Taxation Law – Andhra Pradesh VAT Act – Appeal – Rejection at Admission Stage – Delay in Filing Appeal – Appellate Deputy Commissioner rejected appeal filed with delay of 2 years 4 months and 20 days against consequential assessment order – Petitioner pleaded non-service of show cause notice and assessment order – Held: Explanation not satisfactory – Rejection of appeal justified [Paras 5, 9–13].

Service of Notice – Presumption of Knowledge – VAT Proceedings – Show cause notice and assessment order sent by registered post and through departmental staff – Returned with endorsement “no such assessee” and premises found locked – Petitioner failed to intimate closure or change of address – Held: Service procedure under Rule 64 AP VAT Rules duly followed – Plea of lack of knowledge rejected [Paras 6, 10–12].

Delay and Laches – Writ Jurisdiction – Assessee sleeping over statutory remedy – Petitioner had earlier pursued appellate remedy diligently but failed to explain prolonged inaction after remand – Receipt of demand notice dated 14.09.2017 unexplained – Delay held fatal – No ground for interference under Article 226 [Paras 10–12].

Natural Justice – Opportunity of Hearing – Alleged Violation – No Merit – Assessment passed after following statutory procedure – Non-participation by assessee attributable to its own conduct – No violation of principles of natural justice established [Paras 10–12].

Judicial Review – Article 226 – Limited Interference in Fiscal Matters – Order rejecting appeal on limitation neither arbitrary nor illegal – No perversity or jurisdictional error shown – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Order dated 12.12.2017 upheld – No costs – All pending interlocutory applications closed.

Companies Act – Financial Statements – Non-disclosure of Specified Bank Notes – Criminal Prosecution – Quashing – Complaint under Sections 129/448 Companies Act filed against Director alone without impleading company – Held: Company is principal offender – Proceedings against director alone not maintainable [Paras 48–56].

Criminal Law – Vicarious Liability – Directors of Company – Requirement of Arraigning Company as Accused – Liability of directors under Section 129(7) Companies Act presupposes contravention by company – Without prosecuting company, directors cannot be fastened with criminal liability – Complaint suffers from non-joinder of necessary party [Paras 49–57].

Companies Act – Offences – Section 439(2) – Locus of Deputy Registrar – Interpretation of “Registrar” – Definition under Section 2(75) includes Deputy Registrar – Complaint by Deputy Registrar held maintainable on this count [Paras 42–43].

Limitation – Section 468 CrPC – Applicability – Offences under Sections 129 and 448 Companies Act punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years – Bar of limitation under Section 468 CrPC not attracted – Objection as to limitation rejected [Para 44].

False Statement – Mens Rea – Section 448 Companies Act – Scope – Mere non-disclosure or omission in balance sheet does not ipso facto amount to “false statement” – Requirement of deliberate falsity and knowledge not prima facie made out – Allegations vague and general [Paras 45–47, 58].

Accounting Standards – Related Party Transactions – Criminal Liability – Allegations pertain to preparation of balance sheet and accounting treatment – Primarily attributable to company – No specific role or overt act attributed to petitioner-director [Paras 54–55, 58].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Continuation of criminal proceedings against director alone despite absence of company as accused and lack of specific allegations would cause oppression – Proceedings liable to be quashed to secure ends of justice [Paras 58–59].

Precedent – Consistency – Coordinate Bench Decision – Identical allegations quashed earlier against similarly placed directors – No distinguishing feature shown – Present complaint also liable to be set aside [Para 32, 59].

Decision – Criminal Revision Allowed – Complaint Case No. 44 of 2019 quashed insofar as petitioner concerned – All consequential orders set aside – Interim orders vacated [Paras 60–61].

Mandatory Injunction – Licensor–Licensee Relationship – Maintainability – Suit for mandatory injunction filed by husband and subsequent purchaser against wife occupying flat – Wife claimed to be trespasser post revocation of licence – Held: Where defendant occupies premises as a licensee and licence is terminated, suit for mandatory injunction for recovery of possession is maintainable – Not barred under Section 41(h) Specific Relief Act – Reliance placed on Sant Lal Jain v. Avtar Singh and Bharat Bhushan Gupta v. Pratap Narain Verma [Paras 14–18].

Ownership of Property – Exclusive Title – Stridhan Plea – Wife claimed joint ownership alleging contribution of stridhan and personal assets – Lease deed and allotment documents stood solely in husband’s name – No documentary proof of contribution produced – Affidavit filed by wife not subjected to cross-examination – Held: Burden of proving joint ownership lay on wife and remained undischarged – Trial court rightly held husband to be sole owner [Paras 19–26].

Evidence – Affidavit Without Cross-Examination – Evidentiary Value – Wife failed to appear for cross-examination despite repeated opportunities – Held: Affidavit in evidence without cross-examination cannot be relied upon – Trial court justified in discarding such evidence [Paras 21–24].

Transfer of Property – Sale During Pendency of Suit – Section 52 TPA – Lis Pendens – Sale deed executed in favour of subsequent purchaser during pendency of litigation – Necessary permissions obtained from NOIDA and builder – Indemnity bond executed – Mere pendency of matrimonial or domestic violence proceedings does not invalidate transfer – Purchaser acted in good faith after due diligence – Sale deed held valid [Paras 27–32].

Domestic Violence Act – Right of Residence – Shared Household – Scope – Wife claimed right of residence under PWDV Act – Evidence showed existence of more than one household – Held: Act contemplates right in one shared household only – Disputed flat could not be treated as shared household once licence stood terminated and alternate residence existed [Paras 31–32].

Mesne Profits – Assessment – Quantum – Trial court awarded damages @ ₹60,000 per month based on admitted prior rental value – Claim of low maintenance by wife irrelevant for determining mesne profits payable to lawful owner – Award held reasonable and supported by evidence [Paras 33–34].

Appellate Interference – Findings of Fact – Ownership and Possession – High Court reiterated that findings of fact by trial court should not be interfered with unless perverse – No perversity or illegality shown – Decree affirmed [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Both First Appeals dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 11.12.2018 affirmed – Mandatory injunction, declaration of ownership in favour of purchaser, and award of mesne profits upheld.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Prosecution Sanction – Refusal by Competent Authority – Subsequent Grant by Another Authority – Validity – Petitioner, Assistant Grade-II in Municipal Council, faced prosecution under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) and 13(2) PC Act – President-in-Council, being competent authority under Section 19(1) PC Act, refused sanction – State Department suo motu set aside refusal and Commissioner granted sanction relying on amended Rule 51 – Held: Once competent authority refuses sanction, same cannot be reviewed or overridden in absence of express statutory power – Subsequent sanction held without jurisdiction [Paras 11–15].

Municipal Law – Section 323, M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 – Scope and Limitations – Power under Section 323 confined to suspension or prohibition of unlawful municipal resolutions – Does not confer power of review or reversal of an order refusing prosecution sanction under a Central enactment – State cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction over orders passed under Section 19 PC Act – Impugned order passed in excess of statutory authority [Paras 12–14].

Special Act vs. State Legislation – Prevailing Effect of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – PC Act being a special Central legislation prevails over State Municipal law – Orders under Section 19(3) PC Act cannot be nullified by invoking Section 323 of the Act of 1961 – Sanction regime under PC Act held exclusive and exhaustive [Paras 12–14].

Service Rules – Amendment with Prospective Operation – No Retrospective Sanction Power – Amendment to Rule 51 dated 15.12.2022 enlarging sanctioning authority – Cannot be applied retrospectively to overturn refusal already made by competent authority – Commissioner lacked competence to grant sanction de hors earlier refusal [Paras 14–15].

Administrative Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Application of Mind – Non-delegable Function – Grant or refusal of sanction is an administrative act requiring independent application of mind – Sanction cannot be granted on directions of another authority nor on the basis of a report – Concurrent jurisdiction cannot be exercised to nullify an earlier valid decision [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Both writ petitions allowed – Orders dated 30.05.2023, 17.07.2023 and 24.04.2024 set aside – Prosecution sanction quashed – All consequential proceedings annulled – No order as to costs.

Education Law – Student Discipline – Rustication – Conditions imposed by Writ Court – Validity – Learned Single Judge set aside rustication order but imposed multiple conditions including requirement to carry a placard admitting misconduct and stand at university gate for 30 minutes daily for 30 days – Division Bench held that while the High Court can mould relief under Article 226, directions must be reasonable, proportionate and non-stigmatic – Direction compelling student to publicly carry a placard was humiliating, punitive in nature and capable of casting a permanent scar on character – Such direction held wholly unjustified and liable to be set aside [Paras 9–11].

Education Law – Judicial Discretion under Article 226 – Humanitarian considerations – Scope – Directions relating to minimum attendance, affidavit of good conduct, written apology and deployment of anti-romeo squad upheld as reasonable and corrective – Court observed that appellant had poor attendance history and indulgence granted by Single Judge was justified – However, discretion cannot extend to imposition of degrading or shaming penalties [Paras 9–10].

Procedure – Delay in Filing Appeal – Condonation – Delay of 57 days – Sufficient cause shown by affidavit – Delay condoned in the interest of justice [Paras 4–7].

Relief – Consequences of setting aside stigmatic direction – If rustication was again imposed solely due to non-compliance with the quashed direction, appellant entitled to one opportunity to comply with remaining valid directions – On compliance, rustication to stand set aside – Appeal partly allowed and disposed of [Paras 11–13].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Direction No. (II) issued by the learned Single Judge set aside – Remaining directions upheld – Matter disposed of with consequential relief.

Criminal Law – Dacoity with Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Confirmation of Conviction – Appellants convicted under Sections 448/396/302/412/34 IPC for committing dacoity and murdering landlady Rekha Rani Roy and tenant Gouri Majhi – No eyewitness to occurrence – Case resting on chain of circumstantial evidence – Held: Prosecution established complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to guilt of appellants – Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 45–58].

Homicidal Death – Proof – Medical Evidence – Post-mortem reports showing cut-throat injuries with damage to vital organs – Autopsy surgeon opined injuries sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Deaths proved to be homicidal beyond doubt [Paras 47–48].

Circumstantial Evidence – Last Seen and Conduct – Evidence of PW4 (live-in partner of deceased Gouri Majhi) showing presence of appellants at premises on evening prior to incident – Discovery of dead bodies immediately thereafter – Conduct consistent with prosecution case [Paras 20–21, 45, 54].

Recovery of Stolen Property and Weapons – Section 27 Evidence Act – Appellants’ disclosure statements leading to recovery of looted ornaments and weapons from their houses – Recoveries proved by independent witnesses and Investigating Officer – No evidence that recoveries were planted – Held: Recoveries form vital incriminating link [Paras 23–24, 30–31, 53–54].

Identification of Stolen Articles – Test Identification Parade – Gold ornaments, mobile phone and wristwatch identified by daughters of deceased landlady in duly conducted property TIP – No prior marking necessary when identification credible – Identification in court corroborated – Defence failed to discredit TIP [Paras 16, 19, 32, 52–54].

Presumption from Possession of Stolen Property – Failure to Explain – Appellants failed to offer any explanation under Section 313 CrPC regarding possession of stolen articles soon after incident – Adverse inference drawn – Strengthens prosecution case of dacoity with murder [Paras 54].

Reliance on Precedent – Distinguishing Madhu v. State of Kerala – Defence reliance on (2012) 2 SCC 399 rejected – Supreme Court decision distinguished on facts – No irregularity in recoveries or investigation in present case – Each case to be decided on its own evidence [Paras 55–57].

Criminal Trial – Examination under Section 313 CrPC – Alleged defect – Material circumstances put to accused – Mere denial without explanation insufficient – No prejudice caused [Paras 44, 54].

Sentence – Dacoity with Murder – Life Imprisonment – No separate sentence under Section 302 IPC when convicted under Section 396 IPC – Sentences to run concurrently – Set-off under Section 428 CrPC directed [Paras 2, 60].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – All connected applications disposed of [Paras 58–59].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Enhancement – Change in Circumstances – Divorced wife suffering from schizophrenia sought enhancement of maintenance – Husband, a Chartered Accountant employed in Dubai, earning substantial income – Wife unemployed, dependent on parents, and medically unfit to sustain herself – Held: Education does not equate to employability, particularly where mental illness is established – Husband who secured divorce on ground of wife’s mental illness cannot deny maintenance by asserting her earning capacity – Change in financial capacity of husband and rise in cost of living constitute valid grounds for enhancement [Paras 21–26, 34–36].

Maintenance – Quantum – Overseas Employment – Assessment of Income – Husband contended high cost of living in UAE and multiple liabilities – Court held voluntary liabilities such as personal loans and EMIs cannot override statutory obligation to maintain dependent spouse – Only mandatory deductions relevant – Cost of living abroad relevant but cannot be used to defeat wife’s right to dignified sustenance – Maintenance enhanced from ₹15,000/- to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 [Paras 29–36].

Maintenance – Date of Effect – Section 127 Cr.P.C. – Wife claimed enhancement should relate back to earlier Section 127 petition filed in 2007 which was dismissed on technical grounds – Held: Once earlier petition dismissed, even with liberty to file afresh, subsequent petition cannot relate back – Enhancement rightly granted from date of fresh application i.e. 13.01.2011 – No illegality in Family Court’s approach [Paras 37–45].

Execution Proceedings – Interpretation of Maintenance Order – Dispute whether maintenance was enhanced to ₹9,000/- or by ₹9,000/- per month for period prior to 12.07.2017 – Plain reading of operative portion showed substitution of amount, not addition – Family Court correctly held that ₹9,000/- per month was payable from 13.01.2011 till 12.07.2017 and ₹15,000/- thereafter – Execution rightly closed as satisfied with excess payment [Paras 46–51].

Conduct of Litigant – Frivolous Re-interpretation of Orders – Petitioner accepted interpretation of maintenance order for years and later took inconsistent stand during execution – Attempt to reopen settled issues deprecated – Revision challenging execution order held frivolous [Paras 52–54].

Decision: CRL.REV.P. No. 950/2017 partly allowed – Maintenance enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month w.e.f. 12.07.2017 – No interference with date of enhancement fixed by Family Court – CRL.REV.P. No. 295/2021 dismissed – Execution order upheld – Costs of ₹10,000/- imposed, payable to Delhi State Legal Services Authority.

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence Act – Interim Maintenance – Allegation of Adultery – Revision Petition by husband challenging concurrent orders granting interim maintenance of ₹26,000/- per month to wife – Contention that wife living in adultery is not an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of PWDV Act – Held: At interim stage, unproven allegations of adultery cannot disentitle wife from interim maintenance – Genuineness of photographs alleging illicit relationship to be examined only after evidence – No express statutory bar under PWDV Act akin to Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Prima facie allegations of domestic violence sufficient to grant interim relief [Paras 10–24].

Domestic Violence – Scope of PWDV Act – Comparison with Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. expressly bars maintenance if wife living in adultery – PWDV Act contains no such bar – Conduct of parties relevant but requires adjudication on evidence – Interim orders to be based on prima facie satisfaction – Allegations of adultery are matters of trial [Paras 19–22].

Evidence – Photographs Alleging Adultery – Deepfakes and fabrication – Photographs disputed by wife as morphed – Courts below justified in deferring examination of genuineness till trial – Allegations by both spouses against each other involving extra-marital conduct raise disputed questions of fact – Cannot be conclusively decided at interim stage [Paras 15–18, 23].

Interim Maintenance – Assessment of Income – Bank Statements and ITRs – Husband claimed income of ₹25,000/- per month – Credit entries of ₹28,45,120/- over three years reflected in bank account – Explanation that credits were proceeds of PPF/FDs of parents not substantiated at interim stage – Concurrent findings of Magistrate and Sessions Court upheld – No perversity or illegality warranting interference in revision [Paras 25–27].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – Concurrent findings on entitlement and quantum of interim maintenance – Revisional court not to reappreciate evidence or substitute its own assessment unless findings are perverse – Orders granting interim maintenance upheld [Paras 24–28].

Safeguard – Refund of Interim Maintenance – Direction that if wife is ultimately found living in adultery and disentitled to maintenance, she shall refund entire interim maintenance received with 6% interest – Undertaking to be filed by wife before Trial Court – Magistrate directed to decide main petition expeditiously within one year [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Revision Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 31.10.2023 upheld – Interim maintenance of ₹26,000/- per month sustained – Directions issued for expeditious disposal and conditional refund mechanism.

Land Revenue – Mutation Proceedings – Registered Consent Decree – Scope of Jurisdiction – Revenue authorities deleted mutation entry despite existence of registered Consent Decree passed by High Court – Held: Mutation proceedings are fiscal and administrative – Authorities under Sections 149 and 150 MLRC have no jurisdiction to adjudicate title, testamentary succession or validity of civil court decrees – Once a registered civil court decree subsists and is not set aside, revenue authorities are bound to give effect to it for mutation purposes [Paras 58–63, 78].

Civil Court Decree – Binding Effect – Revenue Authorities Cannot Sit in Appeal – Impugned orders examined validity of vendors’ title, probate, succession, prohibitory orders and legality of registration of Consent Decree – Held: Such exercise amounts to sitting in appeal over civil court decree – Impermissible and without jurisdiction – Decree continues to bind authorities until set aside by competent court [Paras 62–75].

Mutation – “Person Interested” – Locus Standi – Respondent claimed locus as lessee and objected to mutation – Mere bald assertion of possession or tenancy without foundational documentary proof insufficient – “Person interested” cannot be expansively construed to allow obstruction of mutation based on unsubstantiated claims – Independent rights, if any, to be established before civil court [Paras 67–68, 85].

Mutation vs Title – Well-settled Law – Entries in revenue records do not confer, extinguish or declare title – They are maintained for fiscal purposes – Revenue authorities can examine documents only to see whether they disclose acquisition of rights, not whether such rights are legally valid – Title disputes lie exclusively within civil court jurisdiction [Paras 59–60, 69–70].

Probate and Testamentary Succession – Effect in Mutation Proceedings – Absence of probate or letters of administration may be relevant in civil proceedings – Cannot justify refusal or deletion of mutation when claimant relies on a subsisting civil court decree – Questions of succession and representative title cannot be reopened by revenue authorities [Paras 69–72, 88].

Prohibitory / Restraint Orders – Effect on Mutation – Alleged prohibitory orders restraining transfer relied upon by objector – Held: Revenue authorities cannot examine legality or consequences of such orders to declare civil court decree ineffective – Validity and effect of restraint orders must be decided in appropriate substantive proceedings [Paras 73–74, 87].

Delay in Registration – Stamp and Registration Issues – Long delay in registration of Consent Decree and stamp duty objections raised – Held: Once decree stands registered and registration remains undisturbed, revenue authorities cannot refuse mutation on ground that registration was illegal or time-barred – Such issues fall outside mutation jurisdiction [Paras 76–77].

Writ Jurisdiction – Interference Justified – Concurrent findings by statutory authorities normally not interfered with – However, where authorities act beyond statutory competence and commit jurisdictional error, High Court must interfere under Article 226 to prevent manifest injustice [Paras 81–82, 89].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Orders dated 14.05.2009, 29.03.2010 and 30.11.2011 quashed and set aside – Mutation Entry No.2248 restored in favour of Petitioner – Clarified that mutation is for fiscal purposes only and does not confer or determine title – No order as to costs [Paras 90–95].