Wakf Law – Eviction Proceedings Under Section 52 of A.P. Wakf Act, 1995 – Legality of Corrigendum Notifications – High Court set aside the eviction orders issued under Section 52 of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995, based on an erroneous Wakf notification dated 19.04.1962, which was corrected by a corrigendum issued in 2016. The Court held that the corrigendum notification should have been brought on record before initiating eviction proceedings. The failure to comply with procedural requirements rendered the eviction orders unsustainable. Additionally, the summary eviction under Section 52 was deemed inappropriate due to the long-standing possession and bona fide claims of the petitioners. The High Court restored possession to the petitioners. [Paras 19-49]

Title Dispute and Summary Proceedings – Court held that serious disputes regarding the title and long-standing possession raised by the petitioners could not be resolved through summary proceedings under Section 52 of the Act. The Court emphasized that such disputes should be adjudicated through regular civil suits rather than summary eviction processes. [Paras 33-44]

Erroneous Wakf Notification and Possession Rights – The High Court concluded that the Wakf Board’s reliance on the erroneous notification from 1962, without the proper corrigendum in place, could not justify eviction under Section 52. The petitioners’ long-standing possession and title claims were recognized, and the summary eviction was deemed unjustified. The Court stressed that the Wakf Board must adhere to proper procedures and respect the bona fide claims of individuals in possession. [Paras 26-32, 45-48]

Decision – The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed, and the orders of eviction passed by the Wakf Board and District Collector under Section 52 of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995, were set aside. The possession of the scheduled lands was directed to be restored to the petitioners, with no order as to costs. [Paras 50-51]

Decision:

The Civil Revision Petitions were allowed. The impugned proceedings of the Wakf Board and the District Collector under Section 52 of the A.P. Wakf Act, 1995 were set aside. The possession of the scheduled lands was ordered to be restored to the petitioners [Paras 50-51].

Commercial Law – Pre-Institution Mediation – Applicability of Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – The court reaffirmed that Section 12A mandates pre-institution mediation unless the suit “contemplates” urgent interim relief. The trial court had rejected the plaint on the grounds that pre-institution mediation was not exhausted. The appellate court set aside the trial court’s order, stating that the judge should have allowed the plaintiff’s assertion that urgent interim relief might be necessary and should have accepted the plaint without requiring mediation. The court held that once a suit is instituted, the rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 is appealable as a decree.

Urgent Interim Relief – Interpretation and Application – The court discussed the interpretation of “urgent interim relief” under Section 12A, emphasizing that the determination should be based on the nature, subject matter, and averments in the plaint, including the potential need for relief during the mediation period. The appellate court criticized the trial court’s deeper probe into the merits at this stage, stating that such an approach was unnecessary and contrary to the legislative intent behind Section 12A.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The trial court’s order rejecting the plaint was set aside, and the trial court was directed to hear the suit expeditiously without the pre-condition of mediation under Section 12A. The suit was to proceed with the acceptance that it did contemplate urgent interim relief.

Civil Procedure – Bar under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC – Challenge against dismissal of petition for ownership declaration of flat jointly owned by appellant and respondent – Family Court dismissed petition under Order 2 Rule 2(3) of CPC on grounds of cause of action identity with earlier divorce petition – Appeal raised whether the subsequent petition for ownership could be filed when relief not claimed in prior divorce proceedings – Held, causes of action in both petitions are distinct, barring application of Order 2 Rule 2 – Dismissal of petition by Family Court erroneous and set aside [Paras 5-10].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce and property disputes – Appellant sought ownership declaration of property jointly held with respondent post-divorce – Earlier petition filed for divorce without addressing property issue – Family Court dismissed subsequent property suit for non-inclusion in divorce petition – Bombay High Court held that matrimonial disputes and property disputes are distinct causes of action, permitting separate suits – Judgment emphasized different legal grounds for divorce and property declaration [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Family Court order set aside – Petition for property ownership restored to Family Court for hearing on merits within six months – Observed advanced age of appellant as reason for expedited proceedings [Paras 28-30].

Income Tax Law – Section 33AC and Section 80-I Interaction – Interpretation of Income Tax Act Provisions in Shipping Industry Context – Deduction Computation Clarified – The High Court of Bombay examined whether the deduction under Section 33AC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for a reserve created by a shipping company to acquire a new ship, should be subtracted from the profits on which deduction under Section 80-I is computed. The Appellant argued that both deductions under Section 33AC and 80-I operate independently. However, the Court upheld that Section 80-I requires computing profits after factoring in the deduction under Section 33AC. If there are no profits after applying Section 33AC, no deduction under Section 80-I can be claimed. [Paras 1-16]

Deduction Computation – Section 33AC Linked to Shipping Operations – The Court rejected the appellant's claim that the reserve deduction under Section 33AC was unconnected to shipping operations, affirming that it is legislatively designed to aid in acquiring ships and directly linked to shipping profits. This nexus justifies its consideration when computing deductions under Section 80-I. The amendment of Section 33AC from 1996 did not change the basic structure of the deduction’s purpose or its link to the shipping business. [Paras 17-29]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – No Interference in Concurrent Findings – The High Court dismissed the appeals, concurring with the decisions of the lower authorities and tribunals, confirming that Section 33AC deductions must be considered before computing profits for Section 80-I deductions. The concurrent findings were found reasonable and consistent with statutory provisions. [Paras 30-35]
 

Recruitment Rules – Recognition of Educational Qualification – JBT Teacher Appointment – Batch-wise Appointment – Respondent sought appointment as a JBT Teacher based on qualifications obtained in 1998 and challenged the state’s refusal due to non-recognition of her qualification in Himachal Pradesh. The learned Single Judge directed the state to consider her case for appointment and grant seniority based on her qualifications. The state appealed, contending that batch-wise appointments were introduced only in 2017 and the respondent did not apply under the then-applicable rules [Paras 1-14].

Non-recognition of Diploma – The court upheld the respondent’s eligibility, stating that the refusal based on the non-recognition of her diploma was violative of Articles 14 and 16 unless proven to be from an unauthorized institute [Paras 15-19].

Batch-wise Appointment – The court clarified that batch-wise appointment, introduced in 2017, could not be applied retrospectively to the respondent’s case. The court set aside the Single Judge's order directing batch-wise appointment but allowed the respondent to participate in future recruitment processes as per the applicable rules [Paras 20-27].

Decision: Appeal partially allowed. The court upheld the respondent’s eligibility but set aside the directions for batch-wise appointment. The respondent is permitted to participate in future recruitment under the prevailing rules.

Quashing of Proceedings – Criminal Miscellaneous – Petitioners accused under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC, relating to an alleged fraudulent act – The High Court noted that the trial courts and tribunals often adjourn matters based on oral submissions of stay orders, without verifying if such orders exist – In this case, the trial court had adjourned the case for seven years based on the parties’ claim of a stay from the High Court, when no such order was issued – Held: Petitioners directed to approach the trial court with a discharge petition – Directions issued to trial courts to verify the existence of stay orders before granting adjournments [Paras 2–7].

Judicial Procedure – Delay Due to Unverified Stay Orders – The trial court had delayed proceedings for over seven years due to the unverified claim of a stay by the parties – The High Court expressed concern over this trend and emphasized the availability of the High Court’s online case search facility to verify the status of stay orders – Directions issued to all subordinate courts and tribunals to avoid indefinite adjournments without verifying the existence of stay orders or affidavits – Such practices would now be taken seriously by the High Court, ensuring proper record-keeping and accountability [Paras 8].

Decision: Petitioners directed to file a discharge petition within 30 days – Trial court instructed to pass orders within six weeks after the filing – Presence of petitioners not required until the decision on the discharge petition, provided they have appeared and obtained bail – Directions to subordinate courts to prevent adjournments based on unverified claims of stay [Paras 9].

Motor Vehicles Act – Compensation – Determination and Enhancement – High Court modified the award granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in a case involving death due to a road accident caused by rash and negligent driving – The High Court increased the compensation amount from Rs. 12,75,108/- to Rs. 26,16,366/- by considering factors such as the deceased’s monthly income, future prospects, and general damages under conventional heads – High Court directed the insurance company to pay the compensation with interest and granted it the right to recover the amount from the vehicle owner due to the driver’s lack of a valid driving license at the time of the accident [Paras 9-20].

Insurance Law – Pay and Recover Principle – The High Court invoked the "pay and recover" principle, ordering the insurance company to compensate the claimants and recover the amount from the vehicle owner, as the driver did not have a valid license at the time of the accident – Relied on precedents where such directions were issued to meet the ends of justice despite the insurance company not being liable under normal circumstances due to breach of policy conditions [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Modification of Tribunal’s Award – Held – The appeal was disposed of by enhancing the compensation and modifying the Tribunal’s order to allow the insurance company to recover the amount from the vehicle owner – No order as to costs [Paras 20-21].

Suits for Permanent Injunction – Necessity of Title Proof – Requisite Pleading – Suit Dismissed: Where the plaintiff fails to prove ownership of the disputed property, a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter is not maintainable. Both lower courts correctly applied the principles laid down in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, (2008) 4 SCC 594 – Held: Plaintiff temple failed to substantiate ownership through admissible evidence such as rent receipts, and reliance on revenue records was insufficient [Paras 12, 14].

Title Established by Defendant – No Trespass – Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Claim: The defendant successfully traced title to Town Survey No. 1001 through documentary evidence (Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.8) dating back to 1955. Plaintiff failed to counter this evidence, and no proof of tenancy under the temple was presented. Held: Defendant cannot be labeled a trespasser in absence of evidence of plaintiff’s ownership [Paras 12-13, 15].

Prohibitory Injunction – Relief Restricted by Law – Declaratory Suit as Remedy: Following Anathula Sudhakar, suits for injunction without a claim of ownership or declaration of title are not maintainable when title is in dispute. Plaintiff temple failed to include a prayer for declaratory relief and relied solely on injunction despite clear denial of ownership by the defendant [Para 12].

Revenue Records – Limited Evidentiary Value – Not Conclusive of Title: Revenue records (Ex-A.2) serve only administrative purposes and cannot override registered sale deeds presented by the defendant. Entry in a Town Survey Register (Ex-A.2) or Demand Register (Ex-A.5) does not confer ownership or negate title established through valid sale deeds [Paras 12, 14].

No Substantial Questions of Law – Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts – Appeal Dismissed: The High Court, exercising its powers under Section 100 CPC, refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Trial and First Appellate Courts. Plaintiff failed to establish ownership or possession over Town Survey No. 1001, and no substantial question of law arose for consideration [Paras 13, 16].

Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgments of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court are upheld. Plaintiff temple's suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable as the temple failed to prove ownership or possession over Town Survey No. 1001, while the defendant established title and possession dating back to 1955.

Administrative Law – Tender Process – Judicial Review – Rejection of Bid – Petitioner challenged the rejection of its bid for selection as Mine Developer and Operator (MDO) by HPGCL, alleging arbitrary and unjust decision-making – The petitioner, a Joint Venture Company, was declared non-responsive due to not meeting the "Direct Holding Requirement" – Both parties reached a consensus to refer the petitioner’s concerns to the Tender Evaluation Committee (TEC) for reconsideration – Held, the TEC to re-examine the matter and pass orders after hearing both the petitioner and the successful bidder – Previous rejection orders deemed withdrawn, and the writ petition was disposed of as per the agreement between the parties [Paras 1-5].

Decision: Petition disposed of – TEC to reconsider the petitioner’s bid and pass necessary orders after a hearing.