Income Tax Act - Motor Vehicles Act - Deduction of TDS on Interest – Revision petitions challenging orders directing the insurance company to deposit the deducted amount of TDS on compensation interest – Held, if interest on compensation is paid prior to June 1, 2015, insurance company must pay TDS amount to claimants and seek refund from Income Tax authorities – If interest paid after June 1, 2015 exceeds ₹50,000 per claimant per financial year, TDS applicable only after securing Form 15G under Rule 29C of the Income Tax Rules – Interest must be spread over years from claim filing to payment date – Only if yearly interest exceeds ₹50,000 per claimant, TDS arises. [Paras 1-43]

Calculation and Payment of TDS – Analysis – Insurance companies must calculate and file details of interest payable per claimant with MACT – Claimants required to submit Form 15G for each financial year to avoid TDS – For interest paid before June 1, 2015, insurance companies must refund TDS to claimants and seek income tax refund – Interest paid after June 1, 2015 exceeding ₹50,000 per annum per claimant attracts TDS if Form 15G not submitted. [Paras 34-42]

Compliance with Income Tax Rules – Legal Obligations – Ensuring insurance companies' compliance with TDS obligations – MACT to release payments only after receiving Form 15G from claimants – Insurance companies relieved of TDS obligation upon obtaining necessary declarations. [Para 34]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Impugned orders set aside – Cases remanded to MACT for fresh orders in line with the judgment – Petitioners directed to follow specified procedures for TDS calculation and refund claims. [Para 43]

Criminal Procedure – Repeated Applications under Section 311 – Invocation on Multiple Occasions – Section 311, Cr.P.C. – Petition for quashing Trial Court order dismissing application for re-examination – Held, no bar to invoke Section 311 repeatedly if situation arises – Different reliefs claimed in separate applications permissible – Denial of re-examination would curtail right to fairly prove case – Impugned order set aside – Petition allowed. [Para 7, 9]

Power of Court under Section 311 – Analysis – Court has wide power to summon or recall any witness at any stage before judgment – Evidence sought must be essential for just decision of the case – Oversight in complainant’s examination-in-chief justified re-examination – Application different from earlier one – Trial Court's refusal to summon complainant erroneous. [Para 5-7, 9]

Fair Opportunity to Prove Case – Consideration – Repeated applications under Section 311 permissible to rectify inadvertent mistakes – Supreme Court precedent supports allowing correction of errors to ensure fair trial – Denial of re-examination curtails fair chance to prove case. [Para 8]

Decision – Impugned Order Set Aside – Trial Court directed to provide effective opportunity for re-examination on specified date – Subject to deposit of costs – Petition disposed of. [Para 10-12]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Mutation of Property – Challenge to Single Judge’s Order – Appeal against Single Judge’s order quashing rejection of representation seeking mutation – Will executed in favor of adopted son predeceasing testator – Mutation sanctioned in favor of third party upheld by Supreme Court – Held, the appeal by the State of Haryana is allowed, quashing the Single Judge’s order – Revenue authorities bound by Civil Court decree – No procedural infirmity found in mutation proceedings – Representation rightly rejected due to lack of statutory remedy being availed by respondents.

Civil Law – Will and Succession – Validity of Will – Will executed in favor of legatee who predeceased testator – Legacy lapsing as per Section 105 of Indian Succession Act – Mutation in favor of another party – Civil Court decree not challenged – Held, legacy under Will lapses if legatee predeceases testator unless Will specifies otherwise – Mutation entries made in 1961 and 1962 remain unchallenged and valid – Respondents’ representation for mutation rightly rejected.

Decision – Quashing of Single Judge’s Order – Appeal Allowed – The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside – The order dated 18.05.2022 by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade-cum-Naib Tehsildar, Ambala Cantt., rejecting the representation of the respondents is upheld.

Admissibility of Certified Copies of RoznamchaWaqiati—Evidence—Regular Second Appeals challenging concurrent findings—Certified copy of RoznamchaWaqiati maintained by the Patwari under the Punjab Land Records Manual deemed to be a public document by Section 151 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887—Held, such documents fulfill the requirements of being public documents under Sections 74 and 77 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Certified copies are admissible in evidence. [Para 16]

Bonafide Purchasers and Ostensible Ownership—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 41—Requirements for ostensible ownership dissected by Supreme Court in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh (2007) 2 SCC 404—Defendants must show vendor is the ostensible owner, sale is for valuable consideration, and actual owner consented to the ostensible ownership—In absence of such proof, defendants cannot be declared bonafide purchasers—Appeal dismissed. [Paras 18-20]

Decision—Appeal dismissed—Both courts below held that the plaintiffs continue to be the owners of the property except for the portion sold through court auction—Certified copies of RoznamchaWaqiati are admissible as public documents—Defendants not declared bonafide purchasers due to lack of evidence of actual owner’s consent to ostensible ownership. [Para 21]

Constitutional Law - Maintainability of Writ in Contractual Matters - Guarantor’s Petition:Writ under Articles 14, 226, and 227 of the Constitution of India—Maintainability of writ petition by a guarantor in contractual matters—Extension of time under OTS Scheme by the Bank/secured creditor—Held, no absolute bar on entertaining a writ petition in contractual matters—Court can take cognizance of subsequent events and allow hearing of writ filed by guarantors—One Time Settlement is not cloaked with rigorous principles that prohibit extension of period to pay the balance settlement amount—In deserving cases where substantial amount is deposited and willingness to pay the remaining amount is shown, extension can be granted—Petition allowed. [Paras 35, 45]

Banking Law - One Time Settlement - Extension of Time:One Time Settlement Scheme—Bank’s refusal to extend time for payment under OTS challenged—Held, OTS policies of certain banks contain provisions for extension—Courts, in exercise of equitable jurisdiction under Article 226, can extend the settlement period—Willful defaulters and fraudsters not entitled to such extension—In case of bona fide borrowers who deposited substantial amounts within the stipulated period and proved bona fides, court can grant extension to achieve the settlement's ultimate aim. [Paras 54-57]

Legal Principles and Guidelines - Grant of Extension under OTS:

Guidelines for Extension—Factors considered for extension of time under OTS:

Original time provided in the settlement.

Extent of payments already made under the settlement.

Reasons leading to delay in payment.

Acceptance of payments by the bank after the stipulated date.

Bona fide intent of the borrower to pay the remaining amounts.

Reasonableness of the time period demanded for clearing the remaining settlement amount.

Attending factors such as COVID-19, natural calamities, etc.

Irreparable loss and injury to the applicant if extension not granted.

[Paras 59-60]

Decision:Extension of OTS Period—Court extends the period of settlement as originally provided in the OTS letter—Petitioner directed to pay a minor additional interest amount due to delay—Bank ordered to issue No Due Certificate upon receipt of the remaining amount—Bank’s actions found arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A—Petition allowed. [Paras 80, 101]

Criminal Law – Regular Bail – Petitioner in Custody – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. – FIR registered under Sections 363, 366-A IPC, later including Sections 376, 506, 120-B IPC, and Section 4 of POCSO Act – Petitioner is mother of the main accused and not directly involved in sexual assault – In custody for over 15 months – Court grants bail noting the prolonged custody and that the petitioner’s culpability would be determined at trial.

Regular Bail – Prolonged Custody – Analysis – Held – Considering the petitioner’s age, lack of direct involvement in the sexual assault, and extended period of custody, bail is granted – Little possibility of an early trial conclusion cited as a reason for release.

Decision – Bail Granted – The petitioner is granted regular bail on furnishing appropriate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Observations made are not to influence the trial’s merits.

Criminal Procedure – Regular Bail – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – FIR under Sections 363, 366-A IPC – Sections 376, 506, 120-B IPC and Section 4 POCSO added later – Petitioner a middle-aged lady, mother of the accused – In custody over 15 months – Not accused of sexual assault – Culpability to be determined at trial – Bail granted due to low likelihood of early trial conclusion. [Para 5]

Bail Consideration – Analysis – Petitioner not directly involved in sexual assault – Custody period of over 15 months – Prima facie culpability remains contestable – Testimonies of key witnesses do not support prosecution case – Medical and DNA reports inconclusive – Bail warranted. [Para 5]

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioner to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate – Observations not to influence trial merits. [Para 5]

Minority Educational Institutions - Declaration and Jurisdiction – Appeal against the order of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) declaring St. Kabir Public School as a minority educational institution – NCMEI accepted the complaint by the school against the show cause notice issued by Chandigarh Administration – Held, institution not established as a minority institution nor originally intended for the benefit of any minority community – Original memorandum of association proclaimed it to be secular – Appeal allowed, declaration set aside. [Paras 1-23]

Jurisdiction and Competence of NCMEI – Analysis – NCMEI lacks jurisdiction to entertain application for minority status declaration directly without first approaching competent authority under Section 10 of the 2004 Act – Declaration by NCMEI found to be without jurisdiction – Direct approach by school unsustainable. [Paras 2-6, 27]

Constitutional Mandate - Article 30(1) – Establishment and Administration – Essential criterion for minority status – Must be established and administered by a minority – St. Kabir Public School not established by minority at inception – Later amendments to memorandum of association insufficient to alter original secular character. [Paras 8-12, 32-34, 44]

Delay and Laches in Filing Writ Petition – Legal Principle – Absence of limitation period under Article 226 does not preclude court’s jurisdiction – Delay explained and petition entertained on merits considering public interest – Learned Single Judge rightly entertained writ on merits despite delay. [Paras 24-26]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – NCMEI's order declaring St. Kabir Public School as minority institution and restraining imposition of reservation set aside – School’s claim of minority status rejected as institution originally established as secular. [Paras 38, 46-47]

Constitutional Law - Delay and Laches - Right of Voluntary Employees to be Recalled – LPA challenging the dismissal of writ petitions seeking re-employment as Home Guards – Petitioners were volunteers and not temporary, ad hoc, or daily wagers – Held, Article 14 does not imply negative equality and a wrong benefit cannot be allowed to multiply – No legal right to be recalled after two decades – Petitioners had absented on their own account and were duly discharged – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-24]

Employment Law - Volunteers vs. Regular Employees – Analysis – Petitioners served as Home Guards volunteers – Volunteers cannot claim continuous employment rights – Petitioners' services terminated after prolonged absence – No provision for reinstating discharged volunteers – Petitioners' claims rejected. [Paras 10, 21-23]

Judicial Review - Stale Claims - Re-examination – Consideration of stale claims after decades – Courts should not revive dead claims or allow claims barred by delay and laches – Direction to consider such claims may lead to judicial overreach and unintended revival of stale causes. [Paras 12-15]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed – No legal right to claim re-employment after prolonged absence – Petitioners' discharge upheld – State's appeal allowed, writ petitions dismissed. [Paras 23-24]