𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Threads

Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash Disproportionate-Assets Cases Against Retired Officials
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 26.10.2026

Karnataka High Court Declines to Quash Disproportionate-Assets Cases Against Retired Officials

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id sriadv3@gmail.com .

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed two petitions seeking to halt corruption prosecutions against retired public officials, holding that disputed evidence on alleged disproportionate assets must be assessed at trial rather than through quashing proceedings.

Court’s decision

In a common order dated 17 October 2026, Justice H.P. Sandesh rejected:
- Criminal Petition No. 3849 of 2019 filed by H.M. Khyum Ali, a retired Deputy Director in the Department of Mines and Geology; and
- Writ Petition No. 48145 of 2018 filed by M.K. Baldevakrishna, formerly Managing Director of the Dr. Ambedkar Development Corporation.
Both petitioners faced proceedings under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concerning assets alleged to be disproportionate to their known sources of income.

Allegations in the two cases

H.M. Khyum Ali case

The Lokayukta police registered a suo motu case in 2008. The prosecution alleged that, during the check period from 11 February 1974 to 27 June 2008, Ali had assets valued at Rs. 62.76 lakh and expenditure of Rs. 53.24 lakh against an income of Rs. 67.89 lakh. The charge sheet assessed the alleged disproportionate assets at approximately Rs. 48.11 lakh, or 70.81% above known income.

Ali argued that the investigation was incomplete because documents and explanations relating to several asset schedules had not been considered before the charge sheet was filed. He also contended that salary, rental income, fixed-deposit interest, advances, and tuition income were omitted from the calculation.

The Court found that these assertions involved disputed facts and matters of defence that must be tested during trial. It noted that charges had already been framed and six prosecution witnesses had been examined and cross-examined.

M.K. Baldevakrishna case

Baldevakrishna’s case arose from a 2008 raid and investigation. The prosecution alleged assets of about Rs. 2.69 crore, expenditure of about Rs. 1.64 crore, and income of about Rs. 2 crore during the relevant period. The final report alleged disproportionate assets of 116.41% above known income.

He argued that sanction for prosecution had not been validly obtained and that authorities had delayed proceedings until after his retirement. He also challenged the order taking cognizance, arguing that it did not demonstrate sufficient judicial application of mind.

The Court held that the sanction issue did not justify quashing the prosecution because the matter had been referred for consideration while he was in service, and he retired during that process. It also ruled that the allegation of disproportionate assets and the adequacy of the petitioner’s explanations were matters for evidence at trial.

Why the Court refused to intervene

The Court emphasized three central reasons:
- Disputed factual questions cannot be resolved in quashing proceedings. Claims about omitted income, asset valuations, explanations for property, and the correctness of the disproportionate-assets calculation require evidentiary scrutiny.
- The cases had progressed substantially. In Ali’s matter, charges had been framed and prosecution evidence had begun, making intervention under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code inappropriate.
- Retirement did not require the cases to be terminated. Relying on recent Supreme Court authority, the Court held that the 2018 amendment to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be used retrospectively to invalidate proceedings initiated under the earlier legal position where the accused had retired.
Cognizance orders upheld

Both petitioners challenged brief cognizance orders stating, in substance, that the final report had been perused, cognizance taken, and summons issued. The High Court held that these orders were not mechanical merely because they were concise.

According to the Court, the reference to having perused the final report showed that the trial court had considered the charge-sheet material before taking cognizance. A detailed order was not necessary at that stage.

Legal significance

The ruling reinforces that High Courts will ordinarily not use their inherent or writ jurisdiction to conduct a “mini-trial” in disproportionate-assets cases. Where the prosecution presents material supporting the allegation and the defence depends on competing calculations, documents, or explanations, those issues are to be decided through the regular trial process.

The Court therefore dismissed both petitions, allowing the respective criminal proceedings to continue.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 26, 2026
Bombay HC: Section 27A NDPS Cannot Be Invoked Merely for Paying for Drugs Intended for Personal Consumption
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Bombay HC: Section 27A NDPS Cannot Be Invoked Merely for Paying for Drugs Intended for Personal Consumption

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court granted bail to actor Rhea Chakraborty on 7 October 2020, holding that the material then available did not show her involvement in commercial-quantity drug offences or in financing illicit drug trafficking under Section 27A of the NDPS Act.

Background of the case

Rhea Chakraborty was arrested by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on 8 September 2020 in connection with Crime No. 16/2020. The case arose from an NCB investigation into an alleged drug-supply network. The agency alleged that Chakraborty had helped procure drugs for Sushant Singh Rajput, managed or contributed to payments, and was connected to deliveries involving his associates and her brother, Showik Chakraborty.

The NCB relied on statements of co-accused persons, alleged WhatsApp communications, and claimed financial transactions. It argued that Chakraborty had facilitated drug deliveries and payments and was therefore liable for offences including financing illicit traffic and harbouring offenders under Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Chakraborty denied that Section 27A applied. Her defence emphasized that no contraband was recovered from her or from Rajput’s residence, that the allegations concerned procurement for alleged personal consumption, and that she had no connection with the commercial quantity of LSD recovered from another accused, Anuj Keshwani.

NCB investigation was separate from the death investigation

One preliminary issue was whether the NCB had authority to investigate because the Supreme Court had directed the CBI to investigate the death of Sushant Singh Rajput and related circumstances.

The High Court rejected the challenge to the NCB’s jurisdiction. It found that the NCB inquiry began independently after information led to the arrest of Abbas Lakhani and later expanded through disclosures and recoveries involving multiple alleged drug suppliers. The court held that the drug-trafficking investigation was distinct from the inquiry into Rajput’s death, even though allegations regarding Rajput’s alleged drug use emerged during the investigation.

All NDPS offences are non-bailable, court says

The judgment examined whether offences involving small quantities under the NDPS Act could be treated as bailable under the Criminal Procedure Code.

The court concluded that all offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable. It relied on the Supreme Court’s interpretation in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, which described Section 37 as making all NDPS offences cognizable and non-bailable. The court distinguished between two issues:
- Whether an offence is bailable: The court held that NDPS offences are non-bailable.
- Whether Section 37’s stricter bail conditions apply: Those special restrictions apply to offences under Sections 19, 24 and 27A, and to offences involving commercial quantities.
This distinction was important because a non-bailable offence does not automatically trigger the stringent “twin conditions” of Section 37.

What the court said about financing and harbouring

The High Court’s central legal finding concerned Section 27A, which punishes financing illicit traffic and harbouring persons engaged in it.

The court held that “financing” means more than paying money for a particular drug purchase. In its interpretation, financing requires providing funds or financial support that makes an illicit drug trade or business operational or sustains it. Treating every payment connected with a drug transaction as financing would erase the NDPS Act’s separate punishment framework based on quantity.

Similarly, the court found that “harbouring” requires more than allowing a person to reside somewhere or providing ordinary support. It involves sheltering or concealing a person engaged in the prohibited activity, with the necessary mental element and in a manner connected to avoiding apprehension.

Applying these principles, the court held that allegations that Chakraborty spent money to procure drugs for Rajput’s alleged consumption did not, by themselves, amount to financing illicit traffic. It also found no basis to say that she harboured him: he lived in his own house, no criminal case was pending against him at the relevant time, and there was no indication that he was being concealed from law enforcement.

Why bail was granted

The court noted that no contraband was recovered from Chakraborty or from Rajput’s residence. It also found that the investigation had not produced material showing that her alleged conduct involved a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances.

The court further observed that:
- Chakraborty had no criminal antecedents.
- The available allegations did not show that she was part of a chain of drug dealers.
- There was no allegation that she forwarded drugs to others for monetary or other gain.
- The NCB did not seek her custodial interrogation at her first remand, which the court treated as relevant to whether continued custody was necessary.
- The concern that she would alert others or cause destruction of evidence had no identified factual basis.
The court also rejected the argument that a celebrity or public figure should face a harsher approach to bail. It stated that everyone is equal before the law and that neither special privilege nor special liability should follow from a person’s status.

Bail conditions

The court directed Chakraborty’s release on a personal-recognizance bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one or two sureties of the same amount. It imposed several conditions, including:
- depositing her passport with the investigating agency;
- not leaving India without prior permission from the NDPS Special Court;
- informing the investigating officer in advance before travelling outside Greater Mumbai;
- reporting monthly to the investigating agency for six months;
- attending court proceedings unless prevented by reasonable cause; and
- not tampering with evidence or the investigation.
She was initially allowed to furnish cash bail of Rs. 1 lakh for one month while arranging sureties. The court also required her to report to the nearest police station for ten days after release.

Significance of the ruling

The ruling is significant for its detailed interpretation of Section 27A of the NDPS Act. It draws a clear legal boundary between an allegation of paying for or arranging drugs for consumption and the far more serious accusation of financing an illicit drug-trafficking operation. The decision also reinforces that Section 37’s strict bail restrictions apply independently to Section 27A and commercial-quantity offences.

However, the prosecution must first show material capable of connecting the accused to those specific offences. In Chakraborty’s case, the High Court found that threshold was not met at the bail stage, while making clear that its observations were confined to deciding bail rather than determining guilt at trial.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Calcutta HC: Patent Applications Cannot Be Rejected on Public Health Grounds Without Scientific Evidence
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Calcutta HC: Patent Applications Cannot Be Rejected on Public Health Grounds Without Scientific Evidence

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

The Calcutta High Court has set aside the Patent Controller’s rejection of ITC Limited’s application for a “Heater Assembly to Generate Aerosol,” holding that the decision under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act lacked adequate reasons, misconstrued the invention, and breached principles of natural justice.

Background of the dispute

ITC’s patent application concerns a heater assembly designed for handheld aerosol-generating devices. Its stated technical purpose is to provide uniform heat distribution across an aerosol-forming substrate. The substrate may be solid or liquid and may, but need not, contain tobacco compounds.

On 21 August 2024, the Controller of Patents rejected the application under Section 3(b) of the Patents Act, 1970. That provision excludes inventions whose primary or intended use, or commercial exploitation, would be contrary to public order or morality or seriously prejudice human, animal or plant life, health, or the environment.

The Controller treated the invention as one exclusively connected with tobacco-containing substrates and concluded that it was harmful to human life and health. ITC appealed this decision before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the Calcutta High Court.

What the High Court decided

In its judgment dated 20 May 2025, Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur set aside the rejection order and remanded the application to the Controller for a fresh decision. The Controller must reconsider the matter in accordance with law, after giving the parties a hearing, within three months of communication of the Court’s order.

The Court did not grant the patent or decide the application’s merits. Instead, it found that the earlier decision-making process and reasoning were legally deficient.

Key findings

1. Section 3(b) requires an assessment of the invention’s actual primary or intended use

The Court emphasized that Section 3(b) focuses on the primary or intended use or commercial exploitation of the specific invention. The inquiry cannot rest on an assumption that every possible use of a product associated with tobacco necessarily makes the invention unpatentable.

The heater assembly was not limited to tobacco substrates. By treating the invention as necessarily and exclusively tobacco-based, the Controller fundamentally misunderstood its scope.

2. A patent does not give permission to commercialize an invention

A central point in the ruling is the distinction between a patent right and regulatory permission. A patent is an exclusionary or negative right: it enables the patentee to prevent others from making, using, selling, or exploiting the claimed invention without consent. It does not itself authorize the patent holder to manufacture, sell, market, or use the invention.

The Court held that the Controller’s reasoning wrongly assumed that granting a patent would automatically permit commercialization of the product. Whether a product may lawfully be made, marketed, or sold is governed by other applicable laws and regulations, not by the patent grant alone.

3. Health and morality objections need cogent reasoning and evidence

The Court found that the conclusion that the invention caused serious prejudice to human life and health was unsupported by reasons or justification. Tobacco-related products are not, by themselves, categorically unpatentable in India.

A refusal under Section 3(b) must show a clear connection between the invention’s actual intended use and the alleged harm, supported by cogent reasoning. The Court rejected a subjective or preconceived view that all tobacco-related products necessarily fall within the statutory exclusion, particularly where there is no independent scientific or technical evidence supporting the conclusion.

4. “Public order” and “morality” cannot be applied as vague objections

The Court held that the Controller’s finding that the invention was contrary to public order and morality was cryptic and unreasoned. It noted that Section 3(b) should not become a vehicle for refusing patents based solely on broad, subjective concerns about morality, public order, or health.

In interpreting the provision, the Court referred to international patent-law concepts, including the notion of ordre public in TRIPS and the European Patent Convention. These materials indicate that the exclusion is directed at inventions likely to induce riot, public disorder, criminal conduct, or generally offensive behaviour, rather than at every invention that may raise a policy concern.

5. New materials could not be relied on without giving ITC an opportunity to respond

The Controller relied on three additional documents in the rejection order even though those documents had not been disclosed in the First Examination Report or hearing notices. ITC was therefore denied the opportunity to address them.

The Court treated this as a serious procedural defect and a violation of natural justice. A patent applicant must have a fair opportunity to respond to material relied upon in a decision against it.

6. The e-cigarette prohibition law did not justify the rejection order

During the appeal, the Controller relied on the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019. However, the Court noted that this ground was not part of the original rejection order or the pleadings.

The Court further observed that the 2019 legislation regulates activities such as production, manufacture, import, export, sale, distribution, storage, and advertising. It does not itself determine whether a patent should be granted. The Controller could not defend the rejection by adding new grounds after issuing the decision.

7. Constitutional and public-health provisions were improperly invoked

The Controller had relied on Article 47 of the Constitution, which directs the State to improve public health. The Court held that this reliance was misplaced in deciding patentability under Section 3(b). It also found that Section 83(e) of the Patents Act had been incorrectly applied on the assumption that a patent grant necessarily results in commercialization and public-health consequences.

Why the ruling matters

The decision reinforces several important limits on patent examination in India:
- Patentability must be assessed on the claimed invention, not on assumptions about a particular product category.
- Section 3(b) demands evidence-based and reasoned analysis, especially where an objection concerns health, public order, or morality.
- A patent is not a regulatory licence. Granting a patent does not authorize commercial activity prohibited or regulated under other laws.
- Procedural fairness is essential. Applicants must be informed of and allowed to answer the material used against their applications.
- Post-hoc reasons cannot repair an invalid order. The Controller’s decision must stand or fall on the reasons contained in the order itself.
Outcome

The High Court set aside the Controller’s rejection of ITC’s patent application and returned the matter for fresh consideration. All substantive questions remain open, meaning the Controller must now reassess the application independently, give the parties a proper hearing, and issue a reasoned decision based on the law and the record.

The ruling clarifies that Section 3(b) is a narrow, evidence-based safeguard against genuinely harmful or morally impermissible inventions, not a blanket basis for rejecting inventions merely because they may be associated with tobacco or aerosol-generating products.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Calcutta High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Delhi High Court Refuses to Condone Customs Department’s Delay
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Delhi High Court Refuses to Condone Customs Department’s Delay

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

The Delhi High Court has dismissed the Customs Department’s appeal against Spectro Lab Equipments Pvt. Ltd. after finding that its 154-day delay was supported by no reasonable, specific, or substantiated explanation.

The ruling, delivered on 15 October 2026 in Commissioner of Customs Air Cargo Complex (Import) v. Spectro Lab Equipments Pvt. Ltd., reinforces a settled principle: government departments are subject to limitation laws just like any other litigant. Internal file movement, procedural delay, or an unsupported allegation that prior counsel failed to act will not automatically establish “sufficient cause” for a delayed appeal.

Background of the dispute

The Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), sought to challenge a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal order dated 29 January 2025. The appeal was brought under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Department stated that it received the Tribunal’s order on 13 February 2025 but filed its High Court appeal only on 9 January 2026. Because the filing exceeded the prescribed period, the Department submitted an application seeking condonation of a 154-day delay.

Its explanation was that the complete case file had been handed to an earlier counsel on 26 June 2025. According to the Department, that counsel neither filed the appeal nor informed it of any issue. The file was then said to have been assigned to present counsel on 16 October 2025, after which additional documents were obtained and the appeal was filed.

Why the Court rejected the explanation

The Division Bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Shail Jain found material deficiencies in the Department’s explanation.

1. More than four months passed before the file was given to counsel

The Department received the impugned order on 13 February 2025 but claimed to have handed the file to its earlier counsel only on 26 June 2025. The Court noted this substantial initial period of inactivity.

No detailed explanation was offered for why the Department took over four months to transfer the matter for filing an appeal.

2. The Department did not show that it followed up with earlier counsel

After allegedly handing over the file on 26 June 2025, the Department did not plead that it had made any inquiry about the appeal’s status. It also did not state when the file was retrieved from the earlier counsel.

The Court treated this lack of follow-up as significant. A party seeking condonation must show diligence in protecting its legal rights; it cannot merely assert that a file was given to a lawyer and then remain inactive.

3. The allegation against earlier counsel was unsupported

Although the Department blamed its former counsel, it did not disclose that counsel’s details or submit an affidavit from the counsel supporting the account. This was especially relevant because the Department had its own panel of counsel.

The Court found the allegation vague and unsubstantiated rather than a reliable factual basis for excusing the delay.

4. The explanation was internally inconsistent

The pleadings stated that a “complete” file was supplied to earlier counsel. However, the Department’s counsel also argued that additional documents had to be obtained after the present counsel received the matter, contributing to the filing delay.

The Court considered these positions contradictory. If the first counsel received a complete file, the later assertion that necessary documentation was still unavailable required a clear explanation. None was provided.

Government departments cannot claim special treatment under limitation law

The Court relied on established Supreme Court decisions holding that the law of limitation applies equally to the government.

In Postmaster General v. Living Media India Ltd., the Supreme Court held that administrative negligence, routine file movement, and bureaucratic red tape do not constitute sufficient cause unless the department provides a reasonable and acceptable explanation and demonstrates bona fide efforts to act in time.

The Delhi High Court also referred to State of Bihar v. Deo Kumar Singh, which confirms that delay cannot be condoned merely because of lethargic governmental functioning. It further cited Rajneesh Kumar v. Ved Prakash, where the Supreme Court cautioned that litigants cannot escape responsibility for a prolonged delay simply by shifting all blame to their advocates.

The Court additionally relied on Pathapati Subba Reddy v. Collector (LA), emphasizing that a liberal or justice-oriented approach does not remove the threshold requirement of “sufficient cause.” Courts cannot mechanically revive stale claims where negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides is apparent.

The Court’s decision

The High Court held that the condonation application was cursory, vague, and lacking in particulars. The period between 26 June 2025 and 15 October 2025 had effectively been left unexplained, apart from the unsupported attempt to blame earlier counsel.

Finding no reasonable explanation for the 154-day delay, the Court dismissed the application for condonation. As a result, the Customs appeal itself was also disposed of.

Key legal takeaway

This decision is a clear reminder that condonation of delay is an exception, not an anticipated benefit for government litigants. A department seeking relief must present a coherent, evidence-based timeline showing prompt action, regular monitoring, and a genuine cause for missing the limitation period. General references to internal processing or counsel-related delay, without supporting facts, will not meet that standard.

For litigants and public authorities alike, the ruling underscores that vigilance in pursuing appeals is essential: limitation periods are binding, and courts will not overlook unexplained inactivity simply because the appellant is a government department.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Mumbai Customs Finds No BIS Violation in GE Vernova’s Imported Cable Harness following Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha’s Legal Representation
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Mumbai Customs Finds No BIS Violation in GE Vernova’s Imported Cable Harness following Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha’s Legal Representation

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha, practising before the Delhi High Court, represented M/s GE Renewable R&D India Private Limited (GE Vernova) through virtual personal hearing proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House (JNCH), Nhava Sheva, Mumbai. His detailed legal submissions, supported by technical documentation and a comprehensive legal opinion, contributed to securing a favourable finding on the applicability of mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) certification to customised electrical cable harness assemblies under the relevant Quality Control Orders (QCOs).

The matter concerned an imported OEM-specific control cable harness assembly designed for wind turbine applications, raising important questions regarding BIS certification, applicable Indian Standards and Customs Tariff classification.

BIS Certification and HSN Classification: The Central Legal Issue

The imported cable harness was initially declared under CTH 85447090, relating to optical-fibre cables. During assessment, the alternative classification under CTH 85444220, concerning insulated electrical conductors fitted with connectors, was examined.

The principal legal issue was whether a customised, factory-assembled electrical harness automatically attracted mandatory BIS certification requirements applicable to conventional electrical cables.

Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha emphasised that customs tariff classification and BIS/QCO applicability are independent legal determinations. Classification under a particular HSN code cannot, by itself, establish mandatory BIS certification requirements.

Relevant BIS Standards and Technical Submissions

The legal representation examined the scope and applicability of several Indian Standards, including:
- IS 694: PVC-insulated electrical cables.
- IS 1554 (Part 1): PVC-insulated heavy-duty electric cables.
- IS 9968 (Part 1): Elastomer-insulated cables.
- IS 9968 (Part 2): Elastomer-insulated cables for specified higher-voltage applications.
- IS 17048:2018: Halogen-free, flame-retardant cables.
- IS 7098: XLPE-insulated power cables under the relevant voltage categories.
The submissions highlighted that the imported product was not a conventional standalone electrical cable but an integrated OEM assembly comprising power conductors, control wiring, CAT5 Ethernet cables, fibre-optic links and specialised connectors.

It was further argued that product-specific exclusions, insulation materials, voltage ratings and technical specifications must be examined before applying mandatory BIS requirements.

Favourable BIS/QCO Determination

Following consideration of the technical documents, legal submissions and personal hearing representations, the adjudicating authority concluded that a violation of mandatory BIS requirements had not been established in respect of the imported cable harness assembly.

The Order-in-Original recognised that the applicability of BIS/QCO requirements must be assessed with reference to the relevant product specifications and notified standards, rather than inferred solely from customs tariff classification.

The goods were therefore not held liable to confiscation on BIS/QCO violation grounds.

The order separately determined the applicable customs classification under CTH 85444220 and imposed consequential differential duty and penalties. Accordingly, the favourable outcome related specifically to the BIS/QCO issue and should not be construed as complete relief on all customs issues.

Legal Significance for Industrial Importers

This matter highlights the importance of technical and legal assessment when determining BIS applicability to customised industrial products.

Importers of OEM cable harnesses, electrical assemblies, industrial automation components and specialised machinery should carefully examine the scope of applicable QCOs and Indian Standards before determining certification obligations.

The presence of electrical conductors or connectors within a customised industrial assembly does not automatically establish mandatory BIS certification applicability.

Aadrikaa Legal Services – BIS, Customs and Regulatory AdvisoryAadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) provides specialised legal assistance in Customs & Allied laws, customs tariff classification, import regulatory compliance, legal opinions, adjudication proceedings and representation before Customs authorities, DGFT, Ministry, DGFT office and any other related Govt agencies.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: DPIIT, CBIC

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Legal Opinion Summary by Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in LLP Partnership Dispute Involving Alleged Forgery
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in LLP Partnership Dispute Involving Alleged Forgery

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id amitnaren@outlook.com .

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declined anticipatory bail to two partners of M/s GLK Homes LLP in a case involving allegations of forged retirement documents, unpaid settlement amounts, and an alleged attempt to remove a partner from the business.

Background of the dispute

The case arose from a dispute within M/s GLK Homes LLP, a firm incorporated in June 2020. The complainant, Devender Singh, alleged that he had joined the firm as a partner and contributed to its business and management. According to the complaint, disagreements later developed between the partners, after which the accused allegedly conspired to exclude him from the firm and deny him his share in its capital, profits, and goodwill.

The complainant alleged that the accused had offered to dissolve the business arrangement by paying him ₹13.50 crore. While ₹50 lakh was transferred through RTGS, he claimed that the remaining amount was not paid. Three cheques dated 1 April 2022 were allegedly issued for the balance, but the account from which they were drawn had been closed.

He further alleged that a retirement deed was fabricated to show that he had voluntarily retired from the LLP after receiving a full and final settlement. The allegedly forged document was submitted to the Registrar of Companies to create a record that he had left the firm.

Petitioners’ defence

The petitioners argued that the matter was essentially a delayed commercial dispute concerning land transactions and partnership arrangements. They maintained that ₹50 lakh had been paid to the complainant because it represented his agreed capital contribution to the LLP, not a settlement of ₹13.50 crore.

Their case was that the alleged larger payment arrangement was oral, undocumented, and implausible. They also contended that the complainant had resigned voluntarily in September 2020 and that his entitlement to payment depended on conditions relating to acquisition of land and regulatory approvals.

The petitioners relied on a video recording which they claimed showed voluntary execution of the relevant documents. They also stressed that they had cooperated with the investigation and that the disputed original documents were already in the investigating agency’s possession.

Land transaction context

The dispute was connected with approximately 11.26 acres of land in Village Sihi, Faridabad. The petitioners described a sequence of earlier agreements involving landowners, M/s Bonanza Promoters Pvt. Ltd., M/s Crown Township Pvt. Ltd., and entities associated with the complainant.

According to their submissions, M/s GLK Homes LLP acquired the land in July 2020 through registered transactions worth more than ₹47 crore. The petitioners claimed that they had arranged substantial funds for the transaction after the complainant and another associate were unable to finance the project.

They also referred to a separate dispute involving M/s Shail Developers Ltd., which had advanced ₹2.50 crore. That amount was later returned by M/s GLK Homes LLP under a compromise arrangement.

Forensic findings weighed heavily with the Court

The State and the complainant opposed anticipatory bail, relying on findings of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bhondsi. The forensic examination reportedly found the compromise deed, retirement deed, and board-meeting minutes to be forged.

Most significantly, the Court noted that the complainant’s signatures on the disputed retirement documents were found to have been lifted from another document. The Court also found that the petitioners’ video-recording claim did not displace the forensic material at the bail stage.

The Court observed that it appeared doubtful that the complainant would have resigned shortly after sale deeds were executed in the LLP’s favour in July 2020 merely in exchange for ₹50 lakh, particularly given the scale of the underlying land transaction and the complainant’s asserted financial involvement.

Court’s decision

Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary form of protection and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. While the Court acknowledged that custodial interrogation might not be necessary solely because the petitioners had previously joined the investigation, it held that this was not enough to justify pre-arrest bail.

The seriousness of the alleged forgery, the forensic findings, and the petitioners’ attributed role were treated as decisive factors. The Court concluded that no strong or exceptional circumstances had been shown to warrant anticipatory bail.

The petition was therefore dismissed.

Key legal takeaway

The decision illustrates that in allegations of business-partnership fraud, the existence of documentary evidence does not automatically favour anticipatory bail. Where forensic material indicates that signatures or corporate records may have been fabricated, courts may treat the allegations as serious enough to deny pre-arrest protection even if the dispute also has commercial and civil dimensions.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Rs. 2.675 Crore Arbitration Award in Goregaon Redevelopment Dispute
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Bombay High Court Upholds Rs. 2.675 Crore Arbitration Award in Goregaon Redevelopment Dispute

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Arbitrator Shobhit Mallik. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id shobhit.Ica23@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has dismissed Kumar Urban Development Private Limited’s challenge to an arbitral award requiring it to pay the Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society Rs. 2.675 crore, reaffirming that a genuine liquidated-damages clause can be enforced when delay is established and actual loss is difficult to quantify.

The dispute at a glance

The case arose from the proposed redevelopment of Jal Ratn Deep Co-operative Housing Society’s property at Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai. The society owns land containing five buildings and 97 occupied flats. After its members approved redevelopment in 2010, Kumar Builders Mumbai Realty Private Limited was appointed as developer; its rights and obligations later vested in Kumar Urban Development Private Limited through a merger.

The parties executed their original Development Agreement on 12 January 2011. It included a time-bound construction schedule and a liquidated-damages provision. Under Clause 26, if the developer failed to complete the work and hand over the completed new building within the prescribed period, and the default continued beyond 60 days, it had to pay Rs. 10 lakh per week of delay or part thereof. The clause expressly described the amount as liquidated damages and “not as penalty.”

How the redevelopment stalled

The redevelopment was affected by delays in approvals, revised plans, negotiations with members, and changes in development-control rules. The developer had initially paid the society Rs. 1.10 crore as security deposit and stated that it had also paid Rs. 2.425 crore towards hardship compensation and corpus.

Following the introduction of fungible FSI in 2012, the developer offered larger rehabilitation flats and submitted revised proposals. The parties eventually entered into a fresh development agreement in August 2013, under which the developer was to load sufficient TDR for rehabilitation premises first and load the remaining TDR later.

However, disagreements emerged over the sequence of obligations, including members’ vacation of flats, loading of TDR, payment of corpus and provision of a bank guarantee. The situation was further complicated by regulatory developments, including changes following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Kohinoor Mills matter. The society ultimately invoked Clause 26 and claimed liquidated damages for the developer’s alleged delay.

Arbitration award and court challenge

A sole arbitrator found that the developer had committed delays and awarded liquidated damages for 62 weeks at Rs. 10 lakh per week, totaling Rs. 6.20 crore. After adjusting the security deposit and hardship compensation/corpus amounts, the arbitrator directed payment of Rs. 2.675 crore, together with interest and quantified costs.

The developer challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Its central argument was that the society had not proved any real loss or legal injury. The developer stressed that members had continued to live in their existing flats and had not been displaced or required to obtain alternative accommodation. It also argued that the stipulated weekly amount had no demonstrated commercial basis and was, in substance, a penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

The society responded that Clause 26 was a negotiated commercial term, expressly excluded a penalty character, and operated as a genuine pre-estimate of loss. It argued that the arbitrator had already found delay and breach, and that the nature of a delayed construction and redevelopment project made precise quantification of the loss difficult.

Why the High Court refused to interfere

Justice Aarti Sathe held that the court’s role under Section 34 is narrow. It cannot reassess evidence or substitute its own view merely because another interpretation may be possible. Interference is reserved for exceptional cases, such as awards affected by patent illegality, perversity, lack of reasons or findings based on no evidence.

The Court found that Clause 26 clearly fixed Rs. 10 lakh per week as the agreed consequence of continuing delay and expressly stated that the payment was not a penalty. It accepted the arbitrator’s conclusion that the clause represented a genuine pre-estimate of loss in a construction-related redevelopment arrangement, where exact loss may be difficult to prove.

The Court also noted the arbitrator’s findings of significant inaction and delay by the developer, including periods of approximately five months and eleven months in processing approvals. The arbitrator had also considered correspondence showing the society’s frustration with the prolonged delays and its loss of confidence in the developer.

On this basis, the Court held that proof of actual loss or legal injury was not required in the circumstances. It distinguished authorities relied on by the developer by emphasizing that Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act permits reasonable compensation up to the stipulated amount, and that genuine pre-estimated damages may be awarded where actual loss is difficult to establish.

Key legal principles from the ruling
- Contractual wording matters: A carefully drafted liquidated-damages clause can be enforceable where it identifies the trigger for payment, specifies the agreed rate and indicates that the sum is not penal.
- Delay can support liquidated damages: Once breach and delay are established, precise proof of financial loss may not be necessary if the stipulated sum is a genuine pre-estimate and the loss is difficult to quantify.
- Section 34 review is limited: A court will not re-evaluate evidence or replace an arbitrator’s plausible interpretation of a contract with its own view.
- Reasoned arbitral findings are protected: Findings based on the contract, correspondence and evidence will generally withstand challenge unless they are perverse, unsupported by evidence or fundamentally unlawful.
- Adjustments may be permitted: The arbitrator’s adjustment of sums already paid by the developer against the liquidated-damages award was upheld because the relevant amounts arose under the parties’ contractual arrangement.
Outcome

The Bombay High Court dismissed the developer’s petition and left the arbitral award intact. The developer remains liable for the adjusted award of Rs. 2.675 crore, along with interest and costs as determined in arbitration.

The Court also directed that any money deposited in court be released after one month from the judgment’s upload date, and it made no separate order as to costs.

This decision highlights the importance of precise delay-damages clauses in redevelopment agreements and confirms the high threshold for setting aside a reasoned arbitral award in India.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Bombay HC: Standing on Bus Footboard Does Not Automatically Disqualify Passenger from Accident Compensation
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Bombay HC: Standing on Bus Footboard Does Not Automatically Disqualify Passenger from Accident Compensation

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Madhumita Jha. The views expressed are based on her interpretation of the law. She can be reached at her email id jhamadhumita27@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court has awarded ₹2,10,365 plus 7.5% annual interest to an injured bus passenger, holding that the Thane Municipal Transport (TMT) bus driver was primarily responsible for an accident while overtaking a stationary MSRTC bus.

Case overview

In Mohan Laxman Chavan v. Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport & Ors., the Court considered an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decision that had dismissed the claimant’s petition entirely. The Tribunal had concluded that the passenger alone caused the accident by standing on a crowded bus’s footboard.

The High Court disagreed. It found that the claimant did contribute to the risk, but the TMT driver failed to take adequate care while overtaking a stationary Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus. The Court apportioned negligence at 75% to the TMT driver and 25% to the claimant.

How the accident occurred

On 4 August 1998, Mohan Laxman Chavan boarded a crowded TMT bus near Castle Mills, Thane, after completing work at a bank. Because of the crowd, he could not move fully inside and stood on the footboard.

According to the claimant’s evidence, the conductor signalled the driver to proceed. While overtaking a stationary MSRTC bus, the TMT bus grazed it. Chavan’s hand struck the other bus and he was thrown from the moving vehicle. He was initially treated at Civil Hospital, Thane, and later admitted to Arogya Hospital for 12 days.

His injuries included a compound comminuted fracture of the right humerus and a Colles fracture of the left radius. A plate was fitted in his right arm, and he later produced evidence of physical disability.

Why the Tribunal’s finding was overturned

The Tribunal had relied on several factors to reject the claim: the claimant did not identify the registration numbers of either bus, no accident report was found in the transport authorities’ records, and the claimant had been standing on the footboard.

The High Court held that these factors did not justify rejecting the claim altogether.

Vehicle numbers were not essential in these circumstances

The Court accepted that the claimant had not recorded the registration numbers of the buses. However, it reasoned that a person who falls from a moving bus immediately after an accident cannot reasonably be expected to note vehicle numbers. It was sufficient that the claimant identified the vehicles as a TMT bus and an MSRTC bus.

The Court emphasized that motor accident claims are assessed on the preponderance of probabilities, not the criminal-law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Oral evidence explaining how the accident occurred could therefore be considered alongside police papers.

Absence of a report did not disprove the accident

The transport authorities’ witnesses stated that they had no report of an accident involving their buses on that day. The Court found that this absence could have different explanations, including a failure to report the incident. It did not conclusively establish that the accident had not occurred.

The passenger’s conduct was contributory, not exclusive negligence

The Court acknowledged that standing on the footboard was unsafe and that the claimant might not have fallen had he been inside the bus. This justified attributing some responsibility to him.

However, the Court found that the driver also had a duty to overtake safely. The TMT bus grazed a stationary MSRTC bus, showing that the driver had not exercised proper caution, whether because of speed, inattention, or inadequate clearance. The driver then continued ahead without taking the necessary precaution after the impact.

MSRTC bus driver not held liable

The Court upheld the finding that the MSRTC driver was not negligent. The MSRTC bus was stationary, and there was no evidence that it had been parked improperly or in a dangerous location. As a result, liability was not imposed on MSRTC.

Compensation awarded

Although the claimant produced a disability certificate assessing 30% disability, the Court declined to award compensation for future loss of earning capacity. The assessment was made nearly eight years after the accident, and there was no evidence showing how the disability affected his work. The claimant had also been promoted from Inspector to Senior Inspector.

Still, the Court awarded compensation for lost income during sick leave, medical treatment, future treatment, pain, and reduced comfort and amenities:
- Loss of income for three months: ₹32,169
- Future medical expenses: ₹15,000
- Medical bills: ₹16,716
- Arogya Hospital bills: ₹16,480
- Pain and suffering: ₹50,000
- Attendance charges: ₹10,000
- Loss of comfort and amenities: ₹50,000
- Conveyance charges: ₹10,000
- Special diet: ₹10,000
The total enhanced compensation was ₹2,10,365. The TMT Transport Manager and the Government of Maharashtra’s Director of Insurance were directed to pay the amount jointly and severally within 12 weeks, with 7.5% interest per year from the date of the claim petition until payment. Any no-fault compensation already received would be deducted.

Legal significance

The ruling reinforces that a motor accident claimant does not necessarily fail merely because they cannot provide a vehicle registration number or because an official accident record is unavailable. Courts must evaluate the complete evidence and determine whether the account is probable.

It also illustrates the principle of contributory negligence: a passenger’s unsafe conduct may reduce responsibility, but it does not erase the transport operator’s duty to drive safely. Here, the claimant’s footboard travel was a contributing factor, while the TMT driver’s unsafe overtaking was found to be the dominant cause of the accident.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Karnataka HC Says Alleged Investment Scam Claims Require Full Trial
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Karnataka HC Says Alleged Investment Scam Claims Require Full Trial

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate G Sridharamurthy. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id sriadv3@gmail.com .

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed both a criminal petition seeking to quash a cheating-related charge sheet and a connected writ petition challenging an Enforcement Directorate summons, holding that the allegations require a full trial.

The case at a glance

In an order dated 17 October 2026, Justice H.P. Sandesh of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru rejected petitions filed by Pavitra Ramanujam, who was arraigned as Accused No. 6 in a criminal case arising from alleged investment-related fraud involving Generis Consulting Services Private Limited.

The criminal proceedings stem from Crime No. 26/2020, in which the prosecution alleged offences including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal conspiracy, intentional insult and criminal intimidation. The petitioner also challenged an Enforcement Directorate email/summons dated 19 February 2026 connected with ECIR/BGZO/15/2023.

Allegations arising from investment transactions

According to the case record, the company was established in 2013. The prosecution alleged that the accused induced the complainant, family members and friends to invest funds in projects associated with several entities, assuring them of profitable returns.

When repayment was sought in 2020, the complaint alleged that the investors were abused, threatened and not repaid. The prosecution case referred to a withheld amount of Rs. 5,90,82,467, while the petitioner’s submissions stated that the overall alleged cheating figure was Rs. 7,10,95,467.

The record also referred to Rs. 83,00,000 transferred by MEC Concepts India Ltd. to Generis Consulting Services Private Limited. The petitioner argued that this amount was immediately moved to the personal account of the company’s CEO, Accused No. 2, and that most of the disputed funds had similarly been transferred to Accused No. 2 and related persons.

Petitioner’s argument: no specific personal role

The petitioner argued that she could not be prosecuted merely because she was a director. Her counsel submitted that:
- she was not a signatory to the relevant loan repayment agreement;
- she was not involved in communications or representations made to the complainant;
- the alleged investment transactions and correspondence principally concerned Accused No. 2;
- no specific overt act connected her to cheating, forgery, threats or abuse; and
- the company itself had not been made an accused, making vicarious liability inappropriate.
The petitioner also relied on bank records showing that Rs. 49,971 had been credited to her account between October 2017 and September 2019, while she had transferred Rs. 75,000 back to the company on two occasions. Her case was that this did not establish involvement in the alleged fraud.

State’s case: substantial shareholding and company involvement

The respondents opposed quashing the proceedings. They emphasized that the petitioner held a 50% share in the company, a fact not disputed before the Court. They also submitted that Accused No. 2, the CEO, had been authorized to represent and conduct the company’s affairs.

The Court noted that the alleged transactions occurred between 2018 and 2020 and that payments were made to the company. It also recorded the prosecution’s position that the investments made by charge-sheet witnesses were used by the company.

Why the Court refused to quash the charge sheet

The High Court acknowledged the legal principle that a director cannot automatically be held criminally liable without direct and specific allegations. However, it found that the facts in this case could not be resolved at the quashing stage.

The Court highlighted several factors:
- the complaint contained allegations of involvement by the petitioner and other accused;
- the petitioner was a 50% shareholder in the company;
- Accused No. 2 was allegedly authorized by the company to deal with the invested funds;
- money had been credited to the petitioner’s account during the relevant period; and
- the questions of dishonest intention, inducement, responsibility for the transactions, forgery allegations and alleged threats required examination through evidence at trial.
The Court held that whether the essential ingredients of offences such as cheating and criminal breach of trust were made out was a mixed question of fact and law that must be considered in a full-fledged trial. It also found no basis to characterize the trial court’s cognizance order as mechanical, noting that the trial court had considered the charge-sheet material before proceeding.

Enforcement Directorate challenge also fails

The connected writ petition sought to quash an Enforcement Directorate summons and further investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act framework. The petitioner argued that the allegations against her in the predicate offence were vague and that she had no knowledge of the disputed transactions.

The High Court ruled that, because the underlying criminal case was allowed to proceed, the challenge to the Enforcement Directorate action did not survive independently. It treated the ED proceedings as linked to the predicate offence and declined to grant relief.

Court’s final order

The High Court dismissed Criminal Petition No. 8938/2021, refusing to quash the charge sheet and trial proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, it also dismissed Writ Petition No. 7336/2026 challenging the Enforcement Directorate summons.

The ruling does not determine guilt. It means that the allegations and the petitioner’s defence must be tested through evidence during trial rather than decided at the preliminary quashing stage.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 24, 2026
Supreme Court: NDPS Conviction Can Rest on Reliable Police Testimony Even Without Independent Witnesses
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 23.10.2026

Supreme Court: NDPS Conviction Can Rest on Reliable Police Testimony Even Without Independent Witnesses

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

The Supreme Court of India upheld Sumit Tomar’s conviction and 10-year sentence for transporting a commercial quantity of poppy straw, holding that reliable police testimony can support an NDPS conviction even when an independent witness is not examined.

Case at a glance

In Sumit Tomar v. State of Punjab, decided on 19 October 2012, the Supreme Court dismissed criminal appeals challenging a conviction under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court affirmed the decisions of the Special Court at Patiala and the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Tomar was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1 lakh, with an additional year of imprisonment in default of payment.

The alleged recovery

The prosecution case arose from a police checkpoint set up near Basantpur Bus Stand, Patiala, on 27 June 2004. Police signalled a silver Indica car to stop. According to the prosecution, the driver, Sumit Tomar, attempted to drive away but was stopped after the police blocked the route.

On searching the car’s boot, officers recovered two plastic bags containing opium powder, described in the proceedings as poppy straw. The contents were mixed, two samples of 250 grams each were drawn, and the remaining material was sealed. The recovered quantity was measured at 69.50 kg after sampling.

A forensic report later confirmed that the seized material was poppy straw, a prohibited substance under the NDPS Act.

Main arguments raised in appeal

Tomar challenged the conviction on two central grounds:
- No independent witness testified: An individual named Kaur Singh was said to have been present during the recovery and to have signed relevant documents, but the prosecution did not examine him in court.
- Improper sampling: The defence argued that mixing the contents of the two bags before drawing samples was an irregularity that undermined the prosecution’s case.
The defence contended that, without independent corroboration and with allegedly flawed sampling, the conviction could not safely stand.

Supreme Court’s reasoning

Police witnesses can be relied upon

The Court accepted that it is preferable for the prosecution to examine an independent witness in a case involving seizure of contraband. However, it ruled that the failure to examine such a witness does not automatically invalidate the prosecution case.

Kaur Singh’s presence was considered natural because he was stated to have encountered the police while passing the checkpoint. His signatures appeared on the consent memo, recovery memo and arrest memo. The prosecution also stated that he had been summoned but failed to appear.

Most importantly, the Court found no evidence that the official witnesses bore any animosity toward Tomar. It held that where police testimony is reliable and there is no demonstrated motive for false implication, a conviction may rest on that evidence.

The Court also relied on testimony from the car owner, who stated that Tomar had requested the vehicle for personal use. It was undisputed that Tomar was driving the car in which the contraband was found.

Mixing the contents did not cause prejudice

The Court rejected the challenge to the mixing of material from the two bags before sampling. It found that the procedure did not prejudice the accused because the total recovered quantity remained well above the statutory threshold for a commercial quantity.

Under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, punishment varies according to the quantity involved:
- Small quantity: Up to 1,000 grams.
- Commercial quantity: 50 kg or more.
- Recovered quantity in this case: 69.50 kg after samples were drawn.
Because the recovered material exceeded 50 kg, the Court held that it clearly fell within the commercial-quantity category. The argument that separate samples should have been drawn from each bag therefore did not alter the applicable punishment range or cause legal prejudice to Tomar.

Outcome and legal significance

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the conviction and sentence under Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act.

The ruling reinforces two important principles in narcotics prosecutions:
1. Independent witnesses are desirable but not indispensable. A court may rely on credible official witnesses when there is no evidence of bias, hostility or false implication.
2. A procedural objection must show actual prejudice. Where the contraband quantity remains unmistakably commercial even after the disputed sampling process, mixing material from multiple bags will not necessarily defeat the prosecution case.
The decision illustrates the Court’s approach to evaluating evidence under the NDPS Act: procedural safeguards matter, but a conviction will not be overturned for an alleged irregularity that does not materially affect the accused’s rights or the legal classification of the offence.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Supreme Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
October 23, 2026