Public Interest Litigation – Election Commission of India – Transfer of Officers – Article 324 – Maintainability – Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioner, a government pleader practising before the High Court, challenged mass transfer of 63 police officers, 16 IAS officers and other officials of West Bengal by ECI following election notification – Petitioner and Advocate General (for the State) argued that ECI acted in violation of statutory provisions of the Representation of the People Acts and disturbed the federal structure and created an administrative vacuum – Held: Petitioner himself averred in para 28 of the writ petition that ECI has the power to transfer officers and only the exercise of the power in an arbitrary manner was challenged – One cannot argue beyond the pleadings; since neither lack of jurisdiction nor breach of any statutory provision was pleaded in the petition body, no academic exercise to examine such power can be undertaken – ECI transferred similar or greater numbers of officers pan-nationally; no step-motherly treatment towards West Bengal established – Each transferred officer has been replaced by another; no administrative vacuum or "numb" situation created in the State [Paras 37-56].

Public Interest Litigation – Public Injury – Locus Standi – Pleadings – A PIL can be maintained only in respect of injuries that have an impact on the public at large; if officers are aggrieved by their transfer, they can independently challenge the same in appropriate proceedings – Petitioner could not establish with accuracy and precision that transfer of officers will lead to administrative collapse or deprivation of the public from beneficiary schemes – Political allegations of nexus between senior politicians and respondent no. 9 not supported by impleadment of those persons or by any material – Scope of judicial review on administrative decisions is limited to cases where order is passed without authority or is palpably illegal; merely because another view is possible is no ground for interference – Petition dismissed as failing to establish public injury [Paras 45-64].

Decision: PIL dismissed – Petitioner could not establish that transfer of officers caused any public injury – Individual aggrieved officers at liberty to challenge their transfer orders in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law – No costs.

Matrimonial Law - Divorce Act, 1869, Section 10-A - Mutual Consent - Judicial Inquiry - Reasons for separate residence - Family Court dismissed the joint petition observing that the respondent-husband stated they were living separately for no reason, thereby concluding a lack of mutual consent - Held, in a petition under Section 10-A, the Family Court is required to inquire whether the marriage was solemnised, whether averments in the petition are true, and whether parties are agreeable to divorce - The Court should not inquire into the specific reasons for not staying together - Since both parties clearly stated they wanted divorce and no consent was withdrawn, the finding of the Family Court was unwarranted. [Paras 1-10].

Divorce Act, 1869, Section 10-A - Mutual Consent - Withdrawal of Consent - Family Court inferred lack of mutual consent from the husband's statement regarding the lack of a "valid reason" for separation - Held, on perusal of depositions, there was no withdrawal of consent - Both parties categorically stated they desired dissolution of marriage - Family Court is duty-bound to allow divorce when mutual consent is established and not withdrawn - Impugned judgment set aside. [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Mat. Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the Family Court, Thalassery in O.P. No. 1247/2024 are set aside – Marriage solemnized on 13.05.2023 stands dissolved from the date of this judgment.

Service Law – Pay Scale – Post Graduate Scale – Teacher Appointed in 'Pass' Graduate Category – Acquisition of Higher Qualification During Service – Entitlement to Higher Pay Scale – Petitioner appointed as assistant teacher in 'pass' graduate category in 1998 – Subsequently obtained permission from school managing committee and acquired Master Degree during service – Application for post graduate scale of pay refused by District Inspector of Schools by impugned order dated 03.12.2013 on the ground that pay scale is determined by qualification at the time of appointment – Held: Controversy is no longer res integra in view of the Larger Bench judgment in Utpal Kanti Karan v. State of West Bengal and Others (2024 SCC OnLine Cal 2274) – G.O. No. 735 (03.06.2002) and G.O. No. 1334 (03.11.2004) amended G.O. No. 155-SE(B) dated 13.07.1999 to make teachers who improve qualifications with due permission eligible for higher scale of pay – Entitlement governed by rules operative at the time of acquiring qualification, such as ROPA 1998 – Eligibility for higher pay scale is not frozen at the stage of initial appointment but is capable of being altered upon acquisition of higher qualification with due permission [Paras 5-19].

West Bengal Schools (Control of Expenditure) Act, 2005 – Bar to Higher Pay Scale – Retrospective Operation – Estoppel – Respondent contended that Section 14(2) of the Act bars the petitioner's claim and that Notification No. 593-SE(B) dated 27.11.2007 mandates prior permission of the District Inspector of Schools as a condition for higher scale – Further contended that petitioner, having applied as 'pass' graduate, is estopped from claiming higher scale – Held: Control of Expenditure Act, 2005 has no retrospective operation and cannot bar claims arising from earlier Government Orders – Notification No. 593-SE(B) dated 27.11.2007 lacks statutory force as it was not published in the Official Gazette and cannot override earlier binding Government Orders and Rules – Doctrine of estoppel cannot be invoked against law; petitioner could not have disclosed higher qualification which she had not yet acquired at the time of applying – Permission of school managing committee constitutes prior permission of competent authority – All objections of State negatived [Paras 20-25].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 08.12.2013 passed by District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Kolkata set aside and quashed – District Inspector directed to grant post graduate scale of pay to the petitioner with effect from the day after the last date of her Part-II Master Degree examination, by issuance of appropriate order and refixation of pay scale within three weeks – Arrear salary to be disbursed within eight weeks from communication of judgment.

Service Law – Regularisation – Similarly Placed Employees – Article 14 – Equal Treatment – Original petitioner Ramesh Chandra Panda was working as a Junior Clerk under the Divisional Forest Officer, Rayagada since 10.10.1983 — Conservator of Forests directed his termination vide letter dated 06.08.1988 — petitioner filed writ petition seeking regularisation, confirmation and service benefits — it was found that the petitioner was similarly placed with petitioners in O.A. No. 595 of 1989 and batch, who were granted relief vide judgment dated 10.01.2019 based on Division Bench judgment in OJC No.10517 of 2000 — State did not dispute the parity — Held: Like cases are to be decided alike; similarly placed petitioners are entitled to equal treatment without discrimination — writ petition allowed [Paras 6–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality Before Law – Equals Must Be Treated Alike – Article 14 mandates that all persons similarly placed shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed — equal laws must be applied to all in the same situation without any discrimination — unlike should not be treated alike and likes should not be treated unlike — Held: Principles of equality require that the petitioner, being similarly placed with successful petitioners in the batch, be accorded identical relief [Para 6].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Opposite Parties jointly and severally directed to provide all entitled service benefits to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner Ramesh Chandra Panda, treating his service at par with petitioners in O.A. No. 595 of 1989 and connected O.A.s — service benefits to be computed as if the petitioner had not expired — amounts to be disbursed within three months — Registry directed to communicate copy of judgment along with Annexure-8 to the Opposite Parties — interim orders vacated.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Special Audit – Search and Seizure – Petitioner (Huawei India) challenged notices under Section 148 and directions for special audit under Section 142(2A) for AY 2013-14 and AY 2015-16 issued post search and seizure dated 15.02.2022 – For AY 2013-14, reasons recorded did not allege escapement of income in the form of an "asset" nor referenced the Distribution Agreement or Transfer Pricing Study – For AY 2015-16, reasons recorded specifically identified receivables by way of warranty reimbursement as an asset – Held: Reassessment notice for AY 2013-14 set aside; reassessment and special audit for AY 2015-16 upheld [Paras 135, 165, 166, 179, 181].

Reassessment – Limitation – Fourth Proviso to Section 153A – Asset Test – For reopening assessment beyond three years but within ten years under Section 149(1)(b) read with the fourth proviso to Section 153A, a pre-condition is that income escaping assessment must be represented in the form of an "asset" exceeding Rs. 50 lakhs – Explanation 2 to Section 153A defines "asset" as inclusive and not exhaustive – Held: Receivables in the form of reimbursement of warranty and customer claim provisions, arising out of the Distribution Agreement and FAR Analysis in the Transfer Pricing Report, constitute "assets" within the inclusive definition [Paras 144–151].

Reassessment – AY 2013-14 – No Asset Disclosed in Reasons – Reasons recorded for AY 2013-14 confined to doubting allowability and genuineness of provision for customer claims – No reference to receivables, Distribution Agreement, or Transfer Pricing Study – Issue of disallowance of provision for customer claims was already decided in petitioner's favour by the ITAT and the order attained finality – Assessment cannot be reopened solely to re-verify or re-investigate an already settled issue – Held: Reassessment notice dated 31.03.2024 for AY 2013-14 set aside for failure to satisfy jurisdictional preconditions under fourth proviso to Section 153A [Paras 154–165].

Reassessment – Reasons for One Year Cannot Justify Reopening of Another Year – Revenue's argument that detailed reasons recorded for AY 2016-17 (separate writ petition) could be read in conjunction with AY 2013-14 since both emanated from same search material, rejected – Each assessment year requires independent recording of reasons correlating the incriminating material to that specific year – Notices for AY 2013-14 and AY 2016-17 were issued separately and neither was styled as a composite or common satisfaction note for the block period – Reliance on Indian National Congress v. DCIT distinguished on facts [Paras 161–164].

Reassessment – AY 2015-16 – Receivables as Assets – Warranty Provisions – Reasons recorded for AY 2015-16 specifically relied on the Distribution Agreement (indemnity and risk allocation clauses) and the FAR Analysis in the Transfer Pricing Study to establish that provisions for warranty created by the petitioner were reimbursable by the Associated Enterprise – Petitioner itself admitted recovery of Rs. 69,81,40,820/- from its Associated Enterprise on account of customer claims during draft assessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 – Held: Right to reimbursement arising in the year of provisioning constitutes an asset; reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 upheld as within limitation and jurisdictionally sound [Paras 139–152, 166].

Special Audit – Section 142(2A) – Scope – Reassessment Proceedings – Petitioner's contention that Section 142(2A) cannot be invoked during reassessment proceedings rejected – Section 2(8) of the Act defines "assessment" to include "reassessment" – Once a notice under Section 143(2) is issued, all powers available to the Assessing Officer in regular assessment, including power to direct special audit, are equally available during reassessment – Held: Special audit directions for AY 2015-16 upheld [Paras 172, 179].

Special Audit – AY 2013-14 – Consequential Fate – Special audit directed for AY 2013-14 for the purpose of the reassessment proceedings for that year – Since the reassessment notice for AY 2013-14 itself has been set aside for want of jurisdiction, the special audit direction and notices relatable to AY 2013-14 also do not survive – Held: Special audit direction dated 13.09.2024 and notices dated 10.06.2024 and 05.07.2024 for AY 2013-14 set aside [Para 170].

Special Audit – Voluminous and Complex Accounts – Scope of Section 142(2A) Post Finance Act 2013 Amendment – Finance Act, 2013 expanded the jurisdictional triggers for special audit beyond "nature and complexity" to include "volume of accounts, doubts about correctness, multiplicity of transactions and specialised nature of business activity" – ERP data dump comprising lakhs of line items unsegregated into ledgers, admitted duplication and missing entries for two financial years, failure to maintain backup of digital books in servers located in India, and non-provision of physical books of accounts during search – Held: Sufficient grounds existed for Assessing Officer to be satisfied and direct special audit for AY 2015-16 [Paras 173–178].

Decision: W.P.(C) 13553/2024 and W.P.(C) 13572/2024 allowed — Reassessment notice dated 31.03.2024 under Section 148, notice dated 24.05.2024 under Section 143(2), and satisfaction note dated 29.05.2024 for AY 2013-14 set aside — Special audit direction dated 13.09.2024 and notices dated 10.06.2024 and 05.07.2024 for AY 2013-14 also set aside — W.P.(C) 14898/2024 and W.P.(C) 15970/2023 dismissed — Reassessment notices for AY 2015-16 and special audit direction for AY 2015-16 sustained — Interim orders vacated.

Senior Citizens – Maintenance – Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Right of Appeal Exclusively Available to Senior Citizens and Parents – Petitioner, an 83-year-old widow, obtained maintenance order from Sub-Collector directing one son to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month and the other son to maintain her — aggrieved son (Opposite Party No.3, neither a senior citizen nor a parent) preferred appeal before the Collector under Section 16 of the Act — Collector set aside the maintenance order and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry — petitioner challenged the appellate order — Held: Section 16 of the Act confers the right of appeal exclusively upon a senior citizen or parent aggrieved by an order of the Tribunal — children and relatives have no right of appeal thereunder — appeal filed by the son was not entertainable — appellate order passed without jurisdiction [Paras 10–12].

Beneficial Legislation – Purposive Construction – Object of the Act – The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is a beneficial legislation enacted to provide social justice to parents and senior citizens — all beneficial legislations must receive liberal and purposive construction in consonance with their objects — the language of Section 16 is plain, clear and unambiguous in restricting the right of appeal to senior citizens and parents — extending the right to any other person would defeat the object of the legislation — Held: No room to import any other interpretation when statutory language is clear and unambiguous [Para 10].

Jurisdiction – Appellate Tribunal – Appeal by Children Not Maintainable – Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore, entertained an appeal under Section 16 of the Act filed by the son of the petitioner and set aside the maintenance order — such entertainment of appeal was without jurisdiction as the son was neither a senior citizen nor a parent — order passed by the Appellate Tribunal without jurisdiction cannot be sustained in law — Held: Impugned appellate order quashed; maintenance order of Sub-Collector confirmed [Paras 12–15].

Decision: Writ petition allowed — Impugned order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Balasore in Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2024 quashed — Order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Sub-Collector, Balasore in Misc. Case No.49 of 2023 confirmed.

Civil Law — Rejection of Plaint — Order VII Rule 11 CPC — Limitation — Partition Deed — Knowledge — In an application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court is confined only to the plaint averments, allegations and documents filed along with the plaint — Plaintiff herself admitted in the plaint that she received a reply notice dated 26.07.2002 wherein the existence and validity of the registered partition deed dated 13.12.1985 was specifically asserted — Plaintiff further sent notices in 2009 and 2014 alleging the partition deed to be forged, which presupposes knowledge of the document — Held: Clock of limitation started ticking from the moment the plaintiff came to know of the partition deed, i.e., at least from July 2002 — Suit filed in 2021, nearly 19 years after acquiring knowledge, is hopelessly barred under Article 59 of the Limitation Act — Trial Court rightly allowed the rejection application [Paras 15.1–15.5].

Limitation — Date of Knowledge — Fraud — Commencement of Limitation — Plaintiff contended that she obtained a copy of the partition deed only in 2018 in enquiry proceedings before the DRO and that the cause of action arose only then — Held: When the plaintiff had knowledge of the partition deed and was in a position to allege forgery thereof as early as 2002, it is not believable that she did not have a copy — Partition deed is a registered document and it was for the plaintiff to take diligent steps to obtain a certified copy and challenge it within the period of limitation — Approaching revenue authorities and writ courts for various directions does not enlarge the period of limitation — Contention that limitation runs from 2018 rejected [Paras 15.3, 15.5].

Civil Miscellaneous Petition — Additional Grounds — No Merit — All additional grounds raised in C.M.P. No. 5759 of 2026 had already been urged in the main appeal — No new grounds were raised warranting separate consideration — C.M.P. dismissed [Para 16].

Decision: Appeal suit dismissed with costs — Order dated 08.12.2025 rejecting plaint upheld — C.M.P. No. 5759 of 2026 dismissed.

Contempt of Court – Terms of Settlement – Trademark – Use of "SUPERON" – Territorial Restriction – Geo-Blocking – SM and SDM, brothers and co-directors of Superon Schweisstechnik India Ltd., executed a Memorandum of Family Settlement (10.09.2021) dividing the domestic and export business – SM received exclusive rights to use "SUPERON" within India while SDM was conferred rights to use it outside India – Parties subsequently executed Terms of Settlement (TOS) dated 27.04.2023 before the Division Bench – Clause 4 of TOS imposed an unequivocal prohibition on SDM from using "SUPERON" in any manner within the territory of India – Only a limited carve-out under Clause 7 permitted SDM to use "SUPERON" on visiting cards, letters, emails, communications, packaging etc. within India strictly for export purposes and not for retail – Held: Use of a mark on a website or social media handle accessible from India constitutes use of the mark in India – Use of "SUPERON" on social media platforms accessible from India clearly violates Clause 4 – Limited exception under Clause 7 cannot be expanded to permit SDM to proclaim any association with "SUPERON" in the Indian market [Paras 49-58].

Contempt of Court – Geo-Blocking – Websites and Social Media – TOS – Before the Facilitator appointed by the Division Bench, parties agreed in principle to geo-block their respective websites containing "SUPERON" – SDM subsequently sought to resile from this position – Held: Geo-blocking is the only permissible means by which SDM may continue to maintain websites or social media handles incorporating "SUPERON" without violating Clause 4 of TOS – If SDM is not amenable to geo-blocking, it is altogether precluded from maintaining any website or social media platform accessible from India that uses the mark "SUPERON" – Disclaimers on websites do not entitle SDM to use "SUPERON" within India in contravention of Clause 4 [Paras 59-68].

Contempt of Court – Physical Hoardings – Interlinking of Marks – SDM using prominent physical hoardings displaying "SUPERON" at factory premises in Gurugram held in violation of Clause 4 of TOS – SM's contention that Clause 6 prohibiting interlinking applies only to electronic/digital interlinking rejected – Held: The expression "either directly or indirectly" in Clause 6 is wide enough to cover physical interlinking and cannot be curtailed to electronic modes alone – Use of the conjunction "OR" negates the plea that the restriction is confined only to social media interlinking – SM required to refrain from conjoint use of "SUPERON" with "STANVAC" in any manner including physical hoardings [Paras 69-82].

Contempt of Court – Use of "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" – Separate Divisions – Industrial Products under "Stanvac Prime" – Clause 4 of TOS and Clause 2 of Agreed Terms dated 12.05.2023 only prohibit SDM from using "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" in the name of the parent company or any new entity in India – No provision in TOS addresses exclusivity, transfer or ownership of "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" – Use of the term "SCHWEISSTECHNIK" by SDM cannot be construed as contemptuous – SDM directed to demarcate parent company operations into three separate divisions (A, B and C) as per Clause 5 of TOS with separate non-interlinked websites – SDM expressly prohibited from manufacturing or marketing industrial products under "Stanvac Prime" brand as per Clause 5(ii) of TOS [Paras 77-76].

Contempt Jurisdiction – Power to Issue Remedial Directions – Apart from punishing contemners, the court has power to issue directions to nullify any advantage secured through contemptuous conduct and to give parties an opportunity to purge contempt – Both parties found to be in wilful disobedience of the TOS – Directions issued to each party to file affidavits of compliance within four weeks – Non-compliance to invite appropriate action [Paras 88-95].

Decision: Both SM and SDM found to be in wilful disobedience of the Terms of Settlement – Directions issued to SDM: (i) to refrain from using "SUPERON" on websites/social media accessible from India unless geo-blocked; (ii) to remove hoardings displaying "SUPERON" from physical premises in India; (iii) to demarcate operations into three divisions per Clause 5; (iv) to ensure separate non-interlinked divisional websites; (v) to refrain from manufacturing/marketing industrial products under "Stanvac Prime" – Directions issued to SM: (i) to refrain from interlinking "SUPERON" with "STANVAC/STARBLAZE" in any manner; (ii) to remove physical hoardings interlinking these marks; (iii) to geo-block its website/social media handles outside India – Both parties to file affidavits of compliance within four weeks – Matter listed for 30.04.2026.

Election Law – Election Petition – Maintainability – Concise Statement of Material Facts – Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act mandates that an Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts constituting the cause of action — Petitioner challenged election of Respondent No. 1 from 129-Vikramgad (S.T.) Assembly Constituency on three grounds: (i) improper acceptance of Nomination Form; (ii) non-reproduction of disclaimer Note-1 to Note-5 below verification in Affidavit in Form-26; and (iii) ineligibility of returned candidate as Government servant — Held: Election Petition is replete with vague and generic allegations devoid of material particulars — Omission of even a single material fact leads to incomplete cause of action — Petition dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12, 13, 21, 22, 35].

Nomination Form – Form-26 – Non-reproduction of Disclaimer Notes – Corrupt Practice – Affidavit in Form-26 is a statutory printed form bearing a distinct identification number, disbursed by the Returning Officer to each candidate — Non-reproduction of disclaimer Note-1 to Note-5 below verification cannot be attributed to the returned candidate — Such omission does not amount to corrupt practice under Sections 100(1)(b), 100(1)(d)(i), (iv) or 123(4) of the RP Act — Alleged omission does not constitute a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the RP Act — Held: This ground fails on the face of record [Paras 13, 22, 28].

Government Servant – Eligibility to Contest Election – Ashram Shala Sanhita – Returned candidate serving as Headmaster in Arvind Prathamik Ashramshala governed by Ashram Shala Sanhita 2019 published by Adivasi Vikas Vibhag — Provisions of Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 not applicable — Returned candidate applied for and obtained written permission from the Trust on 26.10.2024 under Clause 4.3.13 of Ashram Shala Sanhita before contesting the election — Permission uploaded on ECI website — Petitioner suppressed this fact in the Election Petition — Held: Ground of ineligibility not sustainable [Paras 15, 30, 32].

Election Petition – Material Effect on Result – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – For invoking Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RP Act, the Election Petitioner must specifically plead and prove that result of election was materially affected by non-compliance with provisions of the Constitution or RP Act — Mere violation or non-compliance per se does not render election void — No averment that result was materially affected was made with material particulars — Held: Non-pleading of material facts amounts to non-disclosure of cause of action warranting rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 17, 18, 19, 27, 29].

Non-Disclosure in Form-26 – Section 125A – While disclosure in Form-26 is mandatory, non-disclosure or partial disclosure constitutes an irregularity attracting Section 125A of the RP Act and cannot independently be a ground for setting aside the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) — No material facts disclosed in Petition as to how the alleged omission had material bearing on the Election result — Held: Principal ground of challenge unsustainable [Para 28].

EVMs – Release of Ballot Units and Control Units – Application (L) No. 24590 of 2025 by Chief Electoral Officer — Held: 358 Ballot Units and 358 Control Units in custody of District Election Officer not necessary for adjudication — District Election Officer directed to release the same within two weeks from date of uploading of order [Para 39].

Decision: Application (L) No. 9497 of 2025 allowed — Election Petition No. 19 of 2025 rejected and dismissed — Application No. 6 of 2025 disposed of as infructuous — Application (L) No. 24590 of 2025 allowed — District Election Officer directed to release 358 Ballot Units and 358 Control Units within two weeks — No costs.