Income Tax – Quashing of Notices under Section 133(6) and 148 of the Income Tax Act – Petitioner challenged the issuance of notices under Section 133(6) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 – Petitioner argued that the income in question (sales commission of ₹14,58,004/-) had already been disclosed in his original income tax return, and a reply was submitted in response to the notice under Section 133(6) – High Court found that the revenue wrongly assumed the petitioner did not respond to the notice and that the income was undisclosed – Held: Notices under Section 133(6) and Section 148 were issued without proper application of mind and are quashed [Paras 1-6, 17].

Income Escapement – Non-Application of Mind – The petitioner submitted a reply under Section 133(6), clearly reflecting that the commission income was already disclosed in his ITR – Despite this, the revenue issued a notice under Section 148, claiming that the commission was not included in the taxable turnover – The Court held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 without considering the petitioner's reply constituted a lack of due diligence and non-application of mind by the revenue authorities [Paras 6-10, 17].

Faceless Assessment – Jurisdictional Error – High Court held that the notices under Section 148 were issued by an officer who was not competent, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the judgment in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India – The court reiterated that notices must be issued by the correct jurisdictional officer and in compliance with the faceless assessment scheme under Section 144B of the Act [Paras 18].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Notices under Section 133(6) dated 16.12.2022, 26.12.2022, and 06.01.2023, and notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2024 quashed – All further proceedings based on these notices also quashed – Petitioner’s tax assessment for AY 2020-21 already included the commission income, and the revenue's action was held as without legal basis [Paras 19-20].

Civil Law - Execution Proceedings – Obstructionist Claim – Fabricated Ownership Documents – Application Dismissed – The Applicant, son of the original judgment debtor, filed an obstructionist notice in an execution proceeding based on a sale deed dated 26.11.1990 – Both Trial and Appellate Courts found the sale deed to be unregistered, unstamped, and supported by inconsistent and manipulated records – Held: The Applicant failed to establish any independent right or title, and the Courts rightly dismissed the obstructionist application [Paras 14-18, 25].

Professional Misconduct – Role of Advocate – Bar Council Rules – Enquiry Ordered – Advocate Mr. Vijay Kurle sought adjournment after arguments were concluded and judgment was to be passed – Despite being aware of proceedings, he attempted to delay the matter by filing vakalatnama at a late stage – Held: Conduct was prima facie misconduct, violating Bar Council rules – Directed: Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa to initiate enquiry [Paras 3-10].

Doctrine of Clean Hands – Abuse of Process – Fabricated Pleadings – Dismissal Justified – The Applicant suppressed material facts, relied on contradictory sale deeds, and attempted to delay proceedings – Held: Courts are not to be misused to perpetuate falsehoods – Petitioner did not approach with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief – Petition rightly dismissed [Paras 20-22].

Eviction Decree – Delay in Execution – Obstructionist Proceedings – Court Receiver Appointed – Despite decree passed in 2016, execution was delayed for 9 years due to obstructionist proceedings filed by son of judgment debtor – Held: Obstructionist proceedings based on fraudulent documents were abuse of process – Receiver appointed to take immediate possession and hand over to decree-holder [Paras 22-25].

Criminal Complaint – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners challenged the summoning order by the Trial Court, claiming lack of essential ingredients of the alleged offences – Cited Supreme Court precedents on the necessity of reasoned orders for summoning – Court observed complaint lacked specific allegations and appeared motivated by personal vendetta – Complaint and proceedings quashed [Paras 2-3, 11-15].

Locus Standi – Legitimacy of Complaint – Court noted respondent No.2 (mother of deceased first husband) lacked locus standi as aggrieved party – Pension disbursement department would be the appropriate complainant if any fraud was committed [Para 11].

Policy and Legal Precedents – Summoning and Quashing Guidelines – Emphasized careful scrutiny of complaints alleging vexatious and frivolous litigation – Cited Supreme Court judgments on appropriate exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Summoning order and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Complaint deemed motivated by personal revenge rather than legal merit [Para 15].

Company Law – Director’s Liability for Corporate Debt – Loan Given to Company – No Personal Guarantee – The appellant extended a loan to respondent no.1 (company) but sought recovery from its directors personally – Trial court decreed the claim only against the company and dismissed it against the directors – Held: A company is a separate legal entity, and its directors are not personally liable for corporate debts unless a personal guarantee or indemnity is given – No evidence of misrepresentation or inducement by the directors – No personal liability can be imposed on directors merely because they requested the loan [Paras 6-7].

Corporate Veil – No Grounds to Lift – No Fraud or Malfeasance Alleged – The appellant contended that the corporate veil should be lifted to hold the directors personally liable – Held: Lifting the corporate veil requires proof of fraud, misrepresentation, or misuse of corporate structure – No such allegations were made in the pleadings – Mere friendship with directors does not create personal liability – Appeal dismissed [Paras 8-9].

Doctrine of Agency – Directors Not Personally Liable – Application of Section 230 of the Contract Act – The appellant argued that since the directors controlled the company’s affairs, they should be liable – Held: Under Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, an agent is not personally liable unless expressly agreeing to be bound – No personal guarantee or indemnity was executed – Loan was granted to the company, not the directors in their personal capacity – No case for agency liability made out [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial court’s judgment upheld – Directors not personally liable for repayment – No personal guarantee or misrepresentation proven – No case for lifting the corporate veil – Company alone liable for repayment of the loan [Paras 10-11].
 

Commercial Law – Rejection of Plaint – Order VII, Rule 11, CPC – The petitioner filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, contending that the suit was barred by territorial jurisdiction as per the agreement between the parties – The trial court rejected the application, holding that the plaint disclosed a cause of action and was not barred by any law – Held: The existence of a cause of action is a triable issue, and Order VII, Rule 11 cannot be invoked where controversial questions of fact are involved – No error in the trial court’s order [Paras 2.2, 5.2].

Commercial Courts Act – Maintainability of Civil Revision – Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – The respondent raised an objection regarding the maintainability of revision under Section 115, CPC, in light of Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, which bars civil revision petitions against interlocutory orders – Held: Since the suit pertains to a commercial dispute, revision under Section 115, CPC is barred – The appropriate remedy lies in appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, if applicable [Paras 6, 14.1].

Jurisdiction – Effect of Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause – The petitioner argued that the agreement between the parties specified that disputes should be resolved in Cuttack courts, and thus, the Bhubaneswar Commercial Court lacked territorial jurisdiction – Held: The existence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of other competent courts – If the plaint discloses a cause of action within Bhubaneswar, the court can proceed with the trial – Application under Order VII, Rule 11 rightly rejected [Paras 5.3, 6.1].

Effect of Commercial Courts Act on Revisionary Jurisdiction – Section 115, CPC read with Sections 8 and 13 of the Commercial Courts Act – The Commercial Courts Act overrides the general provisions of the CPC in matters of commercial disputes – Held: The bar under Section 8 is absolute, and revision petitions under Section 115, CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders of Commercial Courts – Appeal under Section 13 is the only available remedy [Paras 14, 14.6].

Interlocutory Orders – Scope of Judicial Review – The petitioner argued that the rejection of his Order VII, Rule 11 application was an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, warranting interference under Section 115, CPC – Held: The impugned order does not fall within the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC – Any challenge to such interlocutory orders can only be raised in appeal against the final decree [Paras 10.1, 14.3].

Decision – Revision Petition Not Maintainable – The High Court dismissed the revision petition as barred under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act – Petitioners are not remediless but must pursue appropriate remedies under Section 13 of the Act – No costs awarded [Paras 16-17].
 

Civil Law - Succession – Escheat Proceedings – Class-II Heirs under Hindu Succession Act – Validity of State Action – Escheat Declared Invalid - The State initiated escheat proceedings on the assumption that deceased Challa Venkataramana had no legal heirs – Plaintiff, as daughter of deceased’s paternal uncle, claimed entitlement under Class-II heirs – Court held that Government failed to establish proper procedure including public notification before assuming possession – Escheat held invalid and plaintiff entitled to possession of property [Paras 1-5, 15-20].

Procedural Compliance – Requirement of Public Notice – Failure by State – Proceedings Invalidated - No evidence adduced by the State to show compliance with mandatory publication and notice under the Escheats Act – No denial to plaintiff’s legal notice by the State – Held: Failure to issue general notice and lack of vide publication rendered escheat proceedings legally unsustainable [Paras 18-19].

Civil Procedure – Declaration and Recovery of Possession – Escheat Proceedings Set Aside – Possession Directed - Trial Court’s decree granting declaration, recovery of possession of scheduled properties, and profits upheld – First Appellate Court found no illegality in findings of trial court – Held: Appeal dismissed, possession to be restored to plaintiff and other Class-II heirs [Paras 20-21].
 

Civil Law - Will – Execution and Attestation – Section 63 of Succession Act – Probate Denied – The appellant sought probate of a registered Will executed by her husband—Probate Court found that only one attesting witness was examined, who failed to confirm the attestation by the second witness – Held: Proof of attestation by both witnesses required under Section 63(c); mere attestation by one without corroboration does not fulfill the statutory mandate – Will execution not proven as per law [Paras 9, 29, 35-37].

Evidence – Section 68 of Evidence Act – Limited Scope – Mere signature of testator insufficient – The sole attesting witness did not testify to presence or signing of second attesting witness – Held: Section 68 permits examination of one attesting witness, but such witness must prove full compliance with attestation requirements under Section 63 of the Succession Act – Failure to do so is fatal [Paras 9, 36].

Appellate Procedure – Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Application Rejected – Appellant sought to examine second attesting witness at appellate stage – Held: Witness was available during trial, and due diligence was not shown – Appellate Court not a venue to fill evidentiary gaps – Application dismissed [Paras 24-28].

Suspicious Circumstances – Language Barrier and Execution Doubts – Will typed in English but signed by testator in Urdu – No evidence testator understood contents – Held: Raises justifiable suspicion; burden on propounder to prove testator understood and voluntarily executed the Will – Not discharged in present case [Paras 10, 30, 35].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Probate rightly denied by Probate Court – No illegality or perversity found in lower court's reasoning – Will not proven to be duly executed or free from suspicion [Paras 37-38].
 

Election Law - Corrupt Practice – Election Manifesto Promises – Not Attributable to Candidate – Petition Rejected - Allegations of corrupt practices arising from the 'five guarantees' made in the INC's election manifesto were held insufficient to constitute corrupt practice under Section 123 of the R.P. Act – The Court relied on S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu and clarified that such promises are considered declarations of public policy and not acts of individual candidates – It was held that mere association with the manifesto or affixing a signature as a CLP leader does not establish personal liability or intent – Petition rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC for lack of cause of action [Paras 10-19].

Lack of Material Facts – Pleadings Defective – No Specific Allegation – Petition Dismissed - The Election Petition lacked material facts necessary to support allegations under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – No details provided showing how the alleged conduct materially affected the result – Bald assertions and absence of particulars were deemed fatal – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11(a) confirmed [Paras 23-28].

Non-disclosure of Expenditure – Allegation Against Party, Not Candidate – Rejected - The petitioner alleged non-disclosure of expenditure for manifesto distribution – Held: Promises and related expenses pertained to the political party, not the individual candidate – Hence, no duty of disclosure by the respondent under the R.P. Act [Paras 29-31].

Pleadings After Limitation Period – Rejoinder Cannot Cure Deficiency – Ignored - Petitioner’s attempt to supplement material facts through rejoinder was rejected – Court reiterated that material facts must be present in the original petition filed within limitation – Reference made to Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi [Para 34-35].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent – Balaji Decision Applicable – Petition Dismissed - The Court emphasized that until overruled, decisions of the Supreme Court such as S. Subramaniam Balaji are binding – Pending review or reference to larger Bench does not dilute binding nature – High Courts must follow settled precedent [Paras 36-38].

Casual Drafting – Lack of Diligence – Grounds Unsubstantiated – Election Petition Rejected - The Court noted careless drafting, factual inaccuracies, and copy-paste pleadings from other petitions – Such defects, combined with legal insufficiencies, led to rejection of the petition in limine [Paras 41-42].

Final Decision – I.A. No. 1/2023 Allowed – Election Petition Rejected - The application under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC was allowed – Entire election petition rejected for lack of cause of action and non-compliance with legal requirements [Paras 43-44].

Civil Law - Lok Adalat – Award Finality and Bar on Civil Court Challenge – Challenge Not Maintainable – Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit or miscellaneous application to set aside a Lok Adalat award, even on grounds of fraud – Only remedy is a writ under Articles 226/227 of Constitution – Application filed under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC held not tenable [Paras 18–23].

Binding Nature of Lok Adalat Awards – Treated as Civil Court Decree – Lok Adalat award based on Compromise Memo signed by parties and accepted by Presiding Officer – Award deemed final and executable as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act – Findings of due procedure and party consent upheld [Paras 14–17].

No Exception for Fraud Allegations – Supreme Court Precedents Binding – Citing State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh and Bhargavi Constructions, Court held even fraud claims must be raised in writ jurisdiction, not through separate suit or civil application – Procedural route used does not affect jurisdictional bar [Paras 18–22].

Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Inapplicability to Lok Adalat Awards – Provisions applicable to consent decrees from court proceedings—not to statutory Lok Adalat awards – Attempt to indirectly challenge award under Rule 3 CPC rejected as contrary to Supreme Court rulings [Para 24].

Final Decision – Civil Judge’s Order Set Aside – Miscellaneous Civil Application Rejected – High Court allowed revision and quashed the impugned order – MCA No. 87 of 2021 declared not maintainable [Paras 25–26].