The court noted that the Customs Department had taken steps to investigate the matter only after the filing of the writ petition, which was unacceptable as it resulted in the delay of clearing the petitioner's consignment and those of other similarly placed persons.
Bombay High Court
WP/10483/2023
Parties: BHASKAR MAHIPAT PAVALE Vs RAJARAM KHANDU PAVALE AND ORS
Judge(s): JUSTICE M.S. SONAK, JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN
Area of Law: Land Acquisition Law
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the Sub-Divisional Officer's impugned order, and directed the SDO to refer the dispute over apportionment of compensation to the prescribed authority under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act.
The court held that under the scheme of the Act, disputes over apportionment of compensation must be decided by the judicial authority, not the Collector/SDO themselves. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vinod Kumar, the court ruled that the SDO had wrongly decided the apportionment issue instead of referring it to the prescribed authority.
The SDO was directed to transfer the compensation amount to the authority within one month for investment, so that the parties can get proportionate interest when the authority finally decides the apportionment dispute. The court clarified that it has not examined the merits of the parties' claims, which will be determined by the authority.
WP/6418/2017
Parties: LOK HOUSING and CONSTRUCTION LTD. Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR
Area of Law: Property Law
The Court held that the contractual clause seeking to defer the promoter's obligation to execute conveyance until completion of the project is in direct conflict with the statutory timeline prescribed under Rule 9 of the MOFA Rules, and cannot take precedence over the promoter's statutory duty.
The court rejected the promoter's arguments that the conveyance should be executed in favor of a federation of societies and that the incomplete construction of one building should prevent deemed conveyance, finding them legally unsustainable.
The court also held that the procedural requirement of serving a legal notice prior to the deemed conveyance application is a technical non-compliance that cannot defeat the society's statutory rights under MOFA. Accordingly, the court upheld the Competent Authority's order granting deemed conveyance in favor of the respondent housing society.
ALP/14/2022
Parties: MORRIES ENERGIES LIMITED THROUGH HEMANT KUMAR GARG Vs SUMIT AGARWAL AND ANR
Judge(s): JUSTICE S. M. MODAK
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court held that while it refused to grant leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused Sumit, it found merit in granting leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused Anubhav.
The court found the observations of the appellate court in acquitting Anubhav to be prima facie erroneous, and held that it needs to ascertain the correctness of the findings on the point of non-proof of liability. The court noted that the documents on record, including the cheques signed by Anubhav and the agreement, need to be given weightage while considering the evidence.
Therefore, the court granted leave to Morries Energies Limited to prefer an appeal against the acquittal of accused Anubhav, while dismissing the application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused Sumit.
WP/8383/2023
Parties: PANKAJ S/O SHIVNATH NIKHAR Vs UNION OF INDIA, THR. SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VITTA MANTRALAYA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE NITIN W. SAMBRE, JUSTICE VRUSHALI V. JOSHI
Area of Law: Banking Law
The High Court held that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment should be considered based on the policy of the Syndicate Bank, as his father's service conditions were protected under the amalgamation scheme when the Syndicate Bank was merged into the Canara Bank.
The court found that the Canara Bank's policy, which focuses on "indigent circumstances," cannot be applied in this case, as the Syndicate Bank's policy, which had a monthly income limit, should govern the petitioner's eligibility for compassionate appointment. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim on the touchstone of the Syndicate Bank's policy and issue the appointment order within the next 8 weeks, unless the petitioner is otherwise found ineligible.
CARBAL/32551/2024
Parties: EBIX CASH WORLD MONEY LIMITED Vs Ashok Kumar Goel
Judge(s): JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR, JUSTICE RAJESH S. PATIL
Area of Law: Arbitration Law
The High Court upheld the maintainability of the Arbitration Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the respondents, despite the passing of the Final Award during the pendency of the proceedings. The court found that the respondents had made out a case for granting interim relief based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, and the overall conduct of the appellants was a relevant factor in doing so. The Division Bench of the High Court unanimously dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants.
Calcutta High Court
WPA/13129/2021
Parties: RANJIT GHOSH vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Judge(s): JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
Area of Law: Service Law
The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the CISF employee, Ranjit Ghosh, challenging the charge sheet issued against him for allegedly violating Rule 18 of the CISF Rules, 2001 by contracting a second marriage while still being married to his first wife.
The court held that the disciplinary authority has the jurisdiction to examine whether the petitioner violated the service rules, as this is a mandatory precondition for a CISF employee. The court noted that the intention of the disciplinary proceedings is not to decide the validity of the petitioner's marriages, but to determine if he had committed misconduct by violating the service rules.
The court observed that the disciplinary authority is within its rights to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the alleged misconduct and dismissed the writ petition. However, the court clarified that it has not examined the merits of the allegations and left it open for the parties to raise their respective pleas before the appropriate forum at a later stage.
WPA/22948/2024
Parties: SMT. PARULBALAMONDAL vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL &ORS.
Judge(s): JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA ROY
Area of Law: Property Law
The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a free hold title deed for 5 cottahs of land based on the state's 1987 rehabilitation policy, even though the Civil Court had decreed that the petitioner was in possession of 15 decimals (equivalent to over 9 cottahs) of land. The court balanced the petitioner's legal rights established through the Civil Court decree and the state's welfare policy objectives in restricting the allotment of homestead land to a maximum of 5 cottahs per family. The court directed the state authorities to demarcate the 5 cottahs of land belonging to the petitioner and have the surplus land surrendered back to the state.
WPA/23925/2009
Parties: THE INDIA JUTE & INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
Judge(s): JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Area of Law: Labor Law
The High Court upheld the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, rejecting the petitioners' plea to recalculate the interest under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act based on a 10% contribution rate. The court found that the petitioners, a sick industrial undertaking, had been depositing PF contributions at 12% even after a 1997 notification required 10% contributions for such establishments. While the petitioners claimed they made excess payments, the court held that the higher contributions were accepted by the authorities and the benefits had already been paid to the outgoing employees, so the interest could not be reduced retrospectively. The court concluded that the findings of the PF authorities were in accordance with the law and did not require interference.
CRR/926/2015
Parties: M/S. GODREJ AGROVET LTD. vs GOBINDA CHANDRA KUNDU & ANR.
Judge(s): JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE DAS
Area of Law: Criminal Law
The High Court allowed the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner company, M/s. Godrej Agrovet Ltd. The court held that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar should be deemed to have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court noted that the accused had appeared and pleaded "not guilty" when the case was first taken up, and the recording of evidence had not commenced as per Section 145(2) of the NI Act. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgments in Dasharath Roop Singh Rathore and Indian Bank Association to arrive at this decision.