Civil Law – Judgment on Admission – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – Discretionary Power – Plaintiff claimed that opposite party was a licensee and defaulted in licence fee payment – Opposite party claimed tenancy at a lower rent and denied licensor-licensee relationship – Held: For invoking Order 12 Rule 6, there must be clear, unequivocal, and categorical admission – Mere production of rent collection book and payment of sums including maintenance and electricity charges cannot establish conclusive admission of rent amount or nature of relationship – Application rightly rejected by trial court [Paras 2, 8, 14, 19, 21–25, 33–36]

Tenancy Law – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act – Applicability – Premises used for non-residential purpose with alleged rent exceeding ₹10,000 per month – Petitioner argued protection under the 1997 Act not available – Opposite party denied that rent exceeded ₹10,000 – Held: Disputed facts require trial – No conclusive admission on record to oust application of the Tenancy Act at this stage [Paras 6, 22–25]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 106 Notice – Requirement of Lessor-Lessee Relationship – Petitioner argued that notice to quit was served and admitted – Court held that such presumption under Section 106 TPA applies only when tenancy relationship is admitted – Here, licensor-licensee relationship claimed by petitioner and denied by opposite party – Hence, no ground to invoke Section 106 TPA or grant eviction under Order 12 Rule 6 [Paras 20, 27–29]

Precedents – Applicability – Petitioner relied on M/s. Signotron (India) Pvt. Ltd. where landlord-tenant relationship and notice under Section 106 TPA were admitted – Court held the present case was distinguishable since core facts were disputed – Discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 not improperly exercised [Paras 21, 35–36]

Decision: Civil revision dismissed – Trial court's rejection of Order 12 Rule 6 application upheld – No interference warranted under Article 227 – No costs.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Share Application Money – Section 68 – Evidentiary Value of Statements under Section 131 – ITAT erred in holding that authorities have no power to administer oath under Section 131 – High Court held that such statements are admissible and Section 131 explicitly empowers authorities to examine persons on oath – First question of law answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 4.10–4.12].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Addition based on vague statements – Statement of Mahendra Kumar Sethia found vague, lacking specific allegation that cash was received from assessee – No corroborative material to establish cash trail – ITAT’s reappreciation of evidence not perverse – Fourth question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 7.1–7.4].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Reliance on prior judgment – ITAT rightly relied on High Court decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2007–08 – Legal principles laid down in Lovely Exports and prior case applicable even after insertion of 2012 provisos – Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness remain primary tests – Third question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 6.1–6.12].

Income Tax – Section 56(2)(viib) – Fair Market Value of Shares – Valuation by assessee not specifically questioned by AO – ITAT held that AO must record judicially justifiable dissatisfaction before rejecting valuation – Addition not sustainable without proper analysis under Rule 11UA – Second question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 8.1–8.5].

Income Tax – Lease Rent Paid to Director – Section 40A(2)(a) – ITAT remanded issue for fresh consideration regarding lease rent paid to Director – Assessment must consider prevailing market rates, amenities, and statutory provisions – Remand upheld – No substantial question of law arises – Fifth question in TCA No.14/2020 answered accordingly [Paras 9.1–9.5].

Income Tax – Disallowance under Sections 36(1)(iii) and 36(1)(va) – Lease advance and employee contributions – ITAT remanded issue without properly examining business necessity or timing of payment – High Court held remand order to be legally infirm – ITAT directed to reconsider in accordance with law – Fifth and sixth questions of law in TCA Nos.15 and 16 of 2020 answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 10.1–10.9].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – First question of law answered in favour of Revenue – Second, third and fourth questions of law answered in favour of Assessee – No question of law arises on fifth question in TCA No.14/2020 – Fifth and sixth questions in TCA Nos.15 and 16 of 2020 answered in favour of Revenue – Matter remanded to ITAT for re-examination on Sections 36(1)(iii) and 36(1)(va) [Para 11].

Hindu Law – Widow’s Right – Coparcenary Property – Agricultural Land – Injunction Granted – Trial Court wrongly held that widow (Veeramma) had no right over agricultural land under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 – High Court held that such land is included within "property" in light of later Supreme Court decisions – Vendors had prima facie title – Plaintiffs held entitled to injunction based on de jure possession – Trial Court’s dismissal of suit reversed [Paras 33–41, 46–51].

Civil Procedure – Execution Sale Deed – Validity – Title Not Conferred – Defendant No.3 relied on sale deed obtained through execution of decree in earlier specific performance suit – High Court found sale deed (Ex.B.14) was not in conformity with appellate decree – No proper compliance with Order 21 Rule 34 CPC – Held: Sale deed invalid and ineffective in conferring title – Defendant No.3 failed to establish lawful possession [Paras 53–64].

Land Records – Sub-Division and Mutation – Lack of Notice – Unreliable Evidence – Mutation proceedings that created new survey numbers were post-suit and conducted without notice to plaintiffs – Testimony of D.W.2 (Survey Official) found inconsistent and unreliable – Documents (Exs. B28–B30) not credible – No proof of possession or title in favour of Defendant No.3 [Paras 65–68].

Appeal – Maintainability – Findings vs. Decree – No Adverse Decree Against Appellants in A.S. No. 372/2009 – Defendants 5 to 7 filed appeal without adverse decree – Mere findings do not confer right to appeal – No independent right shown over disputed property – Appeal not maintainable – Dismissed with no relief granted [Paras 70–83].

Decision: A.S. No. 156 of 2009 allowed – Decree and judgment of the Trial Court dated 26.02.2009 set aside – Suit decreed in favour of plaintiffs with permanent injunction granted restraining interference with their peaceful possession.

A.S. No. 372 of 2009 dismissed – No order as to costs.

Civil Law – Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Non-consideration of Arguments – Context where the appellate court recorded submissions regarding the maintainability of a claim petition but failed to adjudicate them – Held: Non-consideration of arguments that are germane to the issue constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. If vital issues raised are not considered, it results in a miscarriage of justice, warranting review. [Paras 35, 37, 57].

Civil Procedure – Execution – Claim Petition – Wrong Provision of Law – Order 21 Rule 58 vs Rule 97/101 CPC – Context where the claim petition was dismissed for being filed under Rule 58 instead of Rule 97/101 – Held: The argument that quoting a wrong provision of law does not disentitle a party to relief if the court otherwise has jurisdiction was raised but not decided by the appellate court. This omission required correction via review. [Paras 45(vi), 49].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Review – "Any Other Sufficient Reason" – Held: The expression "any other sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court. Where the judgment under review suffers from non-consideration of material aspects raised to challenge the Executing Court's order, it falls within the scope of review. [Paras 30, 54].

Decision: Review Petition allowed. Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2022 in A.S. No. 59 of 2020 set aside. Appeal restored to original number for fresh decision on merits.

Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – High Court Order Declaring Acquisition Lapsed – Contempt Established – High Court in 2016 held that land acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-payment of compensation – State's SLP dismissed in 2017 – Despite this, State failed to comply, prompting contempt – High Court held: refusal to comply based on subsequent overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation by Manoharlal does not absolve contempt – Final judgment inter partes remains binding despite change in precedent [Paras 5, 7, 35–37, 44]

Precedent – Overruling by Larger Bench – Effect on Final Judgments – Precedential Value vs. Binding Inter Partes – Supreme Court's Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal overruled Pune Municipal Corporation – However, High Court held that such overruling only removes precedential value and does not nullify judgments already attained finality between parties – Contempt not avoidable on ground of changed law unless original order is set aside by appropriate legal remedy [Paras 33–34, 36]

Articles 141 & 144 – Scope and Misapplication in Contempt Defence – Opposite parties invoked Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution, claiming they were bound to follow Manoharlal and not the High Court’s earlier order – Held: erroneous interpretation – Article 141 deals with law declared by the Supreme Court as precedent, not its application to binding orders inter partes – Article 144 does not permit executive officers to disregard binding court orders citing later case law [Paras 36–37]

State Conduct – Abuse of Legal Process – Failure to Honour Court Assurances – Departmental Blame-Shifting – Despite assurance before Court that compliance would occur within a week (in May 2022), no steps were taken – State departments blamed each other for delay – High Court observed such conduct was high-handed and amounted to misuse of departmental structure to escape judicial directions [Paras 8–10, 38]

Implementation vs. Execution – Maintainability of Contempt Petition – State argued that contempt was not maintainable as petition sought execution – Rejected – Court held failure to implement a binding order amounts to contempt, and contempt jurisdiction remains available where there is willful disobedience [Para 39]

Decision: Contempt established – However, further one month’s time granted to Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretaries of Irrigation and Urban Development Departments, and District Magistrate, Prayagraj to comply – If not complied, they shall appear personally for framing of charges on 05.01.2026 [Paras 43–46]

Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Sale of Spurious Drug – Dealer Acquitted – Conviction set aside – Appellant, a licensed medical store owner, convicted for stocking and selling substandard chloroquine tablets – High Court held that appellant had discharged his burden under Section 19(3) by disclosing full chain of purchase from licensed dealer (M/s Bhuvan Pharma) and licensed manufacturer (Nectarine Pharmacy) – No evidence to show mens rea or knowledge on part of the appellant – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 20–22, 26, 29, 31]

Burden of Proof – Section 19(3) Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Compliance Proven – Appellant produced purchase bills showing medicine sourced from licensed wholesaler, who in turn purchased from the manufacturer – Wholesaler confirmed sale to appellant – Manufacturer confirmed sale to wholesaler – Held: Appellant had no reason to suspect drug quality and had met statutory compliance under Section 19(3) and Section 19-A (U.P. Amendment) [Paras 20, 22, 26, 29]

Drug Sample Analysis – Failure to Test Manufacturer's Control Sample – Benefit of Doubt – Though Drug Inspector seized 118 tablets from same batch at Nectarine Pharmacy, he failed to send those samples to Central Drug Laboratory – Reliance solely on manufacturer’s internal test report found insufficient – Held: No valid comparative basis to conclude drugs at appellant’s shop were not from same batch – Benefit of doubt extended to appellant [Paras 27–28, 30–31]

Prosecution Lapses – Absence of Independent Witnesses – Coercion Alleged – No independent witnesses present during seizure or sampling – Appellant claimed samples not prepared in his presence, and he was threatened with MISA detention during Emergency – Court found procedural irregularities and lack of transparency by Drug Inspectors – Prosecution’s case not free from doubt [Paras 16, 18, 24, 26]

Mens Rea – Not Attributable to Appellant – Manufacturer Liable – No evidence to show appellant knew the drugs were substandard – Held: Only manufacturer responsible for quality control – Dealer cannot be held liable where proper source of purchase is established and statutory burden is discharged [Paras 20–22, 31]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and sentence dated 09.02.1984 set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges under Section 27(a)(ii) and 27(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Bail bonds cancelled and sureties discharged [Paras 32–33]

Advocates – Suspension from Practice – Ex Parte Order – Principles of Natural Justice Violated – Bar Council of U.P. passed an order suspending petitioner for 10 years from practicing law on the allegation of bigamy – Petitioner argued he was not served notice or given opportunity of hearing – Court found that notice dated 17.02.2025 fixed appearance on 10.03.2025, but the order was passed prematurely on 23.02.2025 – Held: Suspension order passed in violation of natural justice – Quashed with liberty to issue proper notice and pass a reasoned order [Paras 3, 17–19].

Moral Turpitude – Allegation of Bigamy – Absence of Conviction – Whether acts of bigamy constitute moral turpitude in absence of conviction considered – Petitioner relied on Raj Kishor Yadav case – Court held moral turpitude must be tested contextually and cannot be presumed without adjudication – Distinguished Madras High Court judgment in P. Mohanasudaram which involved a conviction – Held: Without conviction, bigamy allegation alone cannot justify professional suspension [Paras 4–6, 13–16].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Despite availability of appeal under the Advocates Act, writ petition entertained due to denial of natural justice – Held: Writ maintainable in exceptional circumstances where procedure is blatantly violated [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 23.02.2025 quashed – Bar Council directed to issue a fresh notice and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of judgment.

Religious Institution – Classification under Endowments Act – Notification – Appellants challenged inclusion of Yogananda Ashramam as a public religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of A.P. Endowments Act – Evidence showed that Ashramam was established and maintained by founders' family without any public endowment, offerings, or public access – Court found that management was always with the family and public participation was minimal and not as of right – Held: Ashramam not a public religious institution within meaning of Section 2(23) – Notification quashed [Paras 10–22, 26–28]

Natural Justice – Publication under Section 6(c)(ii) – Procedure – Court held that no notice was given to appellants before notification enlisting Ashramam as public religious institution – Violation of principles of natural justice – Held: Notification issued without following Sections 43, 44, and income assessment under Section 65 – Procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable – [Paras 23–25, 28]

Specific Endowment – No Dedication of Property – Settlement deed did not indicate any dedication of property or income for public religious or charitable use – No evidence of specific endowment as per Section 2(25) – Held: Absence of endowment defeats classification as religious institution or temple – [Paras 21–22]

Legal Precedents – Private Religious Institutions – Followed precedents in VVVRK Yechendra v. State of A.P. and Miryala Narayana v. State of A.P. – High Court reiterated that publication under Section 6 must follow registration and hearing of affected parties – Held: Classification made in violation of binding procedural requirements and liable to be struck down – [Paras 23–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Gazette Notification under Section 6(c)(ii) dated 13.07.2000 quashed – Order of Deputy Commissioner dated 25.08.2009 in O.A. No. 42 of 2001 set aside – Ashramam held to be a private institution – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Constitutional Law – Resignation by Legislator – Inaction by Chairman – Writ maintainable – Petitioner, a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, submitted resignation on 23.11.2024 – Chairman failed to act upon it for over nine months – Held: Under Article 190(3)(b) and Rule 190 of the Council Rules, the Chairman is duty-bound to verify only voluntariness and genuineness of resignation and render a decision within reasonable time – Inaction held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 26, 56, 64, 68]

Discretionary Power – Limits on Constitutional Functionaries – No absolute discretion – Discretion under Article 190(3)(b) and Rule 190 must align with constitutional standards – Use of term “may” in Rule 190(2) interpreted as “must” in light of constitutional intent and Parliamentary debates – Chairman cannot indefinitely delay action on resignation – Time beyond a month unreasonable [Paras 24, 29-33, 60-63]

Judicial Review – Legislative Procedure – Limited scope of interference – Courts may not decide voluntariness/genuineness but may intervene against prolonged delay – Held: Chairman’s prolonged inaction offends Wednesbury reasonableness and constitutional morality – Judicial review available on grounds of arbitrariness [Paras 24, 39, 44, 64-66]

Legislative Practice – Timeline for inquiry into resignation – Based on debates during 33rd Constitutional Amendment, inquiry into voluntariness/genuineness must be completed preferably within a fortnight or, at most, a month – Chairman’s call for personal interaction after one year held unjustified – Court directed completion of process within four weeks [Paras 53, 55, 68]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Chairman directed to complete inquiry into petitioner’s resignation and render a decision within four weeks – Inaction held illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14.