Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement — India-China DTAA — Article 12(4) — Fees for Technical Services — Place of Rendition — Petitioner, a Chinese-resident company, provided management, finance, IT, and technical support services to its Indian subsidiary Benteler India from China through email, conference calls, and video conferencing — Petitioner applied for NIL withholding tax certificate under Section 197 IT Act contending that services rendered from China do not qualify as 'fees for technical services' under Article 12(4) of India-China DTAA, since Article 12(4) requires provision of services by a resident of a Contracting State in the other Contracting State, i.e., physically in India — Assessing Officer rejected application relying on ITAT decision in Ashapura Minichem Ltd. — High Court holds rejection of NIL certificate application justified in view of pending assessments against petitioner for previous years — Writ Petition dismissed — Declaration on taxability declined as same issue live before ITAT [Paras 59–68].

Virtual Rendition of Services — Physical Presence — Whether Virtual Services Equate to Physical Rendition in India — Revenue contended that services rendered virtually through video conferencing, emails, and conference calls amount to physical rendition in India — High Court rejects this contention — Held: Without any specific provision in law or in the DTAA, the broad proposition that virtual rendition of services by a foreign entity to an Indian entity amounts to physical rendition in India cannot be accepted — It is equally arguable that Benteler India received services in China — Reliance placed by Revenue on Praful B. Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601], Kishan Chand Jain [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1334], Armin R. Panthaky [(2024) SCC OnLine Bom 3603 (FB)], and Ganesh Gouri Industries [(2024) SCC OnLine Del 5359 (DB)] found inapplicable to the facts — Said decisions pertain to criminal procedure, access to justice, and trademark jurisdiction and cannot be imported to decide place of rendition of technical services under a DTAA [Paras 44–51].

Section 197 IT Act — NIL Withholding Tax Certificate — Rule 28AA — Rejection — Justification — Petitioner's claim of NIL tax liability based on India-China DTAA interpretation was the identical ground raised and rejected in assessments for AY 2015-16 to 2023-24 by CIT (Appeals) or DRP, with matters pending before ITAT — Rule 28AA(2) requires Assessing Officer to consider tax payable on assessed or returned income of the last three previous years before issuing certificate — Since higher authorities had consistently held petitioner liable to tax in India for previous years and those findings had not been set aside, Assessing Officer could not have granted a NIL certificate without contradicting those rulings — Held: Rejection of application by Assessing Officer is unexceptionable and warrants no interference under Article 226 [Paras 59–65].

Article 12(4) India-China DTAA — Interpretation — "Provision of Services in the Other Contracting State" — Competing Contentions — Petitioner contended that Article 12(4) requires services to be rendered physically in India as a pre-condition for 'fees for technical services', a condition unique to India-China, India-Israel, and India-Finland DTAAs as distinguished from India's other treaties — Revenue contended that Article 12(4) contains no requirement of physical presence and the word "in" merely qualifies that services are provided in the context of the bilateral arrangement; further, Article 12(6) creates a deeming fiction that 'fees for technical services' arise in India when the payer is a resident of India — High Court declines to adjudicate on the merits of DTAA interpretation, as the identical issue is pending before the ITAT in petitioner's own case for previous assessment years — Held: Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant a declaration would directly impact pending ITAT proceedings; parties at liberty to canvass all arguments before the ITAT [Paras 66–68].

Decision: Rule discharged — Writ Petition disposed of — Impugned order dated 01.08.2025 rejecting NIL withholding tax certificate application upheld — Declaration on taxability of services under India-China DTAA declined — No order as to costs [Para 69].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Jurisdiction of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal – Respondent Sub-Inspector compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 on account of a tainted service record involving 43 departmental proceedings – Tribunal set aside the order holding it was passed without authority of law and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the then IGP – Petitioners challenged Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976, which defines "service matter" but does not include "compulsory retirement" – Held: The Tribunal is a creature of statute and can exercise only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by the Act – "Compulsory retirement" is not included in any of the subjects enumerated in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976 – None of the enumerated subjects is sufficient to assume that compulsory retirement is incidental thereto – Tribunal committed a serious error in assuming jurisdiction without assigning any reason – Order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity [Paras 13-16].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Section 4A of Act of 1976 – Prior Representation – Alternate Remedy – Petitioners contended that respondent failed to submit a prior representation under Rule 53(4) before approaching Tribunal as required by Section 4A of the Act of 1976 – Held: Rule 53(4) merely provides for a right of representation within 30 days; it is not an alternative remedy against compulsory retirement – In absence of any such alternative remedy, the respondent's only option was to file a writ petition under Article 226 – Objection under Section 4A not sustainable in the circumstances [Para 19].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Post Facto Approval – Malice in Law – Rule 53(1) – Order of compulsory retirement passed by IGP without prior approval of High Power Committee as required by Government circulars dated 07.03.2001 and 30.04.2002 – Subsequently, DGP sent proposal for post facto approval; State Government accorded post facto approval on 26.04.2006 in respect of 76 officials including the respondent – Respondent never challenged the post facto approval – Tribunal did not consider the post facto approval while setting aside the order and erroneously held the order to be malicious and arbitrary – Held: Non-observance of non-binding guidelines is not sufficient to draw a conclusion of mala fides – Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences; the doctrine of pleasure emanating from Article 310 of the Constitution governs such orders; principles of natural justice are not embodied rules in such cases – Post facto approval by the State Government validates the action and reflects complete agreement with the order – No material placed on record to substantiate the charge of malice in law – Compulsory retirement of one among 76 officials on basis of overall service record was not done in isolation or with vindictive intent – Tribunal erred in holding the order to be malicious [Paras 20-34].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 15.04.2021 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 1850/2005 quashed and set aside – Appeal of respondent Vijay Kumar Yadav before the Tribunal dismissed – No order as to costs.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Sacrilege and Misappropriation – SGPC Official – Allegations Confined to Negligence – Petitioner, a retired Secretary of SGPC, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR alleging unauthorized printing, distribution, disappearance and mishandling of 328 sacred saroops and misappropriation of ₹9,82,700/- – SGPC's own High-Level Enquiry Commission report found saroops to be unaccounted for and under the petitioner's control – However, departmental proceedings resulted in a finding only of negligence, not misappropriation – FIR registered on 07.12.2025 for incidents allegedly occurring between 2011 and 2016 without plausible explanation for inordinate delay – FIR not lodged by SGPC itself but at the instance of a third party – Evidence sought to be collected largely documentary in nature, making custodial interrogation unnecessary – Co-accused with graver allegations granted interim anticipatory bail – Held: Allegations do not prima facie indicate criminal intent or misappropriation; anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to join investigation within ten days before the Investigating Officer – In the event of arrest, to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing adequate personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS – Observations confined to disposal of the bail petition and not an expression of opinion on merits.

Land Revenue – Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 – Re-grant – Holder of Village Office – Burden of Proof – Petitioner claimed re-grant as heir of her husband Chikka Hanumaiah whose ancestor Byla was alleged to be Holder of village office — sole documentary basis was the extract of the barabaluti register (Annexure-B) issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk — extract related to property in Bengaluru South Taluk — columns for survey number and extent left blank — name of village originally mentioned as "Vaderapura" struck off and "Rachanamudu" inserted — Tahsildar, Bengaluru South filed affidavit stating that the Thoti Inam barabaluti register is not maintained — Held: Annexure-B does not refer to the property in question and is not proved — petitioner failed to discharge the burden of establishing Byla as Holder of village office [Paras 55–73, 86].

Land Revenue – Re-grant – Status of Narasimhaiah – Officiator vs. Holder of Village Office – Narasimhaiah in his application described himself as interested to serve as Thoti and mentioned Venkatagiri as Barwardar — Narasimhaiah never claimed Byla as his ancestor or as village office holder — tastik payments made in 1987–2004 cannot establish rights as of the appointed date 01.02.1963 — Tahsildar's report dated 11.07.1972 rejected by Assistant Commissioner as Revenue Inspector was incompetent to draw a report on inam lands — Held: No records establish Narasimhaiah as Holder of village office — District Court's finding that Narasimhaiah was the Barwardar not acceptable [Paras 90–99].

Land Revenue – Re-grant – Sale by Pendente Lite Seller – Effect on Locus to Prosecute – Petitioner Kadari Narasamma sold the property on 28.07.2014 during pendency of proceedings before the District Court without disclosing the same — Held: There is no mandate in law requiring disclosure of a sale transaction unless the Court has passed a restraining order — the pendente lite seller does not lose locus to prosecute or defend the proceeding — the purchaser's right is subject to the decision of the Court — ratio in H. Anjanappa and Others v. A. Prabhakar and Others applies only to pendente lite purchasers, not sellers [Paras 49–52].

Land Revenue – Section 5(3) of Act, 1961 – 15-Year Restriction on Alienation – Amendment of 2003 – After the 2003 amendment, the 15-year restriction is to be reckoned from the date of re-grant after 2003 — sale made by Kadari Narasamma would be null and void — in that event, proviso to Section 5(4) of the Act, 1961 enables heirs of the transferor to seek re-grant [Para 51].

Land Revenue – Amendment to Section 7 of Act, 1961 – Prospective or Retrospective – Question Left Open – Whether the 1978 amendment to Section 7 of the Act, substituting the provision for re-grant of land to unauthorized holders, operates prospectively or retrospectively was not argued — question left open as answering it in either way would not aid the petitioners who have failed to establish Byla as Holder of village office — sons of Narasimhaiah have relinquished their claim and Kadari Narasamma prosecuted the case not as daughter of Narasimhaiah but as heir of her husband [Paras 108–112].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — Possession held by respondent No.1 (purchaser from Narasimhaiah) since 1971 not disturbed — Deputy Commissioner directed to take steps to trace the original barabaluti registers and report to the Registry within three months — no order as to costs.

NDPS – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Prosecution Appeal Dismissed – DRI officers, acting on intelligence inputs, seized 1329 kg and 750 grams of hashish from a godown in Kadodara, Surat on 18.06.1994 – Charge-sheet filed under Sections 20(b)(ii), 22, 23, 29 and allied provisions of the NDPS Act – Special Court acquitted all accused on 07.09.1999 finding that prosecution failed to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and that mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act were violated – High Court on reappreciation of evidence concurs with the findings of the Special Court – Held: Appeal dismissed; acquittal affirmed [Paras 1–12].

NDPS – Hostile Witness – Coerced Statements – Evidentiary Value – PW-9, a key prosecution witness, turned hostile and denied having informed DRI that accused No. 1 had communicated that the hashish had reached Surat – PW-9 categorically stated that NCB officers kept him in custody for three days, tortured him, and dictated the statements dated 01.07.1994, 05.07.1994 and 06.07.1994 under fear of detention – The prosecution failed to examine the officers involved in recording those statements to disprove PW-9's allegations of coercion – Held: Statements extracted under coercion are totally devoid of evidentiary value; prosecution failed to prove that accused No. 1 conveyed the secret code (517150) to accused No. 3 for taking delivery of the contraband [Paras 4–6].

NDPS – Mandatory Provisions – Sections 42, 50 and 57 – Non-Compliance – Fatal to Prosecution – The prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act relating to search and seizure – Non-compliance of Section 42 is clearly established from the record – Such non-compliance is impermissible under law and renders the entire prosecution case infirm – Owner of the godown was not examined as a witness; Jaydeep Dhinoja, who allegedly rented the premises and transported the contraband, was not arraigned as an accused – No independent witness supported the case of the prosecution regarding alleged criminal conspiracy or meeting of minds – Held: Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act is fatal to the prosecution case [Para 8].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Appellate Interference – Limited – An appellate court hearing an appeal against acquittal may reappreciate oral and documentary evidence but can interfere only if: (i) the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; (ii) is based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence; and (iii) no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence on record – Acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence – Where the view taken by the trial court is a possible view on the basis of evidence, it cannot be overturned merely because another view was also possible – Held: Prosecution failed to demonstrate any manifest illegality, perversity or material infirmity in the reasoning of the Special Court warranting interference [Paras 9–11].

Observations on Investigation – Court observed that the investigation was seriously flawed despite the massive commercial quantity of contraband involved – The owner of the godown from which 1329 kg of hashish was seized was not even examined; the person who allegedly rented the premises was not arraigned as an accused – These lapses indicate either a lack of competence of the entire prosecution team or a deliberate attempt to protect the real accused – Court left it open to the concerned authorities to take such action as may be deemed necessary and feasible [Para 13].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment and order of acquittal dated 07.09.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Surat in Special Case (NDPS) No. 167 of 1994 affirmed – Bail bonds, if any, executed by respondent-accused discharged – Record and proceedings transmitted back to the Trial Court.

Criminal Contempt – Scandalizing the Court – Unparliamentary Language – LinkedIn Post – Charge Framed – Respondent-advocate allegedly raised her voice, used unparliamentary language, and alleged collusion of the Judicial Officer with the opposing party during hearing on 25.01.2025 – Respondent also allegedly uploaded a LinkedIn post reproducing court order-sheets and making scandalous remarks against the Judicial Officer – Respondent denied ownership of the LinkedIn account – On direction of the High Court, LinkedIn Corporation and the Cyber Cell of Delhi Police traced the account and IP logs to mobile numbers registered in the respondent's name and her brother's name – Account deleted on 29.01.2026, the same day the Court passed directions for disclosure – Held (prima facie): Material sufficient to show account belonged to and was operated by respondent – Allegations intended to scandalize the Court and lower its authority – Charges framed under Sections 2(c) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Respondent pleads not guilty – Directed to file affidavit-reply within four weeks and remain personally present on next date [Paras 1–19].

Digital Evidence – LinkedIn Account – Identity Traced by ISPs – Court directed LinkedIn Corporation to disclose identity of account holder and directed Cyber Cell to furnish IP report – LinkedIn confirmed account in respondent's name, created on 14.10.2023 – IP logs traced by ISPs (Vodafone Idea, Jio) to mobile numbers registered in respondent's name and her brother's name – Account deleted on the very date the Court issued disclosure directions – Court finds direct link between LinkedIn account activity and respondent [Paras 4–9].

Decision: Charges framed – Respondent directed to file affidavit in terms of Rule 12 of the Contempt of Courts (Delhi High Court Rules, 2025) within four weeks – Matter listed on 26.05.2026.

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Disability – Appellant, a labourer aged 40 years, suffered grievous injuries including fracture of left clavicle, chest injury, and severe head injury with haemorrhagic contusion causing midline shift in a vehicular accident on 22.11.2005 – Tribunal awarded a paltry sum of Rs. 95,000/- – Medical Board assessed 25% permanent disability; functional disability assessed at 20% for computation purposes – High Court found Tribunal's award grossly inadequate and enhanced total compensation to Rs. 7,72,135/- under various heads – Held: Compensation must be just and commensurate with the nature, extent and gravity of injuries suffered [Paras 7–17].

Loss of Income – Proof of Income – Minimum Wage as Yardstick – Absence of documentary proof of income not a ground to deny just compensation in Motor Accident Claims, which are summary in nature – Monthly income assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month based on minimum wages prevailing in Haryana in 2005 – Loss of income during hospitalisation (7 days) assessed at Rs. 935/-; loss during bed-rest period of six months assessed at Rs. 24,000/- – Held: Minimum wage notification is a yardstick and not an absolute factor; guesswork in assessing income must not be totally detached from reality [Paras 9–12.3].

Future Loss of Earnings – Future Prospects – Permanent Disability – Functional disability assessed at 20% – Claimant aged 40 years at time of accident; future prospects added at 30% as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi – Income taken as Rs. 5,200/- per month after adding future prospects – Compensation under loss of future earnings assessed at Rs. 1,87,200/- applying multiplier of 15 – Held: Claimant entitled to compensation for both future loss of earnings and future prospects even in disability cases [Paras 12.4–12.6].

Medical Expenses – Pragmatic Approach – Tribunal had restricted medical expenses to Rs. 20,000/- on account of discrepancies in some bills despite proof of treatment and expenditure – Held: In injury cases, a pragmatic approach must be adopted; a claimant cannot be expected to preserve every bill during treatment and recovery; medical expenses reassessed and enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- [Para 13].

Pain and Suffering – Non-Pecuniary Damages – Claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries including severe head injury and permanent disability – Tribunal's award under this head found wholly inadequate – Held: Compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of injuries, duration of hospitalisation, extent of disability, and mental and physical agony; compensation under pain and suffering assessed at Rs. 4,00,000/- [Paras 14–15].

Interest – Enhancement – Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% per annum – Held: Interest enhanced to 9% per annum from date of institution of claim petition till realisation; in case of non-payment within three months, interest payable at 12% per annum thereafter [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Compensation enhanced from Rs. 95,000/- to Rs. 7,72,135/- with interest at 9% per annum; liability of respondents to remain as determined by the Tribunal.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST (POA) Act – Section 14A(2) – Role of Accused in Custodial Death – Deceased Darshan was taken to Vivekanagara Police Station on 13.11.2025 without registration of case — detained illegally from 01.30 a.m. of 13.11.2025 to 08.30 p.m. of 15.11.2025 — thereafter sent to a rehabilitation centre where he was allegedly subjected to severe assault by accused Nos.1 to 9 (owner, manager and staff of the rehabilitation centre) and died on 26.11.2025 — accused No.10, the SHO, arraigned for illegal confinement — CID investigation report did not attribute any overt act of physical assault to accused No.10 — CCTV footage from the police station already seized and sent to FSL — charge sheet already filed — Held: Custodial interrogation of accused No.10 not required at this stage; anticipatory bail granted subject to stringent conditions including daily reporting to CID [Paras 9–14].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Factors – Charge Sheet Filed – Custodial Interrogation Not Required – Where a detailed charge sheet has already been filed following thorough investigation by the CID and the role of the accused has been specifically mentioned in the charge sheet without any allegation of physical assault, custodial interrogation is generally not warranted — the concern about tampering of evidence is addressed by noting that documentary evidence including CCTV footage has already been seized — Held: Anticipatory bail appropriate in the facts of the case [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed — Impugned order dated 05.03.2026 in Crl. Misc. No.317/2026 rejecting anticipatory bail, set aside — Accused No.10/appellant directed to be enlarged on bail upon arrest in Crime No.999/2025 subject to: execution of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties; obtaining regular bail from trial court within ten days; daily reporting to DSP (H&B), CID, Carlton House for fifteen days; non-tampering with witnesses; no similar offences; and no departure from the jurisdiction of the trial court without permission

Prevention of Corruption Act – Quashing of Proceedings – Sub-Inspector of Police – Demand of Illegal Gratification – Absence of Material Evidence – Petitioner-accused No.3, working as Sub-Inspector of Police at Kamareddy Police Station, was arrayed in Crime No.05/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020 for offences under Sections 7(a)(c) and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B read with Section 34 of IPC – The primary allegations of demand of Rs.5,00,000/- illegal gratification were directed against accused No.1 (Inspector of Police) and accused No.2 (a private person) – The name of the petitioner-accused No.3 surfaced for the first time only in a subsequent complaint dated 13.11.2020, alleging demand of Rs.20,000/- for granting station bail and accepting sureties in Crime No.404 of 2020 – Held: The allegation rests on a solitary and uncorroborated statement; no trap was laid and no recovery was effected from the petitioner; proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 6, 8, 10, 11].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Section 7(a) – Sine Qua Non of Demand and Acceptance – Statutory Presumption under Section 20 – For constituting an offence under Section 7(a) of the Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non – In the absence of proof of both demand and acceptance, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act cannot be invoked – No official favour or act was pending with petitioner-accused No.3 in relation to the complainant; matter had been entrusted to another Sub-Inspector – Essential ingredients of Section 7(a) read with clause (c) conspicuously absent [Para 10].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Meeting of Minds – To sustain a charge of criminal conspiracy or common intention under Sections 120B and 34 of IPC, cogent material demonstrating an agreement or meeting of minds to commit an illegal act is required – Scrutiny of the record discloses no material indicating that petitioner-accused No.3 entered into any agreement with other accused to demand or accept illegal gratification – Prosecution failed to establish any nexus or linkage suggestive of criminal conspiracy or common intention [Para 10].

Quashing – Proceedings against Co-Accused – Effect – Proceedings against accused No.1 (Inspector of Police) were already quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.9027 of 2021 vide order dated 01.08.2022 – Though quashing of proceedings against one accused does not automatically absolve other accused, the primary substratum of allegations having been set aside, and no independent material existing against petitioner-accused No.3, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Para 9, 11].

Decision: Criminal Petition allowed – Proceedings against petitioner-accused No.3 in Crime No.05/RCO/ACB-NZB/2020/ACB of ACB, Nizamabad Range, quashed – Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.