Tenancy Law - Eviction on Grounds of Bona Fide Requirement – Death of Landlord – Continuation of Need – The tenant contended that the eviction petition was not maintainable after the original landlord’s death – The Court held that the bona fide need of the landlord’s dependents, as pleaded in the eviction petition, survives even after the landlord’s demise – Held: The eviction petition remained valid, and the successor landlords could continue the proceedings [Paras 5, 13].

Landlord’s Bona Fide Need – Bequest of Property Irrelevant – The tenant argued that the property was bequeathed to one of the respondents, not the intended business beneficiaries (the landlord’s son and grandson), which indicated a lack of bona fide need – The Court rejected this argument, holding that a landlord's decision on ownership and business use are separate matters – Held: A bequest to one family member does not negate the bona fide requirement for another family member’s business [Paras 7-8].

Non-Production of Will – No Adverse Inference – The tenant sought to draw an adverse inference from the landlord’s failure to produce the Will in court – The Court held that an adverse inference can only be drawn if a party refuses to comply with a direct court order to produce evidence, which was not the case here – Held: The non-production of the Will did not affect the validity of the eviction order [Paras 11-12].

Tenant’s Failure to Prove Alternative Accommodation Unavailable – Under the first proviso to Section 11(3), a tenant can resist eviction by proving that no suitable alternative premises are available – The Court found that the tenant failed to provide such proof – Held: The tenant did not meet the burden of proof to invoke the protection under Section 11(3) [Paras 10-11].

Tenant’s Conditional Stay – Undertaking to Vacate Within Six Months – The Court granted the tenant six months to vacate the premises, subject to conditions – The tenant was required to file an undertaking before the Rent Control Court within two weeks and deposit any rent arrears within one month – Held: Non-compliance with these conditions would automatically cancel the extension and allow the landlord to execute the eviction order immediately [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. Tenant permitted to remain in possession for six months under specified conditions.
 

Taxation Law – Transfer Pricing – International Transaction with Overseas Branches – Valid Reference to TPO – Petition Dismissed – Axis Bank contended that transactions between head office and foreign branches were not international transactions requiring ALP benchmarking – Held: In view of deeming fiction under Section 92F and judicial precedent, foreign branches treated as separate enterprises – Reference valid [Paras 37–44, 51].

CBDT Instruction No. 3/2016 – Procedural Compliance – Satisfaction and Approval Found Proper – Petitioner claimed breach of Instruction due to lack of speaking order – Held: Assessing Officer passed detailed speaking order and recorded satisfaction regarding income impact – Principal Commissioner validly approved reference – No procedural breach [Paras 17–24, 30–35].

Natural Justice – Reasonable Opportunity Given – No Prejudice Shown – Petitioner alleged denial of hearing due to late-night notice – Court held: Petitioner submitted objections which were duly considered and addressed by a speaking order – No breach of natural justice [Paras 16, 24, 29–30].

Taxability – Global Income and Credit – Deeming Fiction Upheld – Petitioner argued no tax impact due to global income consolidation – Court rejected, holding: Tax credit mechanisms and differential tax rates may affect revenue; transactions must be benchmarked to avoid base erosion [Paras 40–44, 51].

Premature Challenge – Maintainability of Writ – Rejected – Respondent contended petition was premature since TPO had not yet passed final order – Court held that since all legal issues had been raised and heard, writ was maintainable though ultimately dismissed on merits [Paras 36–38].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Reference to TPO held valid – Transactions between Indian head office and overseas branches considered international transactions under Income Tax Act – Procedural and legal compliance affirmed – No costs awarded [Paras 51–53].
 

Partnership Law – Bar Under Section 69(2) – Suit Maintainable as Firm Was Registered Before Filing – The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant firm was not registered at the time of filing, making the suit non-maintainable under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act. The High Court examined Exhibit-8, a memorandum from the Registrar of Firms, proving the firm's registration before the suit was filed. The Court held that the bar under Section 69(2) applies only if the firm is unregistered on the date of filing, not at the time of transactions. Held: Suit maintainable, as the firm was duly registered before filing [Paras 30-42].

Limitation – Cause of Action Arose on Denial of Payment – Suit Filed Within Time – The respondent argued that the transactions occurred between 2005 and 2007, and the suit filed in 2010 was barred. The Court ruled that the limitation period starts from the date of denial of payment, not from the transaction date. Since the respondent partially admitted the claim and denied balance payments on August 1, 2008, the suit filed on June 5, 2010, was within the three-year limitation period. Held: Suit is not barred by limitation [Paras 26-29].

Admissibility of Additional Evidence – Certified Copies from Registrar of Firms Allowed – The appellant sought to introduce certified copies of firm registration records under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to corroborate Exhibit-8. The Court held that these were public documents admissible under Sections 65 and 74 of the Evidence Act. The additional evidence did not create a new right but merely corroborated an existing document, thus meeting the test for admission. Held: Additional evidence admitted in appeal [Paras 31-40].

Validity of Respondent’s Written Statement – Procedural Defect Rendered It Invalid – The respondent’s written statement was filed by a director (D.W.1) in his personal capacity without stating he was acting on behalf of the company, nor was it stamped with the company seal. Under Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC, pleadings for a company must be signed and verified by an authorized person. The respondent failed to cure this defect or provide proper authorization. Held: Respondent’s written statement is procedurally defective and not valid in law [Paras 61-65].

Proof of Monetary Claim – VAT Adjustments and Purchase Register Confirm Transactions – The appellant relied on Exhibit-4 series (bills and challans) and Exhibit-7 series (respondent’s purchase register) to prove supply of goods. The respondent failed to produce VAT return records, despite adjusting VAT for the disputed transactions. Under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act, adverse inference was drawn against the respondent for withholding crucial documents. Held: Transactions sufficiently proved, and appellant entitled to recover dues [Paras 43-52].

Respondent’s Defense of Fraudulent Collusion – No Evidence Against Ex-Director – The respondent alleged collusion between the appellant and its former director, Tarak Nath Mitra. However, D.W.1 (respondent’s own witness) admitted that no complaint, criminal case, or internal action was ever taken against Tarak. The Court found this defense to be an afterthought to avoid liability. Held: No evidence of fraudulent collusion; defense rejected [Paras 53-56].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Trial Court Judgment Set Aside. The High Court held that the appellant’s suit was maintainable as the firm was registered before filing. The suit was within limitation, as the cause of action arose on August 1, 2008. Additional evidence from the Registrar of Firms was admissible. The respondent’s written statement was invalid, affecting its defense. The appellant sufficiently proved the monetary claim.

The respondent is directed to pay ₹24,36,105/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakh Thirty-Six Thousand One Hundred Five Only) with 6% interest per annum from June 5, 2010, until realization. The amount must be paid within 90 days, failing which execution proceedings will be allowed. Stay granted for four weeks to allow the respondent to appeal [Paras 77-82].
 

Regular Bail - NDPS Act  - Compliance with Section 50 – Procedural Violation Alleged – Petitioner alleged that search of vehicle and subsequent dissent memo were recorded in violation of Section 50, NDPS Act and Apex Court guidelines – Search was conducted before informing accused of his rights – Held: Prima facie violation noted but court refrains from making conclusive opinion on merits [Paras 3-4].

Drug Recovery – Non-commercial Quantity – Applicability of Bail Principles – Alleged recovery of 100 grams of heroin falls under non-commercial quantity – Court emphasized that pre-trial detention in such cases needs cautious approach due to Article 21 rights and delay in trial progress – Held: No justification to keep petitioner incarcerated indefinitely [Paras 4-5].

Impact of Police Target-Driven Anti-Drug Drive – Apprehension of Misuse – Court took judicial notice of recent DGP's press statement assigning ‘targets’ to police officers for drug arrests – Held: Quantified target-based assessment of police performance may encourage wrongful implication of innocent persons – Directed the State to adopt a balanced approach ensuring public confidence [Paras 4-5].

Criminal Antecedents – Effect on Bail – Court held that pendency of other cases alone cannot be a ground for denial of bail unless evidence in the present case independently supports such denial – Held: Prosecution must prove case-specific facts for opposing bail, not rely merely on antecedents [Para 5].

Bail – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted – Charges already framed, no prosecution witness examined so far, trial likely to take long – Court applied Article 21 jurisprudence and Apex Court ratio in Dataram Singh and Hussainara Khatoon – Held: Bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 4-5].
 

Public Interest Litigation – Locus Standi – Bona Fide of Petitioner in Question – The petitioner, an investigative journalist, sought cancellation of a contract awarded to MEIL on the ground that it submitted fraudulent bank guarantees from Euro Exim Bank, which is not recognized by the Reserve Bank of India – The respondents argued that the petitioner had a personal vendetta due to prior civil and criminal disputes with MEIL and had suppressed material facts about these disputes – Held: A petitioner in a PIL must come with clean hands, and suppression of relevant litigation history indicates a lack of bona fide intention – PIL dismissed [Paras 5-7, 25].

Scandalizing the Court – Social Media Posts by Petitioner – Contempt of Court Avoided – The petitioner published tweets making allegations against government authorities and the High Court – The Court noted that the tweets amounted to scandalizing the judiciary, but since the petitioner deleted them within five days on legal advice, no contempt proceedings were initiated – Held: The tweets were inappropriate and undermined the integrity of the judicial process, but the Court exercised judicial magnanimity in not initiating contempt proceedings [Paras 23, 28].

Suppression of Material Facts – Failure to Disclose Prior Litigation – The petitioner failed to disclose multiple pending civil and criminal cases against MEIL, including defamation suits, FIRs, and financial disputes – The Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010, require full disclosure of relevant litigation – Held: Non-disclosure of material facts and failure to comply with procedural requirements justified dismissal of the PIL without examining its merits [Paras 24-26].

Judicial Review of Government Contracts – Scope of PIL – The Court reiterated that judicial intervention in government contracts should be limited to cases involving clear arbitrariness, corruption, or mala fide actions – The bank guarantees issued by Euro Exim Bank had been authenticated by scheduled banks, and the petitioner failed to establish any illegality – Held: A PIL cannot be used as a tool for personal vendettas or business rivalries [Paras 14-15].

Decision: PIL dismissed. No costs imposed.
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax Act - Transfer Pricing – Selection of Most Appropriate Method – RPM vs. TNMM – ITAT’s Decision Upheld – The Revenue challenged the ITAT’s finding that Resale Price Method (RPM) was the correct method for determining the arm’s length price (ALP) of the assessee's international transactions, arguing that Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) should have been applied – The assessee, a pure distributor of solar products, purchased goods from its Associate Enterprise (AE) and resold them without any value addition – The Court held that RPM is the preferred method for distribution activities where no significant value is added to the goods before resale – Held: ITAT correctly applied RPM, and the High Court found no substantial question of law requiring interference [Paras 12-14].

Transfer Pricing – Aggregation of Transactions – Purchase Price and Warranty Cost Claim are Unrelated – The Revenue argued that the warranty cost claim and reimbursement of expenses should be aggregated with the purchase of solar products, justifying the application of TNMM – The Court rejected this argument, holding that the warranty cost was reimbursed by the AE and was not an additional service provided by the assessee – Held: Transactions were not inextricably linked and should not be clubbed together for transfer pricing purposes [Paras 13-14].

Functional Profile – Distributor vs. Manufacturer – RPM Confirmed as the Appropriate Method – The assessee acted as a pure distributor and did not engage in manufacturing or value addition – The Court emphasized that RPM is the most suitable method for distributors who simply purchase and resell goods without modification – Citing Burberry India Pvt. Ltd. (2024) and Matrix Cellular (2018), the Court reiterated that TNMM is more appropriate for value-adding entities, not for distribution businesses – Held: ITAT correctly applied established jurisprudence in selecting RPM over TNMM [Paras 15-16].

Income Tax – No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Declines to Interfere with ITAT’s Findings – The Court held that the Revenue’s appeal did not raise a substantial question of law, as ITAT’s decision was based on settled legal principles and factual appreciation – Held: The ITAT's order was well-reasoned, and the High Court found no grounds to interfere under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the ITAT’s order and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal – ITAT correctly determined RPM as the most appropriate method for benchmarking the assessee’s international transactions – No costs awarded [Paras 19-20].
 

Service Law - Distance Education Degree – Validity for Public Service Commission Appointments – The petitioner obtained an M.A. (English) degree from Annamalai University via distance education in 2015-2017 – The Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) rejected her application for the post of Scheduled Caste Development Officer, citing that Annamalai University’s distance education programs after 2015 were not approved by the University Grants Commission (UGC) – Held: In light of the Madras High Court's ruling in University Grants Commission v. Annamalai University, students enrolled in Annamalai University’s distance education programs in 2015-16 are protected – KPSC’s rejection was unwarranted [Paras 6-7].

UGC Notification and Its Impact – Application of Judicial Precedents – The KPSC relied on a 2022 UGC public notice cautioning against admissions to Annamalai University’s distance education courses – The Court observed that the Madras High Court had clarified that students who enrolled in 2015-16 were unaffected by later restrictions – Held: KPSC must allow the petitioner to proceed in the selection process, subject to the final outcome of pending litigation before the Supreme Court [Paras 7-9].

Recognition of Degree – Equivalence Certificate from Calicut University – The petitioner presented an equivalency certificate from the University of Calicut recognizing her M.A. (English) degree as equivalent to its own – The Court ruled that such certification further strengthened her eligibility – Held: A recognized university’s equivalency certificate should be given due consideration in public employment matters [Paras 4-5].

Interim Relief – Participation in Selection Process Allowed – The Court permitted the petitioner to participate in the ongoing selection process, provided the final appointment remains subject to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Madras High Court’s decision – Held: The selection process should proceed without prejudice to the pending Supreme Court case [Paras 10].

Decision: Petition allowed. KPSC directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process, subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court case.
 

Civil Writ - Auction of Property – Challenge under Revenue Code – Sale Already Finalized – Writ Dismissed – Petitioners defaulted on loans taken in 1998 – Ancestral house auctioned in 2010 – Despite liberty granted by earlier High Court order (in 2010) to challenge the sale, petitioners failed to pursue timely remedies under Rules 40–41 – Sale deed and certificate already executed – Petition filed under Section 50 of MPLRC held not maintainable [Paras 3–5, 13–15].

Jurisdiction – Additional Collector’s Power – No Review Over Order by Counterpart – Proper Finding – Additional Collector rightly refused to entertain objection against auction citing lack of jurisdiction to review predecessor’s order – Held: Once sale confirmed and title passed, remedy lay only in civil suit under Rule 45(2), not revision under Section 50 [Paras 4, 15–17].

Interim Order Not Complied – Conditional Stay Ignored – Petitioners Failed to Deposit Amount – Court noted petitioners were required to deposit ₹10 lakhs as per interim relief in earlier writ petition but failed – Sale certificate and deed issued lawfully – No scope for interference [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Court held that once statutory limitation for challenging auction expired and title transferred via registered sale deed, remedy lies only through civil suit – No merit found in petition under writ or revisional jurisdiction [Para 18].
 

Service Law – Pension Entitlement – Deemed Opt-in Under Office Order – Pension Benefits Granted – The respondent, a retired Deputy Manager (Personnel) in Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), did not explicitly opt for either the CPF Scheme or the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme within the prescribed period under the 1992 Office Order – As per para 9 of the 1992 Order, an employee who failed to exercise an option within 30 days was deemed to have opted for the Pension Scheme – The High Court, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in University of Delhi v. Shashi Kiran (2022) 15 SCC 325, held that the deeming clause in the 1992 Office Order automatically shifted the respondent to the Pension Scheme, irrespective of the fact that he continued contributing to CPF – Held: The respondent is entitled to pension benefits under the Pension Scheme [Paras 6-10, 28].

Retirement Benefits – Effect of Receiving CPF Benefits – No Estoppel Against Pension Claim – The DTC argued that the respondent continued contributing to CPF throughout his service and accepted CPF benefits on retirement, which should preclude him from switching to the Pension Scheme – The Court rejected this argument, holding that mere receipt of CPF benefits does not override the deemed pension opt-in provision in para 9 of the 1992 Order – Held: The respondent’s claim to pension remains valid, but he must return the CPF amount received upon retirement before receiving pension benefits [Paras 11-14, 29-31].

Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Deemed Pension Enrollment Irrevocable – S.L. Verma and Shashi Kiran Followed – The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in S.L. Verma v. Union of India (2006) 12 SCC 53, which held that where a government notification or office order automatically transfers employees to a pension scheme unless they explicitly opt out, such transfer is irrevocable – The Court reiterated the principle from Shashi Kiran that any employee who did not exercise an option to remain in CPF by the cut-off date automatically shifted to the Pension Scheme, irrespective of subsequent contributions to CPF – Held: The DTC’s challenge is without merit as the legal fiction created by para 9 of the 1992 Order is binding [Paras 27-33].

Doctrine of Acquiescence and Estoppel – Not Applicable to Mandatory Legal Fiction – DTC contended that the respondent’s failure to claim pension earlier, coupled with acceptance of CPF funds, amounted to acquiescence and estoppel – The Court rejected this argument, holding that estoppel does not apply against statutory entitlements and legal fictions – Held: Pension entitlement arises from statutory rules and employer-issued office orders, and cannot be waived merely by conduct [Paras 34-35].

Reimbursement of CPF Amount – Condition for Pension Entitlement – While granting relief to the respondent, the Court directed that before receiving pension benefits, the respondent must refund the CPF amount received upon retirement, along with applicable interest – Held: Pension payments shall commence only upon reimbursement of CPF dues as per the conditions stipulated in the 1992 Office Order [Paras 36-37].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – The High Court affirmed the CAT's orders dated 23 December 2015 and 8 February 2016 – DTC directed to extend pension benefits to the respondent in accordance with the GPF-cum-Pension Scheme – The respondent must return the employer's CPF contribution before receiving pension benefits – No order as to costs [Paras 38-40].