Company Law – Transfer of Assets During Pendency of Winding-Up Proceedings – Section 536(2) & 537(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956 – Transfer Held Void – The applicant entered into a registered sale deed on 03.01.2018 for a property belonging to the 1st respondent company after the presentation of a winding-up petition on 20.11.2015 but before the order for winding-up dated 06.12.2019 – Held: Disposition of property made after commencement of winding-up proceedings without leave of court is void unless validated by court – In the absence of publication of notice or due diligence by the applicant, the court rejected the plea that the applicant was a bona fide purchaser – The sale was declared in violation of Sections 536(2) and 537(1)(b) – Application dismissed [Paras 27, 28, 33, 36].

Winding-Up – Discretion to Validate Post-Petition Transactions – Judicial Principles – Court may validate transactions post-petition if they are bona fide and in the interest of company and creditors – However, burden lies on transferee to prove good faith – In this case, absence of public notice and suppressed knowledge of winding-up petition led court to conclude lack of bona fides – Judicial discretion not exercised in favour of the applicant – Transaction not validated [Paras 22, 23, 33, 36].

Real Estate Transaction – Bonafide Purchaser – Duty of Due Diligence – Applicant failed to issue public notice or exercise caution despite knowing of mortgage and SARFAESI involvement – Court held such conduct unconvincing and indicative of collusion – Applicant’s claim of resale to third party at a lower price was also disbelieved – Not a bonafide purchaser [Paras 12, 28, 33, 35].

Final Decision – Application Dismissed – The sale deed dated 03.01.2018 between the applicant and the respondent company was held invalid under Sections 536(2) and 537(1)(b) – Applicant not entitled to relief as transaction was void and lacked bona fides – Miscellaneous applications also dismissed [Para 37].

Election Petition – Maintainability – Requirement of Material Facts – Section 83(1)(a) RP Act – Petition Dismissed - The petitioner alleged non-disclosure of assets, liabilities, and arbitral awards by the returned candidate and sought invalidation of the election – The Court held that the Election Petition lacked concise statement of material facts and failed to show how the alleged omissions materially affected the election result – As per law, pleadings must establish cause of action and fully disclose factual foundation for challenge under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – In absence of such foundation, the petition is not maintainable and must be dismissed at threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12-17, 31].

Non-disclosure of Loan and Property – Allegation of Suppression – Not Sustainable – The allegation regarding Rs.90 lakh housing loan taken jointly with daughter was held to be devoid of merit – Respondent No.1 was merely a co-applicant; property was solely owned and loan serviced by his daughter – No obligation arose for the Respondent to disclose such loan in Form No.26 – Accordingly, this ground of challenge was rejected [Paras 8.1, 10].

Arbitral Award – Pending Litigation – Non-Disclosure – Not Material – Section 100(1)(d)(iv) – Dismissal Upheld - The award of Rs.2.72 crore against the Respondent had been stayed by the Court and was under challenge – Court held that liability under a stayed award is not a "government due" requiring disclosure – Suppression not established – Petition failed to show how this affected electoral outcome [Paras 8.2, 9.3, 10, 16].

Form No.26 Disclosure – Loans, Guarantees, Financial Liabilities – CRIF/CIBIL Reports Not Originally Filed – Deficiency in Pleading – Petition Dismissed – Documents relied upon by petitioner, such as CRIF and CIBIL reports, were not annexed with petition but produced later – Court found this impermissible and held that pleadings cannot be improved through replies – Material facts must be stated in the petition itself [Paras 8.4, 9.5, 12, 15-17].

Cause of Action – Materially Affected Result – Mandatory Requirement under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act – Petition Dismissed - The Election Petition failed to plead and demonstrate how the result was materially affected by alleged omissions – Mere allegation of non-disclosure is insufficient – Petition does not disclose cause of action – Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 12-17, 31].

Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC allowed – Election Petition dismissed in limine for want of cause of action and failure to plead material facts as required under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act – No triable issue made out under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) RP Act [Para 31].

Family Law - Divorce – Cruelty & Desertion – Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act – Irretrievable Breakdown – Marriage dissolved – Appellant sought divorce alleging cruelty and desertion—Trial Court dismissed citing wife’s dowry complaint and suppression of earlier restitution proceedings—Appellant and family later acquitted in criminal case; parties lived apart for 18 years; wife ex parte and disinterested in appeal—Held: Continuing the marital tie serves no purpose; irretrievable breakdown amounts to cruelty; divorce decree granted [Paras 6–10].

Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC & Section 482 CrPC – Ends of Justice – Courts may grant relief to prevent abuse of process – Supreme Court precedents in B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, V. Bhagat, Ashok Hurra, Naveen Kohli, and Shilpa Shailesh distinguished – Though High Court lacks Article 142 powers, inherent jurisdiction under CPC/CrPC permits intervention where continuation of marriage causes injustice – Divorce granted [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Family Court dated 26.06.2013 set aside – Marriage dated 20.04.2006 dissolved – Divorce granted [Para 10].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302/34 IPC – Common intention – Conviction partly upheld – Principal assailants identified by multiple eyewitnesses including injured witnesses – Court finds Moijuddin, Faijuddin and Latif restrained the deceased while Maynul delivered the fatal Ramdao blow on the nape of the neck – Held: Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC sustained for these accused [Paras 58–61, 80].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Alleged use of pistol – Absence of recovery or gunshot injury – Witnesses differed whether pistol was placed on chest or neck – Held: Evidence insufficient against Waser Sk. @ Wacher Mayra either for Section 302/34 or 326/34; acquittal directed and bail bonds discharged [Paras 81–82, 88].

Grievous Hurt – Section 326/34 IPC – Eyewitness and medical corroboration – PW2 hospitalized 11 days; PWs 3 & 4 three days – Weapons were sharp agricultural implements – Non‑production of dying declaration immaterial once declarant survived and deposed – Held: Convictions under Section 326/34 IPC upheld for named accused [Paras 84–87].

Inquest Report – Scope under Section 174 CrPC – Investigative lead, not substantive determinative evidence – Court declines to fault investigation for not pursuing “son of Tajer Bere” line recorded by inquest witnesses not present at the scene – Reliance placed on Pedda Narayana (1975) 4 SCC 153 – Held: No infirmity [Paras 42–43].

Minor Discrepancies – Witness Credibility – Variations on who held the deceased’s hands and sequence of blows – Court treats as normal discrepancies in a melee; cites Bharwada Bhoginbhai (1983) 3 SCC 217 and Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 – Injured eyewitness testimony accorded higher weight; Balu Sudam Khalde (2023) applied – Held: Prosecution version substantially reliable [Paras 41, 49, 51–52, 61–62].

Medical Evidence – Time of last meal and “empty stomach” – PM opinion not conclusive of exact time of death; possibility deceased skipped morning meal – Over‑emphasis on digestion timelines rejected – Held: Argument rejected [Paras 44–47].

Delay/Choice of Medical Facility – Skipping nearer centres for better hospital – Not fatal where deceased likely died on the spot and injuries to others were promptly treated – Defense failed to prove prejudice – Held: No adverse inference [Paras 54, 79].

Non‑Recovery of Weapons/Pistol – Effect – Faulty investigation not a ground for acquittal when ocular and medical evidence are unimpeachable; however, non‑recovery of pistol noted as material omission vis‑à‑vis accused with pistol – Held: Convictions sustained notwithstanding non‑recovery of sharp weapons; pistol non‑recovery underpins Waser’s acquittal [Paras 55, 81–82].

Doctors not told assailants’ names – Whether fatal – In emergency treatment names may not be recorded; not ipso facto exculpatory – Reliance on State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad (1998) 9 SCC 49 – Held: Argument rejected [Para 65].

Final Orders – CRA 320/2015 allowed; CRA 283/2015 and CRA 266/2015 dismissed – Surrender directions issued; costs: none [Paras 87–91].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Sexual Offences – Testimony of Victim Not Reliable – Acquittal Ordered – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 452/354/323/34 IPC for allegedly assaulting and molesting a woman – Trial Court acquitted them under Section 376(D) IPC – High Court found the victim’s testimony riddled with material improvements, inconsistencies, and contradictions with police and medical evidence – Held: Victim's version failed to meet the standard of a "sterling witness" – Conviction not sustainable [Paras 13–18].

Evidence – Material Improvements and Contradictions – Testimony Discredited – Allegation of sexual assault (finger insertion) was introduced only in the third supplementary statement after delay of several days – Testimony inconsistent with initial FIR and police statements – Tenant witness found to be untrustworthy and not corroborated by record – Court found witness to be planted and testimony unreliable – Resulted in total discrediting of prosecution's version [Paras 14–17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Delay in Disclosure – No Corroboration – Accused Entitled to Benefit of Doubt – Though delay in naming assailants can be explained in sexual assault cases, such explanation must be reasonable and consistent – In present case, delay of 10 hours in naming known neighbours without plausible reason – Absence of medical injuries or forensic support further weakens case – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 12–14, 18].

Witness Testimony – Standard of 'Sterling Witness' – Not Met in Present Case – Court reiterated that uncorroborated testimony can lead to conviction only if it is cogent, consistent and natural – Victim’s evidence failed on this test – Cited Supreme Court’s decision in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Held: Inconsistencies in victim’s statements, and contradictions with police and tenant evidence made her testimony unreliable – Acquittal justified [Para 18].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellants Acquitted – All four appeals allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2016 and order on sentence dated 15.12.2016 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds cancelled, sureties discharged – Judgment to be uploaded and communicated to Trial Court and Jail Superintendent [Paras 19–21].

Income Tax Law - Income from House Property – Determination of Annual Value – Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act – Annual Value Held Justified - The Assessing Officer determined the annual letting value of office premises at ₹22,00,000/- by considering comparable rent of similar premises and notional interest on a large interest-free security deposit – Held: The AO is not bound to accept the municipal rateable value if it does not reflect market rent – Tribunal and CIT(A) rightly upheld the AO’s assessment – Notional interest, though not decisive alone, was relevant contextually – No interference called for [Paras 14–20, 24–26, 35–38].

Notional Interest on Security Deposit – Cannot Solely Determine Annual Value – Legal Principle Affirmed – The Court reiterated that notional interest on interest-free security deposits cannot be considered independently to determine fair rent under Section 23(1)(a) – However, such deposits may provide context for assessing tax avoidance attempts through deflated license fees – Findings in Tip Top Typography and Moni Kumar Subba upheld [Paras 17–20, 36].

Municipal Rateable Value – Not Binding – AO’s Independent Enquiry Permissible – The Court held that municipal valuation is not determinative where there is a wide disparity with actual or reasonable market rent – AO is entitled to conduct enquiry and assess ALV based on market comparables – Rateable value of ₹10,200/- held “ridiculously low” and rightly ignored [Paras 21–26, 30].

Standard Rent – Inapplicability Where Rent Control Not Invoked – The argument that standard rent ought to cap the annual value under Section 23 was rejected as premises were not governed by Rent Control Act – No tenancy created in favour of the licensee – Hence, standard rent provisions held inapplicable [Paras 31–34].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Annual value assessed by AO upheld – Tribunal and CIT(A) found to have correctly applied Section 23(1)(a) by considering fair rent and ignoring irrelevant documents and inadmissible claims – Question of law answered against the assessee [Para 39].

Civil Law - Declaration of Title – Assignment Deeds in Name of Minor – Burden of Proof – Father–Son Property Dispute – Plaintiff claimed that properties purchased in 1983 under two assignment deeds stood in his name when he was 6 months old, though deeds recorded age as 6 years – Father contended plaintiff was born in 1983 and not in existence when deeds were executed – Held: Burden of proving title lies on plaintiff, but evidence established that “minor Basheer” was indeed the plaintiff – Plaintiff’s mother (PW2) categorically testified that plaintiff was born in October 1982, and her testimony went unchallenged – Birth certificate showing 1983 rebutted by oral evidence – Presumption of correctness of birth register is rebuttable – Oral evidence of mother preferred [Paras 7–13].

Property Purchased in Minor’s Name – Ceiling Law Justification Rejected – Defendant’s claim that land was purchased in fictitious name of non-existent minor to avoid ceiling law not supported by evidence – Assignment deeds themselves showed defendant purchased property on behalf of minor son Basheer – Defendant admitted no other son named Basheer – No third-party claim was raised – Thus plaintiff proved absolute ownership [Paras 14–17].

Decision – Trial Court rightly decreed declaration and injunction in favour of plaintiff – Appellate Court upheld decree – Appeal dismissed – No order as to costs considering close relationship [Paras 17–18].

Rape Conviction – Deaf and Dumb Witness – CrPC S.164(5-A); Evidence Act Ss.118–119 – Interpreter was prosecution witness; denial of effective cross-examination – Trial vitiated – Conviction set aside without remand; guidelines issued for vulnerable witnesses.

Rape Conviction – Deaf and Dumb Witness – Section 376(2)(l) IPC; Section 164(5-A) CrPC – Conviction Set Aside – Statement under S.164 recorded using PW2 (first informant/prosecution witness) as interpreter; held impermissible under law; violation of principles in Alavi and Darshan Singh; denial of effective cross-examination – Trial vitiated; conviction and sentence set aside without remand [Paras 8, 11-16].

Evidence – Competency of Witness – Section 118 Evidence Act – Magistrate must ascertain competence of deaf and dumb witness to depose before recording statement; failure to assess capacity and reliance on PW2 (interested witness) to interpret renders statement inadmissible [Paras 11-13].

Interpreter – Legal Requirement – Section 119 Evidence Act – Services of trained interpreter/special educator mandatory; if interpreter unable, court may use familiar person, but not one who is an interested or prosecution witness; safeguards emphasized [Paras 12-13].

Cross-examination – Effective Right Denied – Victim’s deposition treated as examination-in-chief under S.164(5-A)(b) CrPC; absence of proper interpretation and inability of defence to cross-examine vitiates trial [Para 16].

Guidelines – Vulnerable Witnesses – High Court issues mandatory directions supplementing 2024 Notification; courts must record satisfaction on competence of witness and interpreter, ensure videography, avoid use of interested witnesses, and mandatorily record demeanour under S.315 BNSS [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence in S.C. No.184/2021 set aside – No remand directed due to incurable defects – Appellant released forthwith [Paras 16-18].

Civil Law - Money Lending – Exorbitant Interest – Applicability of TN Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act – Borrower filed O.P. seeking to restrict interest on ₹75 lakhs mortgage loan to 9% p.a. under Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act and Act 38 of 2003 – Respondent contended loan was via cheque, based on commercial agreement, and petitioner was not eligible for benefit under said Acts – Held: Loan disbursed by negotiable instrument exceeding ₹10,000 is excluded from definition of “loan” under TN Money Lenders Act – No evidence of kandu vatti, daily/hourly interest, or informal lending practices – Act 38 of 2003 does not apply – Petition rightly dismissed by Trial Court [Paras 8–21]

Jurisdiction – Suit under Order 34 CPC – Mortgage-based dispute – Trial Court noted respondent had already filed mortgage recovery suit under Order 34 CPC – Held: Original Petition under Act 38 of 2003 misconceived and not maintainable when parallel mortgage suit is pending – Remedy lies within civil suit framework, not under special statutes [Paras 13, 22]

Contractual Interest – Limitation of Statutory Cap – Petitioner argued that interest above 9% p.a. is usurious – High Court reiterated settled law that contractual terms between parties govern when loan is outside scope of Money Lenders Act – Petitioner must contest such terms in civil suit, not by invoking inapplicable statutory remedies [Paras 4–6, 22]

Decision – No perversity in Trial Court order – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Petitioner permitted to raise defences in pending mortgage suit – Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur directed to dispose suit by 31.12.2025 [Para 23]