Income Tax – Faceless Assessment – Section 144B – Violation – Petitioners challenged assessment orders passed by Jurisdictional Assessing Officers despite statutory mandate of faceless assessment under amended provisions effective 01.04.2021 – Held: Assessment orders issued without following faceless regime are invalid – Quashed as contrary to Section 144B and Finance Act, 2021 – Proceedings held to be procedurally illegal [Paras 23-25, 28].

Natural Justice – Opportunity to Respond – Show Cause Notice – Petitioners provided detailed replies and evidence for disputed transactions – However, disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not specified in SCN – Held: Violation of principles of natural justice as additions and disallowances were made without adequate disclosure or opportunity to counter [Paras 6-11, 19, 22].

Income Tax – Addition under Section 68 – Advances from Customers – Assessing Officer treated land-related advances as unexplained credits – Petitioner furnished confirmations, PANs, addresses – AO failed to conduct independent verification – Held: Rejection of detailed documentary evidence without verification or issuance of notices under Section 133(6) is arbitrary – Assessment not sustainable [Paras 5-10, 21].

Income Tax – Disallowance under Section 40A(3) – Cash Transactions – Final assessment included disallowance for cash payments exceeding limit, not quantified in prior notices – Held: Lack of prior intimation vitiates disallowance – Addition made without prior disclosure violates mandatory procedure [Paras 6, 10-11].

Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – High Court quashed assessment orders in all four writ petitions for being contrary to statutory mandate of faceless assessment and denial of fair hearing – Consequential orders also set aside [Paras 25-31].

Decision:

Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned assessment orders and all consequential orders set aside – Held to be contrary to provisions of Section 144B and violative of natural justice – No order as to costs.

Public Service Commission – Scaling of Marks – Validity of Scaling Formula in Exams with Optional Papers – RPSC adopted scaling method in optional subjects of competitive exam for Forest Services after finding wide subject-wise variation in difficulty index and mean marks – Appellants contended that scaling was not authorized under the 1962 and 2015 Rules and yielded arbitrary and absurd results – Held: Scaling necessary to ensure uniformity and fairness in evaluation when different optional subjects are involved – Expert Committee analyzed statistical data before recommending scaling formula – No arbitrariness or mala fides found in process – Scaling limited only to optional subjects and not applied to compulsory ones [Paras 1–4, 11–13, 31, 36].

Recruitment Rules – Interpretation of “Marks Obtained” – Scaled Marks vs. Raw Marks – Petitioners argued that scaling violated Rule 29 of the 2015 Rules, which prohibits re-evaluation – Court held that “marks obtained” includes scaled marks and scaling is distinct from re-evaluation – Scaling is part of the evaluation process and is not barred by the Rules – Application of scaling found to be within the implied powers of the Commission [Paras 32–34].

Precedent – Consistency of Judicial View – Stare Decisis – Court reaffirmed settled position in Jai Singh, Chandu Parihar, and Mahesh Kumar Khandelwal that scaling in exams involving optional subjects is valid – Rejected appellants’ reliance on Sanjay Singh case, holding it inapplicable since it pertained to exams with only compulsory subjects – Held: No change in facts or law to justify deviation from consistent precedent upholding scaling [Paras 26–28, 37–38].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality and Fairness in Competitive Examinations – Without scaling, candidates choosing difficult subjects would be unfairly disadvantaged – Scaling ensures uniformity across subjects of differing difficulty levels – Held: Use of scaling promotes objectivity, fairness, and does not violate Article 14 – No arbitrariness or unequal treatment established [Paras 29–30, 40].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge upheld – Scaling formula adopted by RPSC found to be fair, rational, and legally sustainable – No costs imposed – Pending applications disposed [Paras 39–41].

Specific Performance – Readiness and Willingness – Registered sale agreement dated 16.10.1992 relied on by plaintiff – Plaintiff failed to prove continued readiness and willingness to pay balance consideration of ₹2,00,000 within the stipulated three months – No legal notice issued within prescribed time – Notice issued after 2 years and 11 months – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish readiness and willingness as mandated under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act – Specific performance rightly denied [Paras 14, 18, 24].

Sale Agreement – Competing Claims – Prior Agreement Prevails – Earlier agreement of sale dated 10.12.1990 (Ex.B-7) in favour of defendant No.6 found to be true, valid, and partly acted upon through subsequent registered sale deeds dated 29.04.1993 in favour of defendants 2 to 6 – Plaintiff aware of prior transaction – Held: Ex.B-7 prevails over Ex.A-2 – Plaintiff’s agreement is subject to earlier equitable rights [Paras 16, 18, 24].

Bona Fide Purchaser – Protection under Section 19(b) – Defendants 2 to 6 held bona fide purchasers for value under registered sale deeds executed in pursuance of prior agreement (Ex.B-7) – No relief can be granted against them in absence of any challenge to those sale deeds – Plaintiff’s suit for specific performance not maintainable against bona fide purchasers without notice [Paras 17, 23].

Refund of Advance – Equitable Relief – Though specific performance denied, Court held plaintiff entitled to refund of advance consideration of ₹1,00,000 paid under Ex.A-2, with 6% interest from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives of deceased vendor out of her estate [Paras 24–25].

Evidence – Proof of Execution – Ex.A-2 found valid – Attesting witness (daughter of executant) and scribe supported execution and payment of advance – Trial court’s contrary view reversed – Agreement held genuine, but unenforceable due to superseding prior agreement and lack of timely action [Paras 15–16].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Trial Court's Discretion – Trial court’s finding on invalidity of Ex.A-2 reversed due to misappreciation of evidence – However, discretionary denial of specific performance upheld on settled legal grounds, including delay, suppression of facts, and superior equities in favour of prior purchasers [Paras 15, 18, 24].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Relief of specific performance denied – Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹1,00,000 with 6% interest p.a. from date of suit till realization – Refund to be paid by legal representatives (respondents 7 to 11) from estate of deceased defendant No.1 – Appeal dismissed as against bona fide purchasers (respondents 2 to 6) – No order as to costs [Para 25].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Dismissal of Divorce Petition – Appeal by Husband – Appellant-husband sought divorce on grounds of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act – Alleged that respondent-wife was abusive, assaulted him, mistreated his parents, and refused marital relations – Respondent-wife denied allegations and alleged cruelty on part of husband – Trial Court found no grave acts of cruelty and held disputes were part of normal wear and tear of marriage – Held: Appellant failed to prove cruelty – Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence and law – No perversity found in judgment – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 7, 20, 45, 62, 64, 66-70].

Evidence – Proof of Cruelty – Allegation of Assault and Abuse – P.W.1 (Mother of Husband) and P.W.2 (Husband) testified about wife’s rude behavior, physical assaults, and threats – However, no independent witnesses produced – No prior complaint lodged before police – Contradiction in husband's stand as he earlier filed restitution suit under Section 9 of HMA, not citing cruelty – Court found inconsistencies and lack of credible corroboration – Allegations considered ordinary wear and tear of married life – Not sufficient for decree of divorce [Paras 42-44, 61-64].

Interpretation of Law – Cruelty – Mental and Physical – Scope and Definition – Reiterated that cruelty must be grave and weighty, not trivial irritations – Intention not essential – Referred to precedents including Dastane v. Dastane, Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Majumdar – Held: Mere allegations or domestic disputes do not qualify as cruelty – Conduct must make it unreasonable for a spouse to continue cohabitation [Paras 51-60].

Decision: Divorce appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment affirmed – No evidence of cruelty to warrant dissolution of marriage – No perversity or legal infirmity found in judgment [Paras 68-70].

Family Law – Guardianship – Custody of Children – Shared Parenting Order Modified – Appeal by Mother – Family Court had ordered “shared parenting” based on father’s petition under Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Appellant-mother challenged the arrangement – Court found strained relationship between parents and absence of conducive environment at father’s home – Held: Shared parenting not in welfare of children – Welfare of child is paramount – Custody granted to mother – Father granted visitation rights [Paras 72, 83, 126-128, 135-138, 148-150].

Guardianship – Welfare of Minor – Paramount Consideration – Court reiterated settled position of law that welfare of child is primary consideration, not legal rights of parents – Referenced key Supreme Court decisions including Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan, Nil Ratan Kundu v. Abhijit Kundu, and Gaytri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla – “Parens patriae” jurisdiction invoked – Welfare includes moral, ethical, emotional, and educational needs of child [Paras 109-125].

Shared Parenting – Not Suitable in High-Conflict Cases – Trial Court had acknowledged multiple litigations between parties and father’s lack of availability due to business commitments – Despite this, ordered shared parenting – Held: Shared parenting not viable in cases of deep parental conflict – Risks to child’s emotional well-being highlighted – Cited Braiman v. Braiman (US) to emphasize unsuitability of joint custody in bitter disputes [Paras 137-144].

Visitation Rights – Balanced Arrangement – Despite setting aside shared parenting, Court ensured father retains meaningful access to children – Permitted visitation every fortnight and during vacations with detailed schedule – Objective: Maintain parental bond without compromising child’s stability [Paras 151-152].

Decision: Shared parenting arrangement quashed – Custody granted to mother – Father granted structured visitation rights – Family Court judgment modified accordingly – Appeal disposed of [Paras 149-153].

Senior Citizen Law – Eviction of Legal Heirs – Beneficial Legislation – Petitioner, an 80-year-old senior citizen, challenged the order of the Appellate Authority setting aside eviction of his daughter and her family from second floor of property – Appellate Authority held eviction unjustified as no ill-treatment or non-maintenance was proved – Held: Such a requirement is not a mandatory precondition where legal heirs have no right or interest in the property – Rule 22(3)(1) permits eviction from property where senior citizen merely has a right or interest – Appellate Authority's view contrary to established precedents [Paras 31–38].

Right or Interest in Property – Scope of Protection – Respondents claimed rights on second floor based on alleged contribution to construction and long-term residence – Court rejected this contention as induction was solely on basis of petitioner’s ownership and license – Held: Possession of respondents is referable to petitioner's permission – Even a “modicum of right” in property is sufficient to seek eviction under Rule 22(3)(1) – Senior citizen’s interest in safety and peaceful possession overrides conflicting claims of licensees [Paras 39–43, 46–47].

Ill-treatment Not Mandatory – Purpose of Act – Court reiterated that the Senior Citizen Act is a beneficial statute – Held: Senior citizens need not establish ill-treatment or wait for abuse to seek protection or eviction of children – Even apprehension of threat to peace, safety and well-being is sufficient – Delay in filing complaint not fatal if harassment persists or senior citizen sought reconciliation before seeking legal remedy [Paras 32–34].

Title Dispute – Not a Bar to Eviction – Court held that eviction proceedings under Senior Citizen Rules are summary in nature – Pendency of civil suit or lack of title in children/legal heirs does not prevent eviction – Civil courts can still be approached by parties if title is to be conclusively adjudicated – Summary eviction permissible for protective purposes [Paras 42–44, 50].

Decision: Eviction Upheld – Impugned Appellate Order dated 28.08.2023 set aside – District Magistrate’s eviction order dated 24.03.2022 restored – Respondents directed to vacate second floor within four weeks – Deputy Commissioner of Police directed to ensure enforcement – Respondents also restrained from harassing or abusing the petitioner in the interim [Paras 48–52].

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Bar on Civil Court Jurisdiction – Section 433A MMC Act – Civil Court Cannot Entertain Suit Challenging Demolition Notices – Plaint Rejected – Plaintiff challenged notices under Sections 260 and 478 MMC Act alleging unauthorized construction – Civil court refused to reject plaint holding suit not barred – Held: Suit was plain challenge to statutory notices; no specific averment of nullity or bad faith – Bar under Section 433A attracted – Plaint rejected under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 14, 36, 42, 46–47]

Civil Procedure – Order VII Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Barred by Statute – Duty of Court to Reject Suit at Threshold – Court held that where statutory bar exists, plaint must be scrutinised meaningfully to assess if jurisdiction is retained – If not, it must be rejected at inception – Trial Court erred by delving into merits and failing to apply strict standards under Order VII Rule 11 [Paras 44–46]

Interpretation – Scope of Civil Court Jurisdiction in Urban Planning Matters – Bar is Not Absolute but Limited to Cases Not Involving Nullity or Bad Faith – While recognising that some exceptions exist to ouster clauses (e.g. nullity, bad faith, abuse of power), Court reaffirmed that such exceptions must be specifically pleaded and not merely stated in vague terms – No such grounds found in plaint [Paras 20–28, 41]

Town Planning – Civil Suit to Prevent Demolition – Suit Filed as Tactical Measure to Delay Action Against Illegal Construction – High Court Disapproves Misuse of Court Process – Plaintiff expanded tin-shed without permission; sought to mask demolition notice challenge as suit for possession – Held: Suit a strategic device to delay statutory action – Not permissible in law [Paras 43, 45]

Municipal Law – Section 260 and 478 MMC Act – Action for Unauthorized Construction – Civil Court Cannot Interfere with Demolition Once Notice Issued Unless Action Is Nullity – Court reaffirmed statutory scheme where designated officers are empowered to demolish illegal structures – Civil suits against such notices are barred unless challenge is based on strong foundational grounds [Paras 15–17, 42]

Decision: Revisions allowed – Order of Trial Court dated 8 October 2015 set aside – Plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.130 of 2015 rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Civil suit barred under Section 433A of MMC Act – Status quo to continue for four weeks to allow appeal [Paras 47–49]

Criminal Law – Murder – Last Seen Theory – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Govind last seen alive with accused Ashok Kumar and his two accomplices (identified later as Gore @ Ujagar Singh and Ramdas) on 9.4.1983 at 8:30 PM – Dead body recovered on 10.4.1983 at 2 PM – Post-mortem confirmed death by strangulation around 11 PM on 9.4.1983 – Held: Narrow time gap between last seen and death established a strong presumption under Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused failed to offer any explanation – Chain of circumstances complete and consistent with guilt of accused [Paras 62–69].

Evidence – Recovery of Property – Tractor and Trolley – Tractor No. URB-7911 recovered from Tabarak Ali to whom it was sold by Akil Ahmed in presence of accused Ashok Kumar – Trolley recovered from Sonipat – Accused failed to explain how tractor reached Akil Ahmed – Presence of Ashok Kumar at sale established nexus with misappropriation – Recovery of bricks loaded on tractor from house of Ramdas – Though not stolen property, concealment showed intent to erase trail – Held: Recovery further corroborates involvement of accused in post-murder conduct [Paras 58, 59, 61(ix–xii), 61(xiv–xix)].

Identification Evidence – Delay in Test Identification Parade – Defence claimed identification unreliable due to delay and single witness identification – Court held: TIP not substantive evidence but corroborative – Parade conducted with due precautions and delay not fatal in absence of cross-examination of IO or Magistrate – Identification in court by PW-1 and PW-2 supported TIP – Held: Identification of accused Gore and Ramdas legally sustainable [Paras 65–74].

Criminal Trial – Appreciation of Evidence – FIR and Delay – FIR registered on 15.4.1983 though written complaint given on 12.4.1983 – Court found delay justified due to informant’s genuine search for son and subsequent identification of dead body – No suggestion of false implication – Conviction upheld [Paras 61(iv–v), 61(xxi–xxii), 74].

Criminal Law – Section 106 Evidence Act – Accused Failed to Explain Circumstances of Departure from Company of Deceased – Tractor and bricks traced to their knowledge and presence – Non-explanation by accused treated as additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence – Conviction sustained [Paras 68–69].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34, 201, and 404 IPC affirmed – Accused Ashok Kumar and Ramdas directed to surrender – Trial court to initiate coercive steps in case of failure – Compliance to be reported within two months [Paras 75–78].

Partition Suit – Maintainability of Revision – Article 227 – Order Accepting Partition Commissioner’s Report – Held: A revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order accepting the Partition Commissioner’s Report if the final decree is yet to be passed – The order accepting the Commissioner’s Report, without drawing up of final decree, does not constitute a decree under Section 2(2) CPC and is not independently appealable under Section 96 or Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC – Once final decree is passed working out rights of parties, it becomes appealable – Held: Interlocutory order accepting Commissioner’s Report can be challenged under Article 227 to prevent denial of remedy where appeal does not lie [Paras 1, 4, 8, 22, 24, 30]

Civil Procedure – Partition Decree – Distinction Between Preliminary and Final Decree – Reiterated that a preliminary decree declares rights of co-sharers, while a final decree works out those rights through metes and bounds division – Until final decree is passed, rights are not conclusively determined, and execution cannot proceed – Court must follow Order 26 Rule 14(3) CPC before passing a final decree [Paras 11–16, 22–23]

Appellate and Revisional Jurisdiction – Challenge to Acceptance of Commission Report – Reiterated: No appeal lies from an order merely accepting Commissioner’s Report unless it culminates in a final decree – Party aggrieved may challenge such order under Article 227 – Section 105 CPC permits challenge in appeal from final decree if no separate appeal lies earlier – Prior decisions in Sanat Kumar Dey and Papy George do not preclude Article 227 remedy [Paras 24, 26–30]

Decision: Application under Article 227 held maintainable – Civil Revision Applications to be de-tagged and heard on merits by appropriate bench – Issue of substantive challenge to Commissioner’s Report to be considered upon further hearing [Paras 30–32]

Criminal Law – Illegal Detention – Chapter Proceedings under Section 107 CrPC – Executive Magistrate’s Jurisdiction – Executive Magistrate passed order remanding petitioner to judicial custody in Chapter Case under Section 107 – Held: Magistrate had no authority under CrPC to remand person to custody in such proceedings – Detention for 7 days was unlawful and violated petitioner’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 – Compensation of ₹1,00,000 awarded to petitioner – State given liberty to recover from erring officer [Paras 10–13, 18]

Judicial Accountability – Misuse of Power – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act – Executive Magistrate claimed immunity under Section 3 of Judges (Protection) Act for remanding petitioner – Held: Power exercised under Section 107 CrPC is executive in nature – Act of Magistrate not judicial or quasi-judicial – Protection under Section 3 not applicable – Respondent No. 3 personally liable for excess of jurisdiction [Paras 15–16]

Fundamental Rights – Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty – Illegal detention by public authority – Petitioner detained without show cause notice or lawful order – Held: Violation of Article 21 – Compensation a necessary public remedy for infringement of fundamental right – State directed to pay and recover from officer responsible [Paras 13–14, 17–18]

Constitutional Law – Compensation for Violation of Fundamental Rights – Petition under Article 226 maintainable – Petitioner entitled to monetary compensation for illegal arrest and unauthorized detention in breach of statutory safeguards – Compensation awarded despite absence of malice – Focus is on consequences of rights violation, not intention [Paras 14, 17]

Decision:

Writ Petition allowed –

(a) State of Maharashtra directed to pay ₹1,00,000 to petitioner within 4 weeks.

(b) Liberty granted to State to recover said amount from respondent no. 3 (Tahsildar).

(c) Rule made absolute.