Income Tax – Reassessment under Section 147/148 of Income Tax Act – Report of District Valuation Officer (DVO) not sufficient basis for reopening assessment – Held: Sole reliance on DVO report without proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer (AO) invalidates reassessment proceedings – No proper analysis of petitioner’s declared property values under "Fixed Assets and Capital WIP" – Notices under Section 148 quashed by the Delhi High Court [Paras 14-22].

Valuation Report – Supreme Court precedents applied – Report of DVO cannot solely justify reopening of assessment without AO’s independent application of mind – Supreme Court ruling in Dhariya Construction Co. followed, reaffirming that mere reliance on DVO report is insufficient to establish escapement of income for reassessment purposes [Paras 16-20].

Decision – Writ Petition allowed – Held: Notices under Section 148 dated 30.03.2015 for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 set aside – Reassessment proceedings quashed – The Court confirmed that the reassessment was based on assumptions and was unsupported by sufficient material or reasoning by the AO [Paras 21-22].

Civil Law – Maintenance Order – Petition under Article 227 – The petitioner challenged the maintenance order passed by the Family Court, which granted only Rs. 2,500/- per month, claiming that it was too low considering the husband's income of Rs. 80,000/- per month – The High Court initially handled the matter as a writ petition under Article 226 – However, referencing the Supreme Court ruling in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath (2015), which clarified that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, the court held that the petition should have been filed under Article 227 – The court granted the petitioner four weeks to convert the writ petition into a Civil Miscellaneous Petition, in compliance with the amended High Court rules [Paras 1-30].

Article 226 vs. Article 227 Jurisdiction – The Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam emphasized that while Article 226 cannot be used to challenge judicial orders from civil courts, Article 227 provides the correct recourse for such matters – The High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 remains unaffected by amendments to Section 115 of the CPC, but it must be exercised cautiously to avoid interference in ongoing cases unless there is a clear violation of the law – Orders under Article 227 are not meant for routine challenges but are limited to supervisory corrections of jurisdictional errors or gross procedural violations [Paras 18-30].

Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's request for time to convert the writ petition to a Civil Miscellaneous Petition, directing the registry to cooperate and ensure priority listing once converted.

Constitutional Law – Violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Challenge to deduction of 1% Labour Cess by the government from contractors’ bills – Absence of specific contract provisions for such deductions – Petitioners, engaged in various infrastructure projects, claim deductions are illegal and arbitrary – Relying on prior judgment (Ch.V.V. Subba Rao), court finds in favor of petitioners – Held, government cannot deduct cess without inclusion in contract estimates [Paras 5-12].

Labour Cess Act 1996 – Applicability to infrastructure contracts – Petitioners argue Labour Cess was not included in original contract estimates for works initiated before the amendment of rules in 2007 – Court reiterates principle that deductions for Labour Cess can only be made if explicitly provided for in contract – Judgment in prior case deemed applicable – Relief granted [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held, 1% Labour Cess cannot be deducted from contractors’ bills unless explicitly factored into contract estimates – Government directed to cease further deductions and refund amounts already deducted – No order as to costs [Para 13].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Cross-examination – Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Regulation of Rights and Responsibilities of Landlords and Tenants Act, 2017 – Petitioners (tenants) sought to recall P.W.1 (landlords) for cross-examination after proceedings were initiated under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act, due to lack of an agreement as required under Section 4 – Held, cross-examination is not a right for tenants where the landlord-tenant relationship is undisputed – Petition dismissed in line with prior precedents [Paras 1-20].

Departmental Delay and Procedural Fairness – Petition for Reopening Evidence – Order on Eviction Proceedings – Tenants claimed denial of their opportunity to present a defense due to being set ex parte – Held, tenants have the right to present evidence before 18.09.2024, failing which they forfeit the right – Rent Controller instructed to complete the proceedings by 04.10.2024 [Paras 21-40].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – Tenants not entitled to cross-examine or reopen P.W.1 in the eviction proceedings initiated under Section 21(2)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Act. However, the ex parte orders were set aside, allowing tenants to submit evidence before 18.09.2024.

Live-in Relationships – Protection of Life and Liberty – Petitioners in CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024, though already married to third parties, sought protection for their life and liberty while living in a live-in relationship – Held: Despite societal and moral objections, the right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected, irrespective of marital status or social norms – The Court affirmed the right of individuals, including those already married, to live in a live-in relationship, provided the threat to their life and liberty is genuine [Paras 1-5, 28, 37-39, 45].

Marital Status – Denial of Protection – In LPA No. 968 of 2021, the High Court had earlier denied protection to individuals in live-in relationships where one partner was married, citing potential harm to the social fabric – Held: The previous judgment was overturned, reaffirming that the right to protection under Article 21 overrides societal norms, and protection must be granted where threats exist, even if one partner is already married – The appeal was dismissed with costs [Paras 6, 45].

Societal Morality vs. Constitutional Rights – The Court held that the right to privacy and autonomy under Article 21 includes the right to form relationships of one’s choice, even in live-in arrangements, irrespective of societal moral disapproval – Social fabric concerns cannot outweigh fundamental rights – Court highlighted the decriminalization of adultery in Joseph Shine v. Union of India as a basis for granting protection to those in live-in relationships where one partner is married [Paras 13-19, 22-24].

Protection Mechanism – Overburdened Police – A mechanism for live-in couples seeking protection was outlined, involving first approaching District Legal Services Authorities or the State Human Rights Commission for counseling and mediation – The Court suggested this as a first step before approaching the Courts, thereby easing the burden on the judicial and police systems [Paras 25-27].

Minors in Live-in Relationships – The Court clarified that minors cannot enter into live-in relationships due to legal incapacities under laws like the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Minors cannot claim protection in such cases, and their welfare must be ensured through custody arrangements with parents or guardians, or by sending them to appropriate care homes under the Juvenile Justice Act [Paras 40-44].

Decision: CRWP No. 4660 of 2021 and CRWP No. 149 of 2024 allowed – LPA No. 968 of 2021 dismissed – Clear mechanisms outlined for protection of individuals in live-in relationships, including pre-litigation counseling, and reaffirmation of minors’ legal incapacities regarding live-in relationships [Paras 45-47].

Parole – Grounds for Granting – Convict sought parole to arrange finances and bid farewell to his son departing for higher studies abroad – Authorities rejected application citing pendency of appeal – High Court held pendency of appeal not a valid ground to deny parole – Rule 18 of Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959, interpreted to allow parole for significant family events, including happy occasions [Paras 1-10].

Parole – Emotional Well-being – Court recognized parole’s role in maintaining family ties and mental well-being of inmates – Emphasized humanistic approach to allow convicts temporary release for significant family moments – Criticized rigid interpretation of parole rules limiting to emergencies [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Petitioner granted parole for 10 days from 12^th July 2024 to 22^nd July 2024 – Required to execute personal bond and one local surety of Rs.25,000/- – Ordered to report to local police station on alternate days [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Law – Bail application – Accused allegedly caused fatal injuries to his mother during a quarrel – Accusations based on circumstantial evidence – Petitioner in judicial custody for over a year – Investigation complete but trial delayed – Petitioner's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution considered – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions [Paras 2-12].

Right to Life and Liberty – Article 21 – Court noted the petitioner’s prolonged detention without charge framing – Held that extended custody violates the petitioner's right to life under Article 21 – Bail not to be withheld as punishment, reaffirming that bail is the rule and jail is the exception [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Delay – Sessions Court report indicated delay due to pending murder cases – Despite assurances, charge not framed even after six months – Court emphasizes prompt trial proceedings [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Bail granted with conditions including regular appearances before the Investigating Officer, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and surrendering of passport [Paras 12-13].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 of the Constitution – Petitioners sought writs for annual grade increments and pension revision – Rajasthan High Court directed compliance with earlier decision in Vijay Singh v. State of Rajasthan – Similar petitions addressed as judgment treated as in rem rather than in personam – Repeated identical petitions termed misuse of judicial process – Token cost imposed on petitioners for filing repetitive claims – Held: Respondents to comply with previous orders, representations to be considered within three weeks [Paras 1-25].

Doctrine of Finality – Vijay Singh case judgment established as final – Petitioners not required to re-approach the court for similar claims – Judicial decorum mandates that final judgments be adhered to by authorities – Frivolous and repetitive litigation burdens the judicial system – Court imposed token costs to deter abuse of process – Held: Departments to act on representations without further litigation, token costs imposed [Paras 16-20].

Costs Imposed for Frivolous Litigation – Repeated petitions unnecessarily occupying court time – Symbolic costs of Rs. 1000/- imposed on each petitioner – Petitioners directed to deposit costs in the Litigants Welfare Fund – Non-compliance with court orders would amount to contempt – Held: Token costs necessary to ensure genuine grievances are prioritized, unnecessary litigation discouraged [Paras 18-23].

Decision – Petitions dismissed – Court reiterated previous decisions and imposed costs on repetitive petitions – Ordered respondents to comply with earlier judgments and address representations within three weeks – Petitioners given liberty to approach court only if their representation is decided adversely [Paras 21-25].

Taxation Law - Customs Law – Duty Drawback – Recovery Proceedings Against Deceased Sole Proprietor – Recovery proceedings initiated against a deceased person under the Customs Act, 1962, for non-realization of export proceeds – Petitioner, the wife of the deceased, challenged the recovery notice on the grounds that no recovery can be made from legal heirs without legal steps to bring them on record – Court held that a show cause notice issued against a dead person is void and recovery proceedings based on such notice cannot be sustained – Reference made to Supreme Court rulings, including Shabina Abraham v. Collector of Central Excise and Customs [2015 (10) SCC 770] [Paras 9, 12-16].

Legal Heirs – Liability for Deceased Sole Proprietor's Dues – Legal heirs cannot be held liable for recovery of government dues in the absence of a statutory provision allowing such recovery – The Customs Act does not provide for continuing recovery proceedings against the legal heirs of a deceased sole proprietor – Notices and orders passed against a dead person are null and void [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Show cause notice issued against the deceased set aside – Recovery proceedings quashed as they were initiated against a dead person without bringing the legal heirs on record [Paras 15-17].