(A) Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (35 of 2009), S.23 - Constitution of India, Art.14, Art.16 - Appointment - Conducting Special Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) - Arbitrariness - Petitioners challenged advertisement allowing conducting of Special TET for in-service teachers and candidates belonging to category of Children with Special Needs on ground of being arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 - However, in-service teachers were granted opportunity to acquire minimum qualification in view of extension granted by Supreme Court which has judicially determined that such qualification is mandatory as per NCTE notification - Special TET merely enabled concerned in-service teachers with opportunity to acquire threshold qualification within stipulated date as per directions of Supreme Court - Very foundation of Special TET was compliance with mandatory requirement of TET and not relaxation therefore - Further, Special TET It did not create any preferential right of appointment or promotion in their favour - Also, petitioners and concerned in-service teachers even though presently stand at different stages of qualification, but such distinction did not, in itself, amounted to unconstitutional especially when petitioners had already qualified TET - Conducting Special TET was neither adversely affected rights of petitioners who have already qualified TET nor violative of Arts.14 and 16. (Para 37, 46, 47, 48, 49)

(A) General Clauses Act (10 of 1897), S. 27 - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 114 - Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138 proviso (b) - Dishonour of cheque - Setting aside of conviction - Ground of non-serving of statutory demand notice upon accused but was served upon his mother - Allegations that cheque issued by accused for repayment of amount was got dishonoured - Once notice was dispatched to correct address of accused, statutory requirement of 'giving of notice' under proviso (b) to S. 138 stood satisfied - Since accused had failed to prove either that address was incorrect or that he was unaware of notice being delivered to his address or that his relationship with his mother was inimical, presumption remained unrebutted - High Court had wrongly shifted burden from accused to complainant - High Court had erred in reversing concurrent findings of trial Court and acquitting accused solely on ground that notice was not personally delivered to accused - Judgment of conviction was restored. (Para 31, 32, 34, 35)

Khasi Hills Autonomous District (Administration of Elaka) Act (1991), S. 4 - Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Writ petition - Alternative remedy - Petitioner challenged settlement/demarcation of boundary of Sohkyrbam Domphlang by pleading that she became aware of demarcation only upon receipt of letter D/- 22.7.2026 communicating resolution of Dorbar on D/- 14.7.2026 - Respondents pleaded that demarcation was made on 26.3.2021 and complaint against it was filed belatedly and even if treated as a political appeal, was hopelessly barred by delay - Petitioner had alternative civil remedy - In view of availability of alternative civil remedy, writ petition could not be entertained. (Para 5, 6)

(A) Constitution of India, Art.32, Art.21 - Suo motu petition - Rape incidents in Delhi NCR - Raising serious concerns regarding safety in public spaces - Suo motu proceedings were initiated on account of recent incident of gang rape on teenage girl in sleeper bus where police reportedly recovered victim's decomposed body from field, in partially scavenged state - Primary object of petition was not directed at assessing individual criminal culpability, but rather at examining effective systemic, preventive, and monitoring frameworks are currently in place to ensure safety in public spaces across Delhi NCR - Right to live with dignity, free from the fear of violence, is intrinsic facet of fundamental guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 - It is primary obligation of State and its instrumentalities to maintain public spaces that are safe, accessible, and secure for all -Therefore, authorities were directed to submit comprehensive status report addressing measures taken to ensure safety in public places, to deploy appropriate patrolling and security arrangements at all identified public parks and vulnerable areas - Additionally, Registrar General, High Court of Delhi was directed to place on record, comprehensive information regarding present status and functioning of Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) - Media outlets, journalists, and publishing platforms were directed to prioritise dignity, factual accuracy, and institutional accountability over sensationalism, ensuring that discourse remains centered on justice and safety (Para 7, 9, 12, 13, 17)

(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016), S.9 - Liquidation process - Auction - Forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) - E-auction notice contained unambiguous clause stating that entire amount paid by successful bidder, including EMD and any other deposits was liable to be forfeited if bidder fails to pay balance sale consideration on time - Successful bidder failed to pay balance sale consideration within initial 30 days or with 12% interest within 90 days - Bidder had specifically sent email just one day after 30-day period was over, undertaking to pay balance amounts with interest due before the 90th day - Plea of bidder that extraneous reasons, such as writ petition filed by Trading Company, was found to be mere afterthought and excuse to scuttle auction process - Furthermore, auction was conducted on an "as is where is" basis, and bidder had bid with open eyes despite clear note regarding pending civil suit over small portion of land - Court affirmed NCLAT's view that "Triple Test", examining whether bidder had hidden agenda, lacked financial capacity, or was genuinely prevented by extraneous reasons did not favour bidder - Forfeiture of EMD and other deposits was proper. (Para 16, 17,18, 21)

(A) Railways Act (24 of 1989), S. 124A, S. 123(c)(2) - Untoward incident - Compensation - Bona fide passenger - Victim, while travelling in general compartment of train, on account of heavy rush lost his balance and fell down from train - Claimants had pleaded that victim's ticket, handkerchief, wristwatch, comb and cash of Rs.800/- to Rs.900/- were lost - Father of victim deposed on oath that his son had purchased ticket resulted in initial burden being discharged by claimants - Witnesses examined by Railways failed to check pockets of victim - On preponderance of probabilities, it can be concluded that the victim was a bona fide passenger and that absence of recovery of his ticket cannot result in defeating claim for compensation - Principle of 'strict liability' flowing from S.124A of Act was attracted - As there was no explanation furnished by Railways as to reason for delayed preparation of investigation report, same was ignored and cannot come in way of claimants in receiving compensation - Order of High Court reversing award passed by Tribunal on ground that the claimants could not produce ticket on which the claimant was travelling, was set aside - Award passed by Tribunal was restored. (Para 10, 11, 12)

(A) Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act (22 of 2017), S. 5 (1)(b), (2) - Arrest of Vessel - Failure to discharge payment obligations under Bareboat Charterparty (BBC) - Challenge against - Operator was given successive opportunities by both appellants and respondents over nearly two months to cure its admitted default in payment of hire, yet no steps were taken - Termination notice issued by appellant thereafter, complying with contractual pre-conditions provided under Clause 31 of BBC, validly brought demise charter to end - Once operator ceased to hold its status as 'former charterer' before arrest of vessel, he possessed that vessel only as gratuitous bailee under Cl 32 of BBC - Foundational premise on which arrest of vessel had proceeded with, at behest of respondent for default by operator, was already displaced - As maritime claim of respondent arose from a separate charter, vessel of appellant could not be arrested as 'sister vessel' - Statutory conditions for arresting vessel were not satisfied - Arrest order was vacated.

(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.118 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.376 (Prior to 2013 Amendment Act) - Rape - Testimony of prosecutrix - Allegation that accused abducted prosecutrix on pretext of meeting with his daughter i.e. her friend and took to various places and raped her - Prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied accused through crowded and brightly lit places without raising alarm or attempting escape - Her versions regarding return journey were contradictory - Medical evidence showing spermatozoa did not by itself establish forcible intercourse - If the evidence of the prosecutrix is of unimpeachable character, it has to be accepted in its entirety - There cannot be partial rejection of evidence of prosecutrix for purpose of S.366 and partial acceptance of her very same statement for purpose of proving charge u/s.376 - Acquittal under S.366 having attained finality, conviction under S.376 based on same disbelieved testimony was unsustainable, even when the conduct of the accused may be immoral and unethical - Conviction was set aside. (Para 24, 25, 28, 30)

(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (49 of 2016), S.2(r) - Constitution of India, Art.226 - Education - Admission to MBBS course - Reservation under PwBD category - Denial - Petitioner, who possessed a permanent benchmark disability of 60% as certified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and documented in a Unique Disability ID (UDID) card, had his disability reassessed and reduced to 30% by the Medical Assessment Board and the Appellate Authority, thereby rendering him ineligible for PwBD reservation despite being found functionally competent - Quantum of benchmark disability certified by the competent authority under the Act of 2016 and reflected in the UDID card is final and cannot be reassessed or reduced by the Medical Assessment Board or the Appellate Authority, whose jurisdiction is strictly limited to evaluating the functional competency of a candidate - Having found the candidate to have successfully cleared the functionality test, authorities could not declare him ineligible for reservation by reducing the percentage of disability - Decision of the authorities declared unsustainable and set aside - Authorities directed to issue a fresh eligibility certificate based strictly on the quantum of disability recorded in the UDID card. (Para 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)

(A) Railway Protection Force Rules (1959), R.43 - Constitution of India, Art.311(1) - Railway Protection Force Act (23 of 1957), S.21 - Removal from service - Competent authority - Who is - Respondent was appointed as regular Rakshak by Assistant Commandant/Assistant Security Officer pursuant to Battalion Order which operated as appointment order as well as posting order - However, Call Letter issued by the Commandant was only communication requiring selected candidates to report for and undergo prescribed initial training and it did not constitute operative appointment order - Order of removal of respondent was passed by Adjutant/Assistant Commandant - Further, respondent did not place anything on record to establish that Adjutant was not lower in rank than Assistant Commandant - Therefore, High Court erred in holding that removal order was in violation of Art.311(1) as it was duly passed by authority who was not subordinate in rank to authority which had appointed respondent and the authority was duly competent under Schedule II of Rules to impose penalty of removal upon Rakshak - Order of removal from service was restored. (Para 24, 25, 26, 29)

(B) Railway Protection Force Rules (1959), R.43 - Constitution of India, Art.14 - Railway Protection Force Act (23 of 1957), S.21 - Removal from service - Violation of natural justice - Material on record transpired that delinquent had acknowledged receipt of charge sheet and submitted his response - Thereafter, notice of enquiry was communicated to delinquent but he failed to appear on date fixed then Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte and submitted his report holding charges to be established - Thereafter, show cause notice proposing penalty of removal from service was issued to delinquent, however, he did not submit any representation thereto - In such case, departmental proceedings cannot be vitiated merely on ground that it proceeded ex-parte as delinquent was made aware of disciplinary proceedings and was afforded opportunity to participate in proceedings - There was no violation of principles of natural justice - Removal from service was proper. (Para 27, 28)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.28, S.432 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302 - Special category sentence - Imposition of - Powers of Sessions Court - Accused were convicted for murder of 3 persons, including 2 minor children, under Ss. 302, 34 of IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a direction to remain in prison till rest of their life - Such direction, in substance, excluded statutory powers of remission and commutation available to appropriate Government - Though imprisonment for life could be imposed by Sessions Court, special category sentence directing imprisonment for remainder of natural life by excluding statutory remission or commutation could be imposed only by Constitutional Courts i.e. Supreme Court and High Courts - Sessions Court was not competent to impose such special category sentence - Direction requiring accused to remain in prison till rest of their life was set aside. (Para 22, 25, 28, 33, 34, 35)

(B) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S.432, S.433 - Penal Code (45 of 1860), S.302, S.45, S.53 - Sentence - Modification of - Factors for determination - Accused convicted for murder of 3 persons, including 2 minor children, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with direction to remain in prison till rest of their life - Accused had undergone substantial period of incarceration and maintained satisfactory conduct during custody - Having regard to gravity of offence, respective roles of accused, period already undergone and conduct in custody, sentence of imprisonment for remainder of natural life was modified to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years without benefit of statutory remission. (Para 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)

Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act (27 of 1952), S. 22 - Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules (1973), R. 9, R. 20 - Auction of site - Cancellation of lease and forfeiture of premium - Challenge against - Petitioner-bidder deposited 25% of bid amount and thereafter sought surrender of site and refund on ground of failure of authorities to issue allotment letter within 97 days - Authorities pleaded that petitioner subsequently sought allotment in name of company which had not participated in auction and later sought surrender due to financial difficulty - Estate Officer, after issuing show-cause notice under R. 20 and affording hearing, cancelled allotment and forfeited 10% of premium - Appellate Authority reduced forfeiture to 2% and directed refund of balance amount, which was refunded - Rules contained no provision for surrender of site or refund of earnest money on surrender - R. 9 governed auction of lease and R. 20 authorised cancellation and forfeiture - Petitioner, having sought surrender due to financial difficulty and having been duly heard, could not claim refund on surrender - Delay in issuance of allotment letter did not justify surrender, particularly when petitioner had sought allotment in name of company which had not participated in auction - Forfeiture under R. 20 was valid. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 389 - Suspension of sentence and grant of bail - Pendency of appeal - Accused along with three other co-accused persons were convicted for offence of murder, criminal conspiracy and possession of arms - Evidence of informant showed that co-accused had fired on deceased, but so far as accused was concerned, except that he had gone to house of deceased and that he was in contact with co-accused and co-accused were in talking with each other as per CDR report , no further material was pointed out to connect accused with alleged offence - Accused was directed to be released on bail, during pendency of appeal. (Para 12)

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S. 20(b)(ii)(c), S. 27-A, S. 37(1)(b)(ii) - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 483 - Bail - Prayer for - Offence of possession of contrabands - Accused was found in possession of 350 kg of ganja - Accused was, in custody since 06.01.2025 - Prosecution case was against accused was primarily based on statement of co-accused and there was no material indicating any live link between accused and contraband seized from jungle - Though accused had criminal antecedents in three NDPS cases and prosecution opposed bail on account of S. 37(1)(b)(ii), only two out of 11 cited witnesses had been examined and trial was likely to linger - Considering period of custody and absence of material showing live link with seized contraband, further custody was found to infringe right to speedy trial - Accused entitled to grant of bail. (Para 11, 12, 13, 14)

(A) Assam Rifles Act (47 of 2006), S. 69(i) - Maintenance allowance in favour of wife - Deduction of - Challenge as to - Elder daughter of petitioner was in his custody, in line with earlier order passed by Court - Directions were issued to respondents to re-examine matter after allowing petitioner to file a fresh representation - With regard to 33% deduction, as same was continuing, until matter was disposed of, same shall not be disturbed - With regard to the arrears, same shall be kept in abeyance until quantum was finally decided by respondents. (Para 5)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 528, S.175(3) - Inherent powers of Court - Invocation of - Registration of FIR - Allegations that wife of complainant died in hospital due to medical negligence as her oxygen saturation was not stable and respondent/doctors had stopped oxygen supply - Dismissal of application u/S.175(3) of BNSS - Complainant/petitioner was not rendered remediless after dismissal of revision petition as his complaint was already pending before magisterial court for recording pre summoning evidence - Case of complainant was not a case of gross injustice or rarest of rare case, to invoke inherent powers, because complainant was already before court of competent jurisdiction - It was not a fit case to invoke inherent powers of the High Court to interfere with detailed and well reasoned orders passed by Magistrate and Court of Sessions. (Para 11, 12)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Public interest litigation - Unauthorised/illegal sale of fake lottery tickets - State Authorities were taking every possible measures to curb unauthorised sale and Circulation of fake lottery tickets - In view of report submitted by AGP and steps initiated as per said report it would be continuous drive for ensuring that fake lottery tickets were not sold and gullible people were not made to suffer any financial loss - Authority would also pursue such measures in future. (Para 2, 3, 4)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 251 - Framing of charges - Attempt to murder - Allegations that accused persons had hit injured persons with Kassi/spade - Medical reports mentioned depressed fracture on parietal region with extradural haemorrhage. Prima facie, it was clear that injury was caused to head, a vital part of body, by means of deadly weapon with an intention to cause death - hence, charges were properly framed under S.109 r/w S. 190 - Submissions that no blood found on Kassi cannot be appreciated at stage of revision and accused persons would make these submissions at time of conclusion of trial - As no charge has been framed under SC and ST Act hence, statement that charges were wrongly framed under SC and ST Act was factually incorrect - Framing of charge on basis of availability of prima facie evidence was proper (Para 14, 15, 16)

(A) Constitution of India, Art. 226 - New courses - Commencement of - Issuance of G.O. - Petitioner was Degree and P.G College and applied for permission to conduct Post-Graduate programs of Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) and Master of Computer Applications (M.C.A.) for academic year 2026-2027 - All competent authorities had cleared proposal of petitioner and approved intake of 120 students in M.B.A. and M.C.A courses - However, final approval was pending with respondent who is required to issue G.O. permitting petitioner to commence new course - Accordingly, respondent was directed to expedite process of issuance of G.O. before closure of second phase of counseling to enable petitioner to participate in second counseling or any further counseling for spot admissions. (Para 5)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 250 - Discharge application - Prima facie case - Offences of cheating and forgery - Accused had allegedly undertaken construction illegally, by relying upon a plan that was interpolated and forged copy of original approved plan - Denying assertion of accused that IO never recovered or produced original plan said to have been forged, charges were framed by Magistrate - Accused filed writ petition challenging FIR and charge sheet, however it was held that sufficient prima facie material existed to sustain the charge - Accused nevertheless filed second writ petition, again challenging orders framing charge on identical ground of absence of original plan and was discharged - Once earlier order denying discharge had attained finality without further challenge, it was not open to accused to mount a fresh, materially identical challenge before same court again subsequently - Absence of original plan was a factor related to sufficiency of evidence at trial and would not act as automatic bar to prosecution - Subsequent Court order discharging accused was set aside - Matter was restored before Magistrate. (Para 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21)

(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S. 7, S.13(2) - Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 - Illegal gratification - Demand and acceptance - Proof - Allegation that accused had demanded bribe from informant for purpose of mutation of property of his brother in favour of his legal heirs - Both witnesses had deposed that money was neither paid by informant to accused nor recovered from possession of accused in their presence - Official witness stated that money allegedly paid by informant, to accused was not in his presence because at that point of time, he had come out of office - According to him, none from raiding party saw any demand nor acceptance of the bribe money - There were discrepancies in evidence tendered - No one saw informant handing over the bribe money to the accused nor acceptance of the same by the accused - Neither demand nor acceptance of bribe was proved - Conviction and sentence was set aside. (Para 19,19.1, 20, 21, 22)

(B) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S.7, S.13(1)(d) - Illegal gratification - Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant - Is the sine qua non to establish the guilt of the public servant under Ss. 7 and 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the PC Act - Offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue for conviction. (Para 14.2)

(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (46 of 2023), S. 419, S. 413, S. 415 (3) - Appeal against acquittal - Maintainability - Order of acquittal passed by Magistrate - S. 413 is couched in negative and prohibits any appeal to lie from any judgment or order of Criminal Court except as provided by Sanhita - Proviso to S. 413 confers on victim right to prefer appeal against any order of acquittal, conviction for lesser offence or on ground of inadequate compensation - S. 419 provides for appeal in case of acquittal, which would not be applicable when proviso is applied - When there is conviction in trial held by Magistrate of First Class or Second Class, appeal lies to Sessions Court - Therefore, order of High Court rejecting appeal and granting liberty to file appeal before Sessions Court was proper. (Para 10, 11, 12, 13)

(A) Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 391 - Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881), S. 138, S. 145 (1) - Dishonor of cheque - Remand of matter - For fresh trial from stage of defence evidence - Accused admitted his signature on cheque, but claimed that a signed blank cheque leaf was provided merely as security for a transferred loan - Magistrate noted that statutory presumption applied squarely against accused, who failed to offer substantive proof or Call Data Records (CDRs) to establish absence of complainant or rebut presumption - Actual prejudice was completely absent in completed trial and procedural irregularity of accepting defense evidence on affidavit did not vitiate proceedings - Only evidence initially led at trial was be considered, eschewing any subsequent personal re-examination conducted upon trial resumption - Conviction could not be set aside. (Para 6, 7, 8, 9)

(A) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O.39, R. 1, O.39, R. 2 - Anti-suit injunction - Matrimonial proceedings - Husband sought to restrain wife from pursuing divorce and related financial proceedings before UK court - On ground that divorce was sought on irretrievable breakdown of marriage, not recognised as ground for divorce under Indian law and decree on such ground would lack efficacy or enforceability - Proceedings before UK Family Court were still pending, its jurisdiction and other issues were at large and ground pleaded by wife was yet to be established by evidence - Anti-suit injunction could not be granted on mere speculation that divorce would ultimately be granted on such ground - Further, UK was forum conveniens, having regard to parties' prolonged residence, matrimonial home and habitual residence - Pendency of proceedings before foreign Court at an inchoate stage, without final decision, also militated against grant of anti-suit injunction - Grant of anti-suit injunction was not proper. (Para 5.7, 5.7.1, 5.8, 5.8.1, 5.9)

(B) Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 39, R. 1, O. 39, R. 2 - Anti-suit injunction - Grant of - Against filing of suit in foreign court - Power of Indian courts to issue such injunction - Explained.

(C) DOCTRINE, Doctrine of forum non conveniens - - Applicability

(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 31(7)(a), S. 37 - Arbitral award - Grant of pre-reference interest - Legality - Clause of General Conditions of Contract (GCC) bar claims for interest or damages in two separate situations - Firstly, money or balance lying with Corporation owing to dispute, difference or misunderstanding - But Clause then added, in its own right and joined by word "or", second, independent situation, "any delay on part of Engineer-in-Charge making periodical or final payments", before finally adding same closing words, "or in any other respect whatsoever - By naming delay in payment as separate ground, standing on its own and not tied to any dispute, it expressly shut out claim for interest arising from delayed payment, whether or not there was any dispute about it at all - Since clause of GCC bar grant of interest for pre-reference period, Arbitral Tribunal, in awarding such interest, exceeded bounds of its jurisdiction u/S. 31(7)(a) - High Court also erred in restoring grant of pre-reference interest by equating clause of GCC with clause considered in judgement reported in (1999) 1 SCC 63 which was rendered under Arbitration Act, 1940 - Judgment of High Court to extent it restored grant of pre-reference interest, cannot be sustained and accordingly set aside. (Para 19, 22, 23)

(B) Arbitration and Conciliation Act (26 of 1996), S. 31(7)(a) - Interest - Pendente lite interest and pre-reference period interest - Pendente lite interest stands on footing of procedural law, and is governed by S. 31(7)(a) - Interest for pre-reference period stands on different footing altogether - Interest for pre-reference period is referable to substantive law and cannot be sourced in S. 31(7)(a) alone. (Para 15)

(A) Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act (18 of 1937), S. 3(2) - Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956), S. 14(1) - Right to property - Right of Hindu widow - Hindu widow's limited interest in her deceased husband's property under the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 transforms into absolute ownership under S.14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even if she did not formally claim partition during her lifetime.

(A) Assam Goods and Services Tax Act (28 of 2017), S. 73(10) - Determination of tax - Show cause notice - During course of audit of appellant, observation was made alleging excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) - Basis of objection was that invoices relating to certain inward supplies were not reflected in appellant's GSTR-2A and show cause notice was issued u/S. 73(1) proposing recovery of disputed ITC along with interest and penalty - Authority issuing show-cause notice undoubtedly possesses jurisdiction to initiate proceedings u/S. 73 against alleged wrongful availment or utilization of Input Tax Credit; however, sustainability of such proposed demand shall depend upon adjudication prescribed u/S. 73 read with S. 75 - Appellant's legal defence may ultimately succeed before proper officer, but possibility that appellant may succeed in adjudication is not ground for holding that initiation of proceeding itself was without jurisdiction - Single judge adopted appropriate course by permitting statutory process to continue while preserving appellant's right to raise all its factual and legal defence - No interference in order of Single judge was warranted. (Para 21, 22, 24, 26)

(A) Passports Act (15 of 1967), S. 6 - Renewal of passport - Application for 'no objection certificate' - Rejection - On ground that petitioner was facing criminal trial and presently release on bail - As per notification issued by Ministry of External Affairs, permission of Court would be required only when person wants to depart from India and not for renewal of passport and passport could be issued to a person who is facing trial who produces NOC from Court concerned - Order rejecting request for issuance of NOC was set aside - Trial Court was directed to issue 'NOC' to petitioner for limited purpose to get passport renewed. (Para 7, 11, 12, 13)

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 302 - Murder - Appreciation of evidence - Allegations that accused fired at deceased on his forehead from point blank range - Doctors found burning and tattooing around wound of entry which suggest deceased was shot dead from a very close distance - Eye witnesses narrated whole incidence and involvement of accused in incidence - X-Ray report of skull of deceased corroborates bullet injury as bullet was stuck inside his brain - In absence of firearm or failure on part of Investigating Officer to get seized fire arm examined by expert and submit his report were of little importance when charges were related to murder - Conviction was proper. (Para 32, 33, 34, 35)

(A) Railways Act (24 of 1989), S. 124A, S. 123(c)(2) - Compensation - Untoward accident - Witness specifically deposed that he accompanied deceased to railway station and purchased journey ticket for him and made him board the train - There was no finding by Tribunal that witness was not present at railway station or his testimony regarding deceased boarding train with journey ticket was unreliable - Inquest Report recorded that dead body was found between two railway stations - It further recorded nature of injuries and specifically mentioned cause of death as railway accident - Mere absence of entry or information from driver or guard does not, by itself, erase material generated by police investigation concerning recovery of dead body and cause of death - No material to establish that deceased committed suicide, suffered self-inflicted injury, committed act covered by S. 124A, or that his death was caused by any of other exceptions contained in proviso to S. 124A - Claimants were wife and son of deceased coming within definition of dependent - They were entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at rate of 9% p.a. (Para 12, 13, 16, 18)