Mohd. Sabahuddin VS CGST Delhi North

The statement “Allowed, subject to all just exceptions” typically appears in legal contexts, especially in court rulings or judgments. It signifies that a request or motion has been granted or approved, with the understanding that certain conditions or exceptions may apply. This phrase acknowledges that while the request is generally accepted, there may be circumstances where it does not fully apply or where additional considerations need to be taken into account.

In the context of a court case or legal proceeding, it suggests that the court has granted the request or motion being discussed, but reserves the right to make exceptions or modifications based on specific circumstances or legal principles. This could include factors such as new evidence coming to light, changes in legal interpretation, or the need to address unforeseen consequences.

The phrase “The application is disposed of” typically signifies that the matter being discussed has been dealt with or resolved in some way. It could mean that a decision has been made regarding a particular application, request, or issue, and that the court or relevant authority has taken action to address it. This could involve granting or denying the application, issuing an order or judgment, or otherwise resolving the matter in accordance with applicable laws and procedures.

In summary, the phrase “Allowed, subject to all just exceptions” indicates conditional approval of a request or motion, with acknowledgment of potential exceptions or conditions. “The application is disposed of” signifies that the matter has been resolved or dealt with in some manner. Together, these phrases reflect the legal process of considering and addressing requests or issues within the framework of applicable laws and principles.

The case in question involves a petitioner who was granted bail on February 17, 2022, by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) of the Patiala House Courts. The bail came with several conditions that the petitioner was required to adhere to. However, it has come to light that the petitioner has allegedly violated these conditions, prompting the lower court to take notice of the violations. In the proceedings, senior counsel representing the petitioner and the standing counsel for the investigating agency were heard. Following due consideration, the application has been disposed of, with the caveat that it is subject to all just exceptions.

The court heard arguments from both the petitioner’s senior counsel and the standing counsel for the investigating agency before making its decision. The petitioner had been granted bail previously with certain conditions by the court, but the court found that there were violations of these conditions. The petitioner’s counsel argued that these violations were not intentional, citing inadvertence in dropping a Google pin to the Investigating Officer and difficulties in providing certain required information due to old documents. The petitioner’s counsel also contended that the violations were not serious.

On the other hand, the standing counsel for the Investigating Agency acknowledged that unless there were serious violations, there was no need to revoke the petitioner’s bail. They indicated a willingness to restore the petitioner’s bail if they cooperated and appeared before the Investigating Officer as required.

Considering all the circumstances, including the fact that the petitioner had already been granted regular bail and had provided explanations for the non-compliances, the court decided to allow the application, subject to all just exceptions. This meant that the petitioner’s regular bail would be restored, provided they cooperated and complied with the conditions going forward.

The case in question involves a petitioner who was granted bail on February 17, 2022, by the learned CMM/ND/Patiala House Courts, with various conditions attached. However, it was observed that the petitioner had violated some of these conditions, prompting the court to issue an impugned order.

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel argued that any violations were not deliberate and apologized for any lapses. They assured the court that the petitioner would comply with the directions given by the concerned court. It was also explained that while the petitioner had been appearing before the Investigating Officer as required, certain requested information couldn’t be provided immediately due to the need for time to gather old documents.

The senior standing counsel representing the Investigating Agency acknowledged that unless serious violations occurred, there was no reason to revoke bail. They expressed willingness to restore the petitioner’s bail if cooperation with the investigation was assured.

Considering the circumstances and the fact that the violations were explained satisfactorily, the court decided to set aside the impugned order. The petitioner was instructed to continue adhering to the conditions set in the original bail order. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law: