Income Tax – Faceless Assessment – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Assessment Order Set Aside – Petitioner challenged assessment order dated 04.12.2025 passed under Section 144 r/w Section 144B of the Income Tax Act pursuant to remand by appellate authority – Portal disabled e-submission facility on the last date for reply to show cause notice and option for video conference hearing was also disabled – Grievance raised by petitioner was not redressed – No personal hearing granted despite specific direction in remand order – Held: Assessment order passed in violation of principles of natural justice and mandatory procedure under faceless assessment framework liable to be set aside [Paras 8–11].

Remand Proceedings – Duty to Comply with Appellate Directions – Appellate Authority had set aside earlier assessment and directed fresh consideration after affording sufficient opportunity – Respondents failed to provide effective opportunity of hearing and did not permit filing of reply through portal – Passing of order without restoring access to portal or granting hearing amounts to non-compliance with remand directions – Order unsustainable in law [Paras 2, 10].

Natural Justice – Right to Be Heard – Technical Denial of Portal Access – Petitioner attempted to upload reply within stipulated time but e-filing portal showed closure of submission facility – Email reply sent after grievance not considered before passing order – Held: Denial of effective opportunity due to technical disablement of portal vitiates assessment proceedings [Paras 4, 5, 10].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned assessment order dated 04.12.2025 under Section 144 r/w 144B and consequential demand notice under Section 156 set aside – Petitioner permitted to file reply to show cause notice dated 16.10.2025 – Respondents directed to provide opportunity of hearing and complete assessment afresh – No order as to costs [Paras 11–12].

Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Second Appeal – Suit for Possession and Declaration – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant's suit for possession of DDA Slum Flat and declaration that documents dated 27.03.2000 were forged and fabricated was dismissed by Trial Court on 19.04.2017 on the grounds that the Plaintiff had failed to prove possession and the Suit was barred by limitation – Appeal was preferred only on 04.09.2021 with a delay of 1589 days, accompanied by an Application under Order XLI Rule 3-A CPC for condonation of delay – District Judge dismissed the delay condonation application on 24.09.2025 and consequently dismissed the Appeal – Appellant challenged the said order in the present Second Appeal – Held: No merit in the present Appeal – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-3, 37-38].

"Selectively Active in Court" – Participation in Execution Proceedings While Ignoring the Right of Appeal – First Ground of Delay Rejected – Appellant claimed to be a senior citizen suffering from serious ailments, physical incapacity and extreme financial hardship preventing timely filing of the Appeal – No medical documents were placed on record to substantiate incapacitation – Second ground of inability to engage a legal counsel also rejected because the Appellant had appeared before the Executing Court on 13.02.2018, 20.03.2018 and 27.09.2018 in Execution Petition No. 387 of 2017 – Appellant was fully aware of the Decree and actively resisted execution till possession was taken on 18.03.2021 – Held: If the Appellant could contest Execution proceedings, there was no reason why he could not have filed the Appeal on time – "The Appellant had failed to act diligently and has remained selectively active in approaching the Court" [Paras 26-29].

Covid-19 Pandemic Cannot Rescue Delay That Pre-Dates the Pandemic – Third Ground Rejected – Third ground for condonation of delay was that the Covid-19 Pandemic had rendered the Appellant, a vulnerable senior citizen, unable to file the Appeal in time – District Judge correctly noted that even if the period of Covid-19 Pandemic was excluded in terms of the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation), the statutory period of limitation of 90 days from 19.04.2017 had expired long before the onset of the Pandemic – No cogent explanation was furnished for the period from 19.05.2017 to 01.03.2020 – Ground rightly rejected [Paras 30-32].

Conduct, Behaviour and Attitude of Litigant Are Decisive in Condonation – Liberal Approach Cannot Override Diligence – Delay was not rejected mechanically but on account of the Appellant's conduct – Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunath Nafar Academy & Ors. held that "conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to the inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration" and that "courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties" – Supreme Court in Basawaraj vs. Land Acquisition Officer held that condoning inordinate delay without sufficient cause "amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature" – No sufficient cause having been shown, the delay condonation application was rightly dismissed and no interference warranted [Paras 33-37].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No infirmity found in the order of the District Judge dismissing the Application under Order XLI Rule 3-A CPC for condonation of delay of 1504 days in filing the Appeal – Appeal disposed of along with pending applications.

Civil Law – Rejection of Plaint – Letters Patent Jurisdiction – Partition Suit as "Suit for Land" – Leave under Clause XII – Suit for partition of ancestral HUF properties (including land, flats and other immovable assets) situated partly within and partly outside the ordinary original jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court – Plaintiff claimed 1/7th share in the estate of her deceased father as Karta of HUF and sought partition, declaration, and injunction – Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed Interim Application for rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the ground that no leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was obtained – Three questions framed: (A) Whether the Suit is a "Suit for land" under Clause XII; (B) Whether leave under Clause XII is required; and (C) Whether the Plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 – Held: All three questions answered in the affirmative – Plaint rejected as a whole – Interim Application allowed – No order as to costs [Paras 1, 47, 65, 68].

"A Partition Suit is a Suit for Land" – Question A Answered – Whether a Suit for partition of immovable properties qualifies as a "Suit for land" under Clause XII of the Letters Patent – Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Bhagwan Moti Ram Saraoji vs. Onkarmal Ishar Dass held it is well settled that "a suit for partition of immovable properties is a suit for land" – Single Judge in Vishram Parbat H.U.F. followed the said view and further held that a suit for recovery of possession is also a Suit for land – Supreme Court in Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Daulat held that "a suit for land is a suit in which the relief claimed relates to title to or delivery of possession of land or immovable property" – Supreme Court in Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Narendra Gorani affirmed that a controversy over possession of land falls within the conception of "suit for land" under Clause XII – In the present case, Prayer (b) of the Plaint sought both partition by metes and bounds and handing over of the Plaintiff's share, thereby establishing it as a Suit for possession and land – Held: Present Suit is a Suit for land and immovable properties under Clause XII of the Letters Patent – Question A answered in the affirmative – Orders in Jagneesh Malhotra and Dipika Hitendra Shah, relied upon by the Plaintiff, held to be mere orders granting leave with no precedential value [Paras 49-56].

Leave Under Clause XII is a Condition Precedent – It Cannot be Obtained After Institution of Suit – Question B Answered – Whether leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is required when part of the suit land falls outside the Court's jurisdiction – Calcutta High Court in Benoy Shankar Dhandani vs. Choteylal Dhandania held that "it is now well established that in a suit for land, if the entire land is not situate within jurisdiction, it is necessary that leave of the Court should be obtained before the institution of the suit" – Bombay High Court in Quadricon Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shri Bajrang Alloys Ltd. held that "the leave must be granted at the time of acceptance of the plaint and cannot be granted afterwards" and that "leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent is a condition precedent to the maintenance and entertainment of the suit" – Admittedly, Plaintiff did not obtain leave prior to institution of the Suit and cannot now do so – Held: Leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent was required and not obtained – Question B answered in the affirmative [Paras 57-61].

The Fatal Consequence of Missing Leave – Partial Partition Equally Impermissible – Question C Answered – Whether the entire Plaint stands to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC where leave under Clause XII was not obtained – Absence of leave deprives the Court of jurisdiction over properties situated outside its original jurisdiction – Suit for remaining properties within jurisdiction not maintainable as it would amount to a Suit for partial partition, which is not permissible in law – Supreme Court in Kenchegowda vs. Siddegowda Alias Motegowda firmly held that "a suit for partial partition is not maintainable" – Prayer clauses (c), (c)(i), (c)(ii) and (c)(iii) though pertaining to the Malad property (within jurisdiction) are consequential to Prayer (b) which seeks partition of the entire Exhibit 'C' properties and granting those reliefs would amount to partial partition – Held: Entire Plaint is barred by law – Plaintiff's argument that the only consequence of non-obtaining of leave would be refusal of relief at final hearing rejected – Plaint to be rejected as a whole under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Question C answered in the affirmative [Paras 62-68].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Plaint in Suit No. 422 of 2012 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for want of leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent of the Bombay High Court – No order as to costs.

Criminal Law – Default Bail – Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. – Trial Not Concluded Within Sixty Days – Applicant in custody since framing of charges – First date fixed for evidence was 26.08.2025 – Trial not concluded within sixty days from said date – Several adjournments granted for securing presence of prosecution witnesses – Held: Accused entitled to default bail under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. when trial before Magistrate not concluded within statutory period and accused remained in custody throughout – Order rejecting bail set aside [Paras 14, 18].

Default Bail – Misconstruction by Trial Court – Application Though Inartfully Drafted – Application filed under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. but pleadings not happily worded – Trial Court treated it as successive regular bail application on ground of change in circumstances – Coordinate Bench had granted liberty to move application under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. – Held: Magistrate failed to appreciate scope of statutory right under Section 480(6) – Correct provision invoked must be considered notwithstanding defective drafting – Impugned order unsustainable [Paras 15–17].

Statutory Right – Mandatory Nature – Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. – Provision mandates release on bail if trial of non-bailable offence triable by Magistrate is not concluded within sixty days from first date fixed for evidence, unless reasons recorded otherwise – In present case, no legally sustainable reasons recorded to deny benefit – Accused directed to be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount [Paras 14, 18].

Decision: Criminal Revision Allowed – Order dated 10.01.2026 passed by JMFC, Singrauli in R.C.T. No. 318 of 2025 set aside – Default bail granted under Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. – Applicant to be released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount – Revision disposed of [Paras 18–19].

FIR Registration – BNSS, 2023 – Preliminary Enquiry under Section 173(3) – Petitioner sought mandamus to register FIR alleging forgery, defamation, offences under SC/ST Act and IT Act – Police conducted preliminary enquiry with prior approval and closed complaint as “No Cognizable Offence” – Held: Under Section 173(3) BNSS, preliminary enquiry permissible in offences punishable between 3 to 7 years to ascertain prima facie case – If no prima facie case found, FIR need not be registered – Action of police in conformity with BNSS – No interference warranted [Paras 6(ii)-6(iv), 8].

Alternative Remedy – Sections 173(4) and 175 BNSS – Petitioner directly invoked Article 226 without approaching Superintendent of Police or Magistrate – Held: Statutory remedy before SP and thereafter Magistrate is mandatory precondition – Writ petition not maintainable without exhausting remedy – Liberty granted to approach Magistrate [Paras 6(v), 8, 11].

Defamation – Non-Cognizable Offence – Allegations primarily disclose reputational harm due to media broadcast – Criminal defamation under Section 356 BNS is non-cognizable and bailable – Held: Police cannot register FIR for defamation alone – Remedy lies before Magistrate by private complaint [Para 3 – Reply; Paras 7, 9].

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Essential Ingredients – Complaint did not disclose insult or intimidation on ground of Scheduled Tribe status – Mere allegation of fabrication of documents insufficient – No prima facie case under SC/ST Act made out – Held: Provisions not attracted [Para 7, 9].

Information Technology Act – Ingredients of Offence – Allegations did not disclose impersonation, identity theft, cheating by personation, or publication of obscene/sexually explicit material – No material to attract Sections 66C, 66D, 67, 67A IT Act – Held: No cognizable offence under IT Act prima facie made out [Para 7].

Scope of Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus to Register FIR – In light of statutory scheme under BNSS and Supreme Court decisions, writ court should not direct registration of FIR when statutory remedies exist and preliminary enquiry conducted in accordance with law – Held: No mandamus can be issued – Writ dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Applicability of BNSS – Complaint lodged after enforcement of BNSS on 01.07.2024 – Held: Procedure under BNSS governs – Old CrPC provisions not applicable – Section 173(3) BNSS marks departure from Section 154 CrPC and permits limited preliminary enquiry even where cognizable offence disclosed [Paras 6(i)-6(iv), 9].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Communication dated 08.11.2025 upholding “No Cognizable Offence” sustained – Petitioner at liberty to approach competent Magistrate under BNSS, 2023 – Pending applications closed.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Quashing of Process – Nexus with Proceeds of Crime – Property purchased between 2005-2007 – Alleged proceeds of crime generated between December 2020 and February 2021 – No material showing connection between earlier acquisition and scheduled offence – Held: Existence of “proceeds of crime” is sine qua non for offence under Section 3 PMLA – In absence of nexus between property and alleged criminal activity, ingredients of Sections 3 and 4 not made out – Process liable to be quashed [Paras 22, 25, 29, 32].

Money Laundering – Continuing Offence – Scope of Section 3 PMLA – Reliance placed on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Pavana Dibbur – Court reiterates that offence under Section 3 arises only when a person knowingly deals with proceeds of crime derived from scheduled offence – Though offence may be continuing, there must first exist property derived from criminal activity relating to scheduled offence – In present case, property acquired much prior to alleged generation of proceeds – No prima facie material of Applicant’s involvement in laundering tainted funds [Paras 16-18, 22, 27-29].

Cognizance and Issuance of Process – Requirement of Application of Mind – “Sufficient ground for proceeding” under Section 204 Cr.P.C. – Designated Court’s order reproduced – No specific reasons demonstrating application of mind qua Applicant – Mechanical issuance of process without analysis of role attributed – Order bad in law and liable to be set aside – Reliance placed on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI [Paras 6, 30-31].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS – Abuse of Process – Where uncontroverted allegations and charge-sheet material do not disclose commission of offence under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA against Applicant – High Court justified in exercising inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law [Paras 32-33].

Decision: Criminal Application allowed – Impugned order dated 16.09.2021 issuing process against Applicant (Accused No. 11) in PMLA Special Case No. 1089 of 2021 quashed and set aside – Complaint under PMLA quashed qua Applicant – Interim Application disposed of – No order as to costs.

Contempt of Court – Wilful Disobedience – Interim Order Directing Deposit of Compensation – Land Acquisition for National Highways – Interim direction issued to deposit compensation for acquired OSR lands in interest-bearing fixed deposit in name of Registrar General – Despite communication of order and reminders, appellant disbursed nearly Rs.20 Crores to private individuals – Held: Direction was clear and unambiguous – Disbursement in face of subsisting order amounts to wilful disobedience – Finding of contempt justified [Paras 16–20, 22–23].

Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction – Distinction from Merits of Writ Dispute – Appellant contended lands were private lands as per revenue records and not OSR lands – Court held that in contempt proceedings, correctness of original order or merits of acquisition cannot be examined – Only question is compliance with order in force – Authorities cannot interpret order on their own – Proper course was to seek clarification or modification [Paras 19, 21–22].

Knowledge of Court Order – Communication and Subsequent Conduct – Interim order dated 10.02.2020 communicated officially and through District Collector – Further representations and legal notice issued – Despite full knowledge, compensation disbursed – Recovery of amount subsequent to violation does not obliterate contempt once committed [Paras 18, 24].

Sentence – Civil Imprisonment – Proportionality – Appellant sentenced to one month civil imprisonment and had already undergone 19 days – Held: Considering magnitude of amount involved and deliberate breach, sentence not excessive – Appellant directed to undergo remaining period of imprisonment [Paras 25–27].

Decision: Contempt Appeal dismissed – Order dated 04.08.2023 in Cont.P.No.642 of 2020 affirmed – Appellant to undergo remaining period of civil imprisonment as imposed by learned Single Judge.

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 – Section 2 – Essential Ingredients – Statutory provision penalizes burning, mutilating, defacing, trampling upon or otherwise showing disrespect to the National Flag in public view – Explanation 4 clarifies instances of “disrespect” including allowing the Flag to touch the ground intentionally – Held: Mens rea is sine qua non – Disrespect must be deliberate and intentional – Absence of intention vitiates prosecution [Paras 9, 44, 47].

National Flag – Alleged Disrespect – Edited Photograph Circulated on WhatsApp – Complaint alleged that petitioner stood with slippers on National Flag during Gandhi Jayanthi celebration – Material on record disclosed that original photograph of petitioner was edited by student and superimposed on image of National Flag – Student admitted mistake and tendered apology – Held: Inherent improbability of petitioner intentionally insulting National Flag – No prima facie material of deliberate act [Paras 3, 10].

Flag Code of India, 2002 – Nature and Enforceability – Flag Code is executive instruction and not “law” within meaning of Article 13(3)(a) – Violation of Flag Code per se does not attract penal consequences under Section 2 of the Act – Relied on Union of India v. Naveen Jindal and consistent High Court precedents [Paras 9.1, 39, 42].

Criminal Jurisdiction – Quashing of FIR – Scope of Interference – Applied principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – Where allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose ingredients of offence – Continuation of investigation amounts to abuse of process – Court can exercise inherent powers to secure ends of justice [Paras 10, 102 Bhajan Lal extracted].

Patriotism and Criminal Liability – Intention as True Test – Patriotism not determined by gross physical act alone – Intention behind act is decisive – Criminal law cannot be invoked for innocuous or unintended acts lacking malafide intent – Courts must guard against frivolous or malicious prosecution under national honour legislation [Paras 47, 61-63 (Madras HC principles referred)].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – FIR in Crime No.377 of 2024 registered by Bagalagunte Police Station for offence under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 quashed – All further proceedings before the XXXI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City set aside.

Land Acquisition – Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Filed After 23 Years – Dismissal Upheld – Appellants, claiming to be legal representatives of late Manchaiah, challenged land acquisition notifications issued in 1991 and 1993 by filing a writ petition only in 2017 – Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of inordinate delay while granting liberty to seek compensation – Division Bench upheld the dismissal, holding that a litigant who fails to enforce rights within a reasonable period must be treated as a 'fence-sitter' and cannot challenge completed acquisition proceedings – Held: Inordinate delay without justifiable explanation extinguishes the right to challenge [Paras 2, 13, 24, 26]

Notification Issued in Name of Deceased – Revenue Records Relied Upon – No Fault of Authority – The acquisition notifications named late Manchaiah as khatedar/anubhogdar though he had died on 13.08.1981, a decade before the preliminary notification – Court held that the authority was justified in relying solely on the Record of Rights prevailing on the date of notification and was not obliged to conduct a roving inquiry into title or ownership – Appellants' failure to mutate names in revenue records after a decade disentitles them from challenging the notification [Paras 7, 8, 9]

Constructive Notice – Ignorance of Acquisition Proceedings Not Accepted – Land acquisition for over 1000 acres in Basavanahalli Village constituted 'talk of the town' – Appellants' plea of non-receipt of individual notice rejected as gazette publication and public notice under Section 4 of the LA Act amounts to constructive notice – Held: Appellants cannot plead ignorance to justify enormous delay in filing the petition [Paras 10, 11, 12]

Possession – Mahazar by Revenue Inspector – Valid Taking of Possession – Physical possession taken on 13.08.2001 by Special Revenue Inspector of MUDA under mahazar in presence of villagers, followed by publication of notification under Section 16(2) of LA Act on 13.02.2002 – Objection to competence of revenue inspector raised for first time in appeal and not permissible – Held: Possession duly taken; cyclostyle form of mahazar and absence of land owner at site do not invalidate taking of possession after such lapse of time [Paras 12, 13]

Non-Deposit of Compensation – Does Not Vitiate Acquisition – MUDA admitted non-deposit of compensation due to discrepancies in land extent – Held, following Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, that non-deposit of compensation does not result in lapse of acquisition proceedings once possession has been taken – Appellants granted liberty by Single Judge to submit representation for compensation and compensatory site on par with Smt. Puttamma [Paras 20, 21]

Non-Utilization of Land – Not Abandonment of Acquisition – Appellants argued land remained undeveloped and hence acquisition should be declared abandoned – Held: Once award is passed and possession taken, land vests with the State free of encumbrances and the authority may use vested land for any public purpose – Non-utilization of a portion in a large scheme of over 1000 acres cannot be treated as abandonment of the entire acquisition [Paras 23, 25]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of learned Single Judge upheld – Appellants' possession over acquired land after vesting declared unlawful – Respondent authority empowered to dispossess such persons – No order as to costs.