(2023) 2 HCC (Bom)
Service Law—Penalty/Punishment—Disciplinary Authority removed petitioner from service on grounds of giving two undue increments in salary to himself. Considering the total absence of evidence and that petitioner successfully proved in the enquiry that he had brought the factum of erroneous pay fixation to the notice of his superior officers, penalty order, set aside, [Rajesh Ashok Mankar v. Konkan Railway Corpn. Ltd., (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 258]
Labour Law—Departmental Enquiry—Fairness in Procedure—Respondent-peon alleged to have assaulted headmaster—Sufficient opportunity was not provided to the respondent to cross-examine witnesses and lead evidence and management failed to examine the headmaster, hence, order of termination, set aside, and enquiry proceedings were remitted before the Enquiry Committee, [Vidya Vikas Education Society v. Sunil Gulabrao Wadatkar, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 273]
Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws—Petitioners availed credit facilities from Credit society and claimed to have repaid—Credit Society’s Branch Manager issued various ‘no-dues certificates’ and executed release deed, however, Credit Society claimed that dues were not paid. Question arose that whether proceedings under S. 101 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 correct remedy for recovery of alleged dues of Credit. Held, S. 101 is not correct remedy for recovery of alleged dues. The Registrar does not have jurisdiction to permit parties to lead evidence or to conduct cross-examination, [Monika Sagar Kate v. Registrar, Coop. Societies, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 295]
Trust and Trustees—Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950—When claim of title is raised by an individual/stranger relating suit property thereby asserting his independent right or title adverse and hostile to the trust, it would be beyond the scope of inquiry under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act. Thus, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred to entertain and decide such claim, [Nana v. Vijay, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 313]
(2024) 1 HCC (Bom)
Education Law—Disproportionate punishment on students—The degree of injuries to self-esteem, the extent of degradation of human worth, and the depth of humiliation caused by the punishment are relevant facts to be probed in an enquiry into the validity of the punishment to be imposed upon the students, [Vuribindi Mokshith Reddy v. BITS, Pilani, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 90]
(2023) 6 HCC (Del)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—S. 439—On failure of mediation proceedings, application for bail to be considered on merits, [Aman Gupta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 89]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Ss. 34, 34(2-A), 34(4) and 37—Award—Scope of challenge under S. 34 –Court does not possess the power to modify an arbitral award while hearing a challenge under Section 34 of the Act, reiterated, [Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Jamshed Khan, (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 151]
Sales Tax and VAT—Input Tax Credit—Refund Intermediary—Assessee, an Indian branch office of UK’s company and provided services directly to group entities outside India in terms of service agreements. Held, assessee is actual supplier of professional services and not ‘intermediary’. The services rendered by assessee to group entities, prior to commencement of goods and services tax regime, considered ‘export of services’, [Ernst & Young Ltd. v. Commr. (CGST), (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 64]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Ss. 439 and 482—Petitioner had spent 2 years and 5 months in custody for offence under S. 420 IPC for which the maximum punishment is 7 years. Bail was granted, as petitioner cannot be kept in custody for indefinite period to await the outcome of trial and at the pre-conviction stage, there is a presumption of innocence, [Anil Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 229]
Income Tax—Reassessment—Notice—Order for issue of notice—Validity—Assessee was not given adequate opportunity to be heard, hence, order for issue of notice and consequent notice, not valid, [Movish Realtech (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 125]
The prescription of qualification for a particular post is the sole domain of the employer/expert bodies. The court cannot substitute its view in place of the view taken by the expert bodies which is based upon deliberation, thorough research and with application of mind, reiterated, [Ruchir Agrawal v. Public Enterprises Selection Board, (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 96]
Constitution of India—Art. 226—Court monitored investigation—A court-monitored investigation is a significant measure, typically invoked when there is a palpable sense of governmental neglect or oversight. It is not a mechanism to be employed routinely or without just cause, [Tarun Narang v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 141]
Debt, Financial and Monetary Laws—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Ss. 141 and 138—Offence by Company—Vicarious liability—Petitioner, holding day-to-day affairs of the company, cannot be responsible for or in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company or its conduct of business at the relevant time when the cheques were issued, [Varun v. Amit Khanna, (2023) 6 HCC (Del) 129]
(2024) 1 HCC (Del)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Ss. 34—Patent illegality—The ground of “patent illegality” is applied when there is a contravention of the substantive law of India, the Arbitration Act or the Rules applicable to the substance of the dispute, [Five Star Construction (P) Ltd. v. Orchid Infrastructure Developers (P) Ltd., (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 163]
Administrative Law—Administrative or Executive function—Judicial Review of policy matter— Policymaking is exclusively within the province of the Government and such matters do not ordinarily attract the power of judicial review, [VI Exports India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 173]
Education Law—Withdrawal of Affiliation/ Recognition—The Institute was granted the recognition for running B.Ed. course, but it was withdrawn by the NCTE. Held, unfair to withdraw recognition to the Institution on the ground that it had not submitted the list of university approved faculty, when, at the time of recognition, the list was submitted, [Gobindapur Academic PTTI v. NCTE, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 186]
Local Government—Municipalities and Panchayats—Municipalities—Allotment of flats by Development Authority—Cancellation of allotment of flat after reallocation—The petitioner’s failure to pay last instalment led to cancellation of allotment. The cancellation was revoked and flat was reallocated, however, allotment was cancelled again. Held, cancellation of allotment done without issuing any show-cause notice to petitioner, violates principles of natural justice, [Ram Nath v. DDA, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 194]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1987—S. 37—The rigors to Section 37 of the NDPS Act would become applicable only when the quantity of the recovered contraband is commercial and there is an incriminating material to show that A was involved in conspiracy with co-accused, from whom contraband was recovered in commercial quantity, [Mohd. Nasar v. Narcotics Control Bureau, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 217]
