JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL, JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI

The Court held that the allegations in the FIR do not constitute the offenses of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC and cheating under Section 420 IPC. The court found that the goods were exported by the second respondent through M/s. Oswal Overseas, which was the exporter, and the primary liability for the unpaid sale price lies with M/s. Oswal Overseas. The court ruled that at best, the non-payment of the sale price could be a civil dispute between the appellant and M/s. Oswal Overseas, and the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellant would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's impugned order, and quashed the FIR against the appellant.

JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

The Court held that the engineering and technical service fees/charges paid by the appellant to M/s Voltas Limited, the Indian agent of the foreign supplier, were correctly included in the assessable value of the imported goods under Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules. The court found that the services provided by M/s Voltas Limited were directly related to the sale and importation of the goods, and not for post-importation activities. Therefore, the payments had a direct nexus to the value of the imported goods, and were properly considered as part of the assessable value.

JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

The Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, holding that the seniority of the appellant railway employees who were rendered surplus and absorbed in new divisions should be fixed at the bottom of the recruitment grade, as per the 2004 Railway Board circular. The court found no merit in the appellants' arguments to interfere with the concurrent findings. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN

The Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 366, 342, and 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code, finding the testimony of the victim to be credible and reliable. However, the court set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as there was no evidence that the crime was committed on the ground of the victim's caste identity. The court also modified the sentence for the offense under Section 376(2)(g) from life imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine, to bring it in line with the sentence imposed on the co-accused.

JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

The High Court held that the petitioner Amit Agarwal should be granted regular bail, despite being an accused in a large-scale economic offence against the Customs Department. The court found that the petitioner's alleged role was limited to being a mere conduit who facilitated the routing of funds, and there was no evidence that he had knowledge of the nature of the funds or was involved in the primary acts of forgery and cheating. Importantly, the court emphasized the petitioner's right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, noting that he had already suffered over 13 months of judicial custody while the trial was still in a preliminary stage with the chargesheet filed over a year ago. Applying the principles of bail jurisprudence, the court concluded that there was no 'necessity' to continue the petitioner's detention. Accordingly, the court granted the petitioner regular bail subject to certain conditions.

JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

The High Court upheld the Arbitral Award that held the petitioner, Shristi Infrastructure Development, jointly and severally liable along with respondent no. 2 to pay Rs. 6,56,84,982/- to respondent no. 1, Scorpio Engineering Private Limited. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction under the MSMED Act, that the petitioner was not a party to the arbitration agreement, and that the claims were only against respondent no. 2. The court held that the petitioner was bound by the arbitration agreement under the 'group of companies' doctrine based on its active involvement in the performance of the contract. The court also upheld the award of interest at 38.85% per annum under Section 16 of the MSMED Act, finding it to be a substantive right independent of the dispute resolution mechanism under Section 18.

JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL, JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

The High Court held that the respondent department did not err in awarding 0 marks to the petitioner in the 'experience' category during the Stage III - Trade/Skill Test. The court found that the petitioner failed to furnish the required information about his work experience in the application form, even though he later submitted an experience certificate. The court noted that the petitioner's negligence in not adhering to the application norms was a key factor in the decision. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments.

JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

The High Court granted bail to the accused, Alisher, in a case involving charges under Sections 20/25/61/85 of the NDPS Act. The court considered the accused's criminal history, which showed a mix of acquittals, discharges/releases, convictions, and one pending trial, but none of the cases were under the NDPS Act. The court noted that the current case involved the recovery of an intermediate quantity of ganja, which was not covered by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Considering the accused's antecedents and propensity to commit crimes, the court allowed the bail application and directed the accused to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the like amount.

JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

The High Court upheld the trial court's grant of a temporary injunction against the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had a strong prima facie case to challenge the deeds of partition and declaration as being void or voidable due to fraud and misrepresentation. The court held that the trial court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the principal relief sought was declaration of the deeds as void/voidable, which falls under the residuary provision of Section 20 of the CPC. The court rejected the defendant's arguments on limitation and suppression of material facts by the plaintiff, and closely analyzed the factual and legal aspects surrounding the Mumbai property, finding the subsequent deeds executed by the defendants to be contrary to earlier court orders and not conferring any valid title.

JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the disciplinary action taken by the managing committee of an unaided private educational institution against her. The court held that the appointment and disciplinary action against the petitioner, who was employed as an assistant teacher, were matters of private contract, and not governed by any statutory provisions. Therefore, the petitioner's claims were not enforceable through the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court also noted that the absence of the West Bengal Administrative (Adjudication of School Disputes) Commission did not make the writ petition maintainable, as the petitioner could seek appropriate relief before a civil forum. Accordingly, the court dismissed the writ petition, while clarifying that the petitioner was free to pursue her claims before the competent forum in accordance with the law.

JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

The High Court upheld the trial court's decision to grant a temporary injunction restraining the appellants (defendant nos. 1-4) from interfering in the affairs of the defendant no. 5 trust or withdrawing funds from its bank accounts. The court found that there was sufficient prima facie evidence of the appellants' absence from trust meetings, as well as allegations of criminal activities like forgery, cheating, and misappropriation of funds, which were detrimental to the trust's objectives. While the court did not conclusively decide the merits of the case, it held that the trial court was justified in granting the interim injunction to protect the interests of the trust and its educational institutions until the final disposal of the suit.