Civil Law - Injunction Suit – Requirement of Possession – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent and mandatory injunction claiming possession and ownership of a plot – Trial Court decreed the suit directing removal of construction – First Appellate Court reversed, finding defendants were in possession with substantial construction on site at suit's inception – High Court upheld the appellate court's findings – Held: Possession at the time of suit is a prerequisite for injunction; plaintiffs failed to prove possession or unlawful dispossession – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-2, 13-16].

Relief of Injunction – Ownership Not Decisive – Possession Crucial – In a suit for permanent or mandatory injunction, ownership is not the deciding factor – What matters is actual possession at the time of filing – Courts rightly focused on who held possession rather than title – Defendants found to have constructed boundary wall and rooms prior to suit – Hence, injunction not maintainable [Paras 13-16].

Evidentiary Burden – Failure to Plead and Prove Possession – Plaintiffs failed to plead or substantiate in evidence any acts showing possession or construction by them – Witnesses affirmed that defendants had raised construction – Mere denial of existing structures contradicted by evidence – Courts cannot rely on oral testimony beyond pleadings – Findings of Appellate Court justified [Paras 13-15].

Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law Required – Punjab and Haryana High Court treats second appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Held: No need to frame substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC – Findings of fact by First Appellate Court binding unless shown to be perverse or illegal – No such error found [Para 12].

Decision – Findings of First Appellate Court upheld – No merit found in appeal – Suit rightly dismissed for lack of possession – Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted [Para 16].

Public Interest Litigation – Health Hazards from Mobile Towers – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners sought removal of telecommunication towers from residential areas on the ground of adverse health impacts including cancer, high blood pressure, and sleep disorders – Court held that apprehensions of health hazards due to electromagnetic radiation are not supported by conclusive scientific evidence – Reiterated that field is governed by detailed statutory and scientific safeguards and regulatory norms – Dismissed plea for removal of towers on health grounds [Paras 12–18].

Telecommunication Regulation – Validity of Installations Without Local Permissions – Statutory Framework Prevails – Court held that as per the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and Right of Way Rules, 2024, development permissions from local planning authorities under the MRTP Act are not required – Towers can be installed by providing intimation and structural safety certification – Public entities cannot demand property tax or obstruct operation unless permitted by the Central Government [Paras 19–25].

Precedent – Reliance on Scientific Standards – Division Bench Binding – Court relied on earlier decision in Biju K. Balan v. State of Maharashtra, holding that radiation norms in India are stricter than international standards – Also referred to judgments of Himachal Pradesh High Court and other Division Benches confirming absence of conclusive health risk from mobile tower radiation – Petitioners failed to produce credible contrary evidence [Paras 13–18].

Telecom Towers and Article 21 – No Violation Established – While right to health is part of Article 21, Court held that vague and unsubstantiated claims of harm cannot override statutorily compliant infrastructure – Upheld the necessity and legality of mobile towers for national connectivity and public interest [Paras 13–18, 25].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Relief for removal of mobile towers and formation of grievance redressal committees declined – No costs imposed considering nature of litigation [Paras 25–26].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR and Criminal Proceedings – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, a former UD Clerk in Kerala Water Authority, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 9/2022 alleging inordinate delay and absence of prima facie material – Allegations involved misappropriation of ₹24,755 by forging cheque counterfoils and falsifying accounts – Court held that the delay was not in registration of crime but due to judicial and procedural circumstances – Further investigation revealed sufficient material – Petition dismissed and trial ordered to be completed within 4 months [Paras 1, 5, 11, 16-17].

Delay – No Ground for Quashment – Right to Speedy Trial Not Violated – Though the petitioner contended that proceedings were pending for over 27 years, the crime was originally registered in 1999 and pursued without unjustified delay – Apex Court precedent in Sirajul v. State of U.P., (2015) 9 SCC 201, discussed but held not applicable – Held: Delay not attributable to prosecution – Petitioner's Article 21 rights not violated [Paras 7, 11-13].

Prima Facie Case – Misappropriation and Forgery – Evidence Sufficient for Trial – Investigation revealed that cheques for ₹9,290 and ₹15,465 were encashed by impersonating the contractor’s signature – Counterfoils bore forged signatures – FSL reports confirmed forgery – Witnesses and records supported prosecution case – Held: A prima facie case is clearly made out against the petitioner – Trial is required [Paras 9-10, 16-17].

Public Servant – Abuse of Position – Section 13(1)(c) and (d), PC Act – Petitioner as custodian of cheques and cash book allegedly prepared false entries and misused uncrossed bearer cheques issued in contractor's name – Entries in cash book corroborated by multiple witnesses – Held: Allegations disclose commission of offences under IPC and PC Act – Petition cannot be quashed at pre-trial stage [Paras 5, 10, 17].

Petition Dismissed – Special Judge Directed to Expedite Trial – Interim stay vacated – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings within four months – Copy of order to be forwarded for compliance [Paras 17-19].

Freedom of Religion – Article 25 of the Constitution – Scope of Worship – Right to Worship Upheld with Restrictions – The Court reaffirmed that public worship is a constitutional right but not absolute – Held: Installation and immersion of Vinayagar idols must conform to public order, environmental laws, and administrative guidelines – Right to worship cannot override ecological concerns or cause public nuisance [Paras 6–8, 27–28, 44].

Environmental Protection – Idol Immersion – PoP and Chemical Paints Banned – Idol Immersion to Follow CPCB Guidelines – Environmental degradation caused by immersion of Plaster of Paris idols and synthetic paints was taken note of – Held: Only idols certified as eco-friendly (clay-based and painted with natural dyes) may be immersed in natural water bodies – Others to be immersed in artificial ponds – Guidelines of CPCB and Tamil Nadu PCB to be strictly implemented [Paras 12–17, 22–23, 31–33, 43].

Administrative Competency – Improper Rejections by Non-Competent Authorities – Orders Quashed – Several rejections were issued by Station House Officers, who are not competent under G.O.Ms.No.598 – Held: Only Assistant Commissioners of Police or Revenue Divisional Officers/Sub-Collectors are authorised – Orders passed by unauthorised officers were quashed and liberty given to petitioners to approach proper authority [Paras 35–36, 40(11)].

Procedural Compliance – Requirement of Prescribed Format – Representations Filed Without Format or NOCs – Applications Dismissed – Petitioners failed to apply using the mandatory Form-I and without necessary No Objection Certificates – Held: Directions issued to file afresh applications in proper format for future compliance – Bald political representations cannot be entertained [Paras 36, 40(6)].

Selective Permission – Disparity in Granting Permission – Principle of Equality Violated – Court criticised arbitrary granting of permissions to some while denying others similarly placed – Held: All applicants must be treated equally – No selective enforcement allowed in matters involving religious freedom [Para 30].

Criminal Proceedings – Unauthorized Idol Installations – Rejected Petitions – Criminal Case to Proceed – Petitioners who installed idols without permission were denied relief – Police directed to proceed with prosecution under criminal law [Para 40(8)].

Festival Participation – Unity and Non-Rivalry – Devotees Advised to Join Common Celebrations – Court observed that many petitions were ego-driven rather than devotion-based – Petitioners directed to participate in already permitted processions instead of creating rivalry – Held: True worship is in unity, not competition [Paras 7, 28, 40(7)].

Decision – Mixed Outcome – Some Writs Allowed, Some Dismissed, Others Closed – Petitions were allowed where authority had not acted or passed orders without jurisdiction – Others were dismissed for bulk installation requests, lack of format, or prior permission already granted – Authorities directed to consider fresh applications and grant permission subject to environmental and legal compliance [Paras 40–44].

Commercial Suit – Maintainability – Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act – Decree Upheld – The appellant challenged the commercial nature of the dispute on ground that the rental amount was below threshold and not commercial – Held: The tenancy pertained to a commercial shop and dispute arose from lease of immovable property used in trade or commerce – Suit maintainable as a commercial dispute [Paras 14–16].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Attornment by Tenant – Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act – Relationship Established – Appellant argued absence of attornment with new owner – Held: Attornment not necessary – Transferee steps into shoes of original lessor by operation of law – Registered sale deed sufficient to establish ownership and right to seek eviction – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in Gopi @ Govardhannath v. Ballabh Vyas, (2022) 19 SCC 204 [Paras 18–22].

Applicability of Rent Control Act – Rent Less than ₹3500 – Burden Not Discharged – Appellant Claimed Protection under DRC Act – Held: Mere assertion of low rent insufficient – Burden to prove rent on tenant – Contradictory versions given under oath – No proof from income tax, bank statements, or rent receipts – Court found monthly rent exceeded ₹3500 based on plaintiff's evidence and tenant's admissions [Paras 25–29].

Framing of Issues – Clubbing of Issues – Procedural Irregularity – Held: Clubbing of issues without distinct treatment contrary to Order XIV CPC – While not fatal to judgment, such practice is improper and should be avoided in future [Paras 30–31].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court Judgment Affirmed – Finding no merit in contentions raised, the appeal was dismissed confirming the decree for possession, arrears, mesne profits, and injunction against tenant [Para 33].

Civil Law - Impleadment in Specific Performance Suit – Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC -  Appeal against Addition of Third Party – Appeal Allowed – The appellant challenged an order of the Single Judge allowing the impleadment of her brother-in-law (Respondent No. 4) in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell – Held: A third party not privy to the contract and claiming independent title cannot be impleaded – Such impleadment would enlarge the scope of the suit into a title dispute – Appeal allowed and impleadment set aside [Paras 1–3, 16–26].

Appealability – Order Not Enumerated Under Order XLIII CPC – Maintainability Under Section 10 of Delhi High Court Act – Upheld – The respondent objected to the maintainability of the appeal under Order XLIII CPC and Commercial Courts Act – Held: Even if not appealable under Order XLIII, the impugned order qualifies as a “judgment” under Section 10 of DHC Act as it affects valuable rights and changes the character of the suit – Appeal maintainable [Paras 10–15].

Impleadment Test – Necessary and Proper Party – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Not Satisfied – Court reiterated that only those parties whose presence is necessary to adjudicate the issues in the suit can be impleaded – Respondent No. 4, claiming co-ownership but not being a party to the contract, failed the test – His dispute lies in a separate title suit, not in a specific performance suit [Paras 17–20, 24–25].

Binding Precedents – Supreme Court Judgments in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal and Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra – Applied – The Court relied on established law that in a suit for specific performance, a stranger to the contract cannot be added merely because of a claimed interest in the property – Doing so alters the nature of the suit and is impermissible [Paras 19–21].

Distinguished Cases – Sumtibai and Rajesh Kumar Arora – Not Applicable – Respondent No. 4 cited judgments where impleadment was permitted – Held: These cases were fact-specific and do not dilute the general bar on impleading third parties in specific performance suits – Those decisions did not form ratio applicable to present case [Paras 22–23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Respondent No. 4’s impleadment struck off – Liberty granted to pursue independent remedy – Suit to proceed without alteration of scope [Paras 27–28].

Civil Law - Hindu Ancestral Property – Challenge to Sale Deed by Daughters – Property Not Ancestral – Appeal Allowed – Plaintiffs (daughters) filed suit challenging the sale of agricultural land by their father (defendant No. 2) to his brother (defendant No. 1), claiming it was ancestral and coparcenary property – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit in their favour – In second appeal, High Court held the land was not ancestral as it was transferred by the plaintiffs’ grandfather to defendant No. 2 by way of a registered document termed as a "Relinquishment Deed", which in essence was a gift or transfer – The property thus became self-acquired in the hands of defendant No. 2 – Held: Plaintiffs had no birthright or locus to challenge the sale during the lifetime of the father – Judgments of the courts below set aside – Suit dismissed [Paras 2-4, 23, 28-30].

Ancestral Property – Transfer by Gift – Not Ancestral in Donee’s Hands – Property Not Devolved by Inheritance or Partition – A registered Relinquishment Deed executed by the grandfather transferring specific land to his sons without consideration held to be a transfer and not a mere renunciation – The transferred property did not retain its ancestral character – Daughters had no coparcenary rights – Sale by father upheld [Paras 21-23].

Pleading and Evidence – Relevance of Evidence Not Pleaded – Admissibility – Rejection of the Relinquishment Deed by the lower courts for being “beyond pleadings” was held erroneous – Order VI Rule 2 CPC mandates pleading material facts, not the evidence – As the defendant pleaded non-ancestral nature, production of Relinquishment Deed was valid and admissible [Paras 16-19].

Proof of Ancestral Nature – Mere Admission Not Sufficient – Courts below erred in holding property as ancestral based solely on an alleged admission in earlier deeds – Law requires positive evidence like family lineage and revenue records to establish ancestral status – Mere assertion in pleadings or admissions is inadequate [Paras 24-27].

Right to Challenge Sale – No Locus of Daughters During Father’s Lifetime – Since the property was held self-acquired in the hands of defendant No. 2, only he could have challenged the sale if obtained by fraud – Daughters had no right to institute a suit during his lifetime to question the transaction – Suit not maintainable [Para 28].

Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law Required – Held: Under Punjab and Haryana jurisprudence, second appeals lie under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 – Not under Section 100 CPC – Therefore, framing of substantial question of law is not mandatory [Para 13].

Final Decision – Suit decreed by lower courts reversed – Sale deed held valid – Plaintiffs’ challenge dismissed – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs [Para 30].

Income Tax – Section 80IA – Interest Income from Fixed Deposits – Deduction Allowed – The appellant, operating a port terminal under a BOT agreement with JNPT, placed funds in fixed deposits to meet mandatory obligations for crane replacement under the License Agreement and to hold disputed tariff collections as per a High Court order – Held: Since the deposits were made out of business compulsion and closely linked to the infrastructure facility's operation and maintenance, the interest earned qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA [Paras 5-9, 20-26, 40-53].

Income Tax – Interest on TDS Refund – Deduction Permitted – The appellant received interest on tax deducted at source by its customers, which formed part of port usage charges – Held: The interest was incidental to the business and directly linked to the appellant’s operations – The Court held that interest on delayed refunds of such business receipts is an accretion to business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80IA [Paras 6-7, 30-31, 46-47].

Statutory Interpretation – “Derived from” – Direct Nexus Required – Interpretation of Section 80IA must recognize that business receipts linked directly to the operation and maintenance of an eligible infrastructure facility fall within its ambit – Mere labeling of interest income as "income from other sources" not justified when business compulsion dictates such deposits [Paras 42-50].

Final Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of ITAT and CIT(A) set aside – The appellant is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80IA of the Income Tax Act on both (i) interest earned on fixed deposits made for business obligations and (ii) interest received on income-tax refunds arising from business receipts [Paras 52-55].

Service Law – Writ - Paramilitary Discipline – Proportionality of Punishment – Section 11(1) CRPF Act – Dismissal Quashed – Petitioner, a long-serving constable, failed to report for second guard shift and did not immediately comply when roused – Misconduct held proved, but punishment of removal from service under a charge framed under Section 11(1) (minor misconduct) held shockingly disproportionate – Court applies doctrine of proportionality and holds that discipline is not synonymous with harshness – Orders of dismissal, appeal, revision and mercy rejection quashed [Paras 2-5].

Charge Framing – Duplication of Charges – Same Transaction Split into Two – Impermissible – Authorities split a single episode into “absence from duty” and “disobedience of orders,” both arising from the same factual nucleus – Such duplication unfairly magnifies the misconduct and vitiates the penalty analysis – Held: improper splitting underscores disproportionality in awarding removal [Para 4].

Judicial Review – Scope over Quantum of Punishment – Proportionality Standard – Though choice of punishment lies with disciplinary authority, courts will interfere where sentence is an “outrageous defiance of logic” – Reliance placed on Ranjit Thakur – Court reiterates that punishment must suit the offence and the offender – Removal for a single lapse here fails the proportionality test [Para 4].

Past Record – Use at Penalty Stage – Article 311(2) – Prior Adverse Material Must Be Disclosed – Past lapses already punished cannot be resurrected to aggravate penalty without putting the delinquent on notice – Following K. Manche Gowda and Bimal Kumar Pandit – Undisclosed reliance on past record taints the decision on punishment [Para 4].

Sensitive Duty (Magazine Guard) – Standard of Care vs. Human Factors – No Intoxication Proved – Context Considered – Petitioner was in barracks, earlier duty performed, stress due to mother’s serious illness noted – Absence not from station and magazine not left unguarded – These contextual factors must inform proportionality of penalty [Paras 2-4].

Decision – Writ Allowed – Impugned orders of dismissal, appellate, revisional and mercy rejection quashed – Misconduct stands, but penalty held excessive and unsustainable in law – Consequence: departmental dismissal orders annulled [Para 5].