Cases Reported in HCC

GST — Search and Seizure — Determination of Tax — Challenge against the order wherein tax of Rs 26,10,000 was assessed to be payable by the petitioner and penalty of Rs 26,10,000 and further fine of Rs 25,000 imposed. The entire tax was determined and the penalty was levied only on the basis of a survey by taking recourse under Sec. 130 of the GST Act and not taking a recourse to Section 74, hence, the impugned order was clearly unsustainable. Held, the impugned order was liable to be set aside, [Maa Mahamaya Alloys (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2023) 1 HCC (All) 212]

Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988—Ss. 7— Appeal against conviction and sentence for offence punishable under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(b) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine qua non for establishing the offence under Sec. 7. Held, prior demand by the accused was not proved by the prosecution, a doubt was created as to the demand of the amount as the independent witness was not examined and there was no consistency between the evidence of complainant and the shadow pancha. Hence, appeal allowed and impugned judgment and order of conviction, set aside, [Mohan v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 1]

Constitution of India—Right to Life—Manual Scavenging—Liability for payment of Compensation— Safety measures or the precautionary kit were not supplied to the deceased and no precautionary instruments were provided to the labourers working in the chambers. Challenge to order made by the Collector, South Goa District directing petitioner to pay compensation of Rs 10 lakhs to the next kin of deceased, dismissed, [Rockdrill Projects (P) Ltd. v. State of Goa, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 178]

Labour Law — Employer and Employee Relationship— The award passed by Industrial Tribunal whereby absorption of contract workers into service of Municipal Corporation was directed. Held, the impugned judgment was unsustainable as the petitioner failed to satisfy all the six tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407 for the purpose of establishing employer-employee relationship. The Industrial Tribunal erred in granting the benefit of permanency to the workers, from the date of appointment, [Municipal Corpn., Kalyan Dombivli v. Municipal Labour Union, (2023) 2 HCC (Bom) 196]

Medical and Health Law—Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994— Timeline for holding interviews and conveying decisions to applicants in organ transplant cases—Reasonable period— The non-adherence to timelines result in extended waiting periods of 2 to 3 years in some cases before a decision is made, which contradicts the intent as also the letter and spirit of the 1994 Act and the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Rules, 2014. Such prolonged delays cause significant mental and physical anguish for both the donor and recipient as also their families. Therefore, clear and prompt communication regarding the application is essential, whether it be oral or written, to enable the donor/recipient and their respective families to proceed with the decision-making process, [Amar Singh Bhatia v. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 1]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Ss. 227, 228, 239, 240 and 245(1) & (2) —Framing of charge—Whether charge should be framed or not— Necessary for the courts to scrutinise the unique facts and circumstances of each case, with the objective of ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out against an accused. The court’s role remains circumscribed, confined to the determination of whether there exists a prima facie case and suspicion against the accused that justifies the framing of charges, [X1 v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 31]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996—Ss. 34—Interference with Award by Court— Petition under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an arbitral award by sole arbitrator adjudicating disputes between the parties under an employment contract. Reiterated, approach of the court, while scrutinising an arbitral award, is one of caution and circumspection. An award is liable to be interdicted only if the deficiencies pointed out in the challenge go to the root of the matter. Held, no grounds for interference with the impugned award found, hence, petition dismissed, [Dheeraj Rastogi v. Dnata International (P) Ltd., (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 51]

Service Law—Voluntary retirement—VRS—Scheme introduced—Scheme provided that option once exercised will be final— Petitioner submitted and withdrew application before it was accepted. Whether petitioner entitled to withdraw from option exercised for voluntary retirement. Held, petitioner is precluded from withdrawing from the BSNL VRS 2019 after closure of scheme. Tribunal rightly held that petitioner was not entitled to relief, [Rakesh Kumar Chopra v. BSNL, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 60]

Service Law—Parity in Pay Scale—Delay/ Laches—Effect of— Relief was sought in 2016 against order passed in 2001, after a delay of 16 years. Belated resort to extraordinary remedy of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained by the High Courts only when there is unreasonable explanation for the delay. Entertaining a belated writ petition would create confusion, public inconvenience, and injustice to the third-party. Held, considering the unexplained delay, relief not allowed, [O.P. Sahni v. National Textile Corpn, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 73]

Railways Act, 1989—Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987—Falling down of Bonafide passenger— Appeal under Sec. 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 Railway Claims Tribunal’s order, whereby the claim application was dismissed. Held, RCT miserably failed to appreciate the evidence on the record in right perspective and the conclusions drawn were absolutely unconscionable and flawed, hence, appeal allowed and impugned decision was set aside. Compensation awarded, [Bhura v. Union of India, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 85]

Economic Offences—Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002— Ss. 50(2), 2(1)(na), 2(1)(u) and 3—Money laundering investigation—Summons issued under S. 50—Whether summoned person can seek information relating to enforcement case information report (ECIR) or other documents— Held, under the scheme of the PMLA, 2002 upon identification of existence of property being proceeds of crime, the competent authority is to inquire into relevant aspects in relation to such property and take necessary measures in this regard as per provisions of the PMLA, 2002. Since ECIR in an internal document created by department before initiation of prosecution against persons involved with process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, it is not necessary to reveal the evidence collected by the ED at this stage in the summons forwarded to the petitioner, [Talib Hassan Darvesh v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 1 HCC (Del) 93]