Education Law – Excess Admissions – Pharmacy Course – Writ appeal filed by student whose admission was cancelled due to college exceeding the Pharmacy Council’s sanctioned intake – Pharmacy Council refused to regularise over-admission citing academic standards and regulatory discipline – Held: No authority vested in college or court to approve admission beyond PCI limit – Regulations are binding and mandatory – Admission in excess of intake declared void ab initio [Paras 8–18].

Admission Validity – First Come First Serve – College followed a documented ‘first come first serve’ admission policy under management quota – Respondent No.3 had applied and completed admission formalities before the appellant – Payment and online acceptance by respondent No.3 completed before appellant's – Held: Cancellation of appellant’s admission was not arbitrary – No grounds to cancel admission of respondent No.3 [Paras 20–28].

University Autonomy – Judicial Non-Interference – PCI’s decision to reject ex post facto approval for over-admission based on educational policy – Court declined to override PCI’s discretion in enforcing regulatory discipline and teacher-student ratio – Held: No writ of mandamus can be issued to compel PCI to breach its own regulations [Paras 15–18].

Equity – Appellant Not Entitled to Relief – Although removal affected academic future of student, appellant failed to comply with prescribed admission procedures (e.g., online acceptance, digital payment) – Admission remained provisional and was ultimately invalid under PCI norms – Relief sought denied on merit and compliance grounds [Paras 23–27].

Judicial Review – Discretion of Single Judge – Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of writ petition by learned Single Judge – No illegality or perversity found in the reasoning or outcome – Appeal dismissed [Paras 29–30].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – No relief granted – Pharmacy Council's rejection of over-admission regularisation upheld – College admission process found to be compliant with internal procedures – No interference warranted with Single Judge’s decision [Para 29].

Taxation Law - Sales Tax – Trademark – Assignment of Intangible Asset – Situs of Trademark – Transaction Held as Export – Not Taxable Under State Sales Tax Law – Brand Acquisition Agreement transferring ownership of registered trademark ‘Crocin’ from Indian company to UK-based entity executed in London – Held: Trademark, being an intangible asset, follows owner’s situs – Application of principle of mobilia sequuntur personam – Since assignee is based in UK, assignment deemed as sale in course of export under Section 5(1) of CST Act – State not entitled to levy local sales tax under BST Act [Paras 36–38, 45]

Indirect Taxation – Central Sales Tax Act – Section 5(1) – Meaning of Export – No Physical Movement Required for Intangibles – Intangible Asset May ‘Move’ Juridically With Owner – Court held that the word “goods” under CST Act includes intangibles – Movement of such asset not necessarily physical – Deeming fiction applies when trademark assigned to foreign entity – Assignment amounts to export even without physical translocation across borders [Paras 30–31, 38, 41]

Intellectual Property – Assignment of Trademark – Registration Not Mandatory for Valid Transfer – Legal Title Transfers Upon Execution – Relying on Sun Pharmaceuticals and Parksons Cartamundi, Court held that assignment is complete upon execution; registration with Registrar of Trademarks not prerequisite for validity – Ownership passes immediately upon assignment even if registration occurs later [Paras 18(c), 44]

Sales Tax – Situs of Trademark – Registration Location Irrelevant – Ownership Determines Jurisdiction – Tribunal erred in treating location of trademark registration (India) as determinant of situs – Held: For intangible property, situs is determined by owner’s location – Decision of Tribunal overturned [Paras 17, 36–37, 43]

Constitutional Law – Article 286 – Bar on State Taxation of Export Sales – CST Act to Be Harmoniously Construed with Constitutional Scheme – Court emphasized that CST Act (Sections 3–5) must be interpreted in line with Article 286 – State barred from taxing sales in course of export – Harmonious construction of provisions ensures consistency in treatment of tangibles and intangibles under tax laws [Paras 30–31, 32–35]

Decision: Reference answered in favour of Applicant – Assignment of trademark ‘Crocin’ deemed to be in course of export under Section 5(1) of CST Act – Not a local sale within State of Maharashtra – Not liable to 4% sales tax under BST Act – Sales Tax Reference No. 9 of 2012 disposed of accordingly. [Paras 45–46]

Civil Law – Temporary Injunction – Prima Facie Case – Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Injury – Rejection Upheld – Appellants filed suit for declaration and possession claiming title through registered sale deed of 1957 – Sought injunction against construction over suit property allegedly by temple trust – Trial court found no prima facie case, no irreparable loss, and no balance of convenience – Held: Plaintiffs failed to prove continued possession or identity of suit land – Delay of nearly 70 years and admission in affidavit regarding lack of knowledge of title belied their claim – No interference warranted with trial court's discretion [Paras 10, 20-22, 24]

Property Dispute – Identity of Suit Property – Revenue Records vs. Sale Deed – Conflict Noted – Plaintiffs' description of suit property inconsistent with long-standing entries in revenue record showing temple possession since 1965 – Sale deed lacked survey number or definitive boundaries – Temple renovations conducted in 1985 and 2008 with municipal approval – Plaintiffs failed to prove nexus between sale deed and present-day suit land [Paras 13-15, 21]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Interference with Discretionary Orders – Scope Limited – Principles Reiterated – Citing Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd. and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., held: Appellate court cannot substitute trial court’s discretion unless arbitrary or perverse – Trial court’s denial of injunction found consistent with settled legal principles – No error in exercise of jurisdiction [Paras 23-24]

Judicial Reasoning – Delay, Acquiescence, and Possession – Conduct Considered – Plaintiffs’ long silence since 1957, absence of mutation, and lack of possession undermined credibility – Affidavit stating knowledge of sale deed surfaced only in 2023 further weakened case – Respondents demonstrated continuous possession and legal sanction of construction – Injunction rightly denied [Paras 20-22]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No interference warranted in trial court's refusal to grant temporary injunction – No order as to costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Election Law – Impleadment in Interlocutory Applications – Application by respondent No.1 in election petition seeking impleadment of respondent No.2 as opposite party in three pending IAs relating to dismissal of election petition – Held: Election petitioner had not claimed any relief against respondent No.2 – Respondent No.2 neither a necessary nor proper party for adjudication of pending IAs – Petition for impleadment rejected as not maintainable under Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules [Paras 1, 4, 7, 10–12]

Court Procedure – Rule 27(a) of Orissa High Court Rules – Interim Relief – Separate Applications – Rule mandates that a separate petition must be filed for each interlocutory relief – Filing of single I.A. seeking impleadment in multiple pending I.As. not permissible – I.A. No.93 of 2025 dismissed as contrary to procedural rules [Paras 5–7]

CPC – Non-Applicability of Order 1 Rule 10 to Election Proceedings – Court held that power of impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC cannot be exercised in election petitions governed by specific provisions of the R.P. Act, 1951 – Reiterated Supreme Court’s view that general CPC provisions cannot override special statute [Paras 8, 11]

Election Law – Scope of Participation – No Right to Participate in IAs – Respondent No.2, not being a contesting party in the interlocutory applications, held to have no legal standing to participate – Mere impleadment in main election petition does not warrant involvement in interim applications filed prior to such impleadment [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Interlocutory Application No.93 of 2025 dismissed on contest – Held not maintainable in law – No merit found in prayer for impleadment – Separate IAs required for separate interlocutory reliefs under Rule 27(a) – No role demonstrated for respondent No.2 in pending IAs – Petition disposed of finally [Paras 11–12]

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279 & 304A IPC – Accused convicted for causing death of a pillion rider by driving autorickshaw rashly and negligently – Courts below relied on consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses (PWs 1, 3, 4), spot sketch (Ex.P11), inquest and post-mortem reports – Held: Conviction based on credible evidence – Defence of victim’s negligence rejected – No perversity or illegality in concurrent findings of lower courts [Paras 14, 20–23].

Criminal Procedure – Scope of Revision – Section 397 CrPC – Revision not a substitute for appeal – Revisional court cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is grave illegality or manifest error – Held: No error found in appreciation of evidence by trial and appellate courts – Interference in revision not warranted [Paras 10–13, 21].

Sentencing – Section 304A IPC – Adequacy and Proportionality – Accused sentenced to 6 months simple imprisonment by appellate court – Plea for leniency under Probation of Offenders Act rejected – Held: In view of binding precedents (Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka; Saurabh Bakshi v. State of Punjab), deterrent punishment justified in motor accident deaths – Sentence of 6 months appropriate and commensurate to offence [Paras 27–31].

Motor Accidents – Responsibility of Professional Drivers – Supreme Court emphasized duty of care by professional drivers – Laxity or momentary negligence can have devastating social consequences – Held: In cases of death due to rash driving, liberal sentencing policies are not justified – Courts must uphold collective conscience and safety standards [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Criminal revision petition dismissed – Conviction and sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment under Section 304A IPC upheld – No scope for interference with concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts – Plea under Probation of Offenders Act rejected [Para 31].

Civil Law – Injunction Suit – Suppression of Material Facts – Non-specification of Suit Land – Plaintiff described suit land by khasra number, area and location – Evidence of parties and witnesses clearly identified the suit land – Held: Mere absence of boundary description not fatal when parties are aware of identity of land – No suppression of material facts established – Suit maintainable [Paras 11–16].

Property Law – Transfer of Immovable Property – Section 138, J&K Transfer of Property Act – Mandatory Requirement of Written and Registered Instrument – Defendant claimed possession based on alleged transfer from daughters of plaintiff – No registered sale deed or legal instrument produced – Held: Transfer without compliance with Section 138 is void and confers no right of ownership or lawful possession [Paras 18–21].

Property Law – Possession Follows Title – Illegal Possession – Defendant admittedly purchased land only from daughters of plaintiff – Vendor cannot convey better title than he possesses – Plaintiff never executed any transfer deed – Held: Defendant’s possession, if any, without lawful title amounts to trespass and cannot defeat lawful owner’s claim [Paras 15, 18–23].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reversal of Findings of Fact – First Appellate Court set aside Trial Court decree without appreciating statutory mandate of Section 138 – Erroneously vested ownership and possession in defendant without documentary title – Held: Interference with Trial Court’s well-reasoned findings was perverse and unsustainable in law [Paras 21–24].

Civil Law – Permanent Prohibitory Injunction – Plaintiff Established Ownership and Lawful Possession through Revenue Records and Oral Evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right to possess suit land – Trial Court decree rightly granted injunction restraining interference – Restoration of Trial Court decree justified [Paras 22–25].

Decision: Civil Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court granting permanent prohibitory injunction restored – Suit of the plaintiff decreed – Registry directed to prepare decree sheet.

Prevention of Money Laundering – Search and Seizure – Applicability of Section 17 PMLA – Complaint Against Co-Accused – Search Valid – ED conducted search under Section 17 PMLA at respondent’s premises on 09.02.2016 recovering ₹26.30 lakhs, laptop and other devices – Respondent not named in original 2011 prosecution complaint but allegedly facilitated main accused Hassan Ali Khan in obtaining forged passport and opening foreign account – Tribunal wrongly held search invalid for want of complaint against respondent – Held: Section 17 only requires prior institution of complaint or report under Section 157 CrPC, not necessarily against the same person whose premises is searched – Search based on “reason to believe” and linked to ongoing proceedings against co-accused held valid [Paras 19, 29, 34–38, 41].

Criminal Law – Money Laundering – Applicability of Retention and Attachment Provisions – Sections 5 vs. 17 PMLA – Retention was under Section 17(4) PMLA, not under Section 5 – Distinction clarified: Section 5 applies when ED believes person possesses proceeds of crime and may conceal it, requiring prior complaint/report under Section 173 CrPC – Section 17 applies to broader categories including possession of related records and allows search based on report under Section 157 CrPC – Tribunal erred in applying incorrect legal standard [Paras 24–30, 37].

Due Process – Tribunal’s Reasoning Based on Unraised Grounds – Procedural Impropriety – Remand Ordered – Tribunal allowed appeal on ground that no complaint was filed against respondent, though such contention was not raised before it – Respondent’s actual plea was that seizure had no nexus with any proceeds of crime and that ED failed to rebut his explanation of legitimate income – Held: Tribunal misdirected itself by deciding on an unargued issue – Matter remanded for fresh adjudication with liberty to respondent to raise all contentions [Paras 19, 23, 33, 43–45].

Supplementary Complaint – Effect of Respondent’s Death – No Impact on Validity of Search – Respondent died during pendency of appeal; his legal heir impleaded – Though ED failed to mention this fact in supplementary complaint filed later, Court held it has no bearing on legality of search conducted prior to his death or on retention proceedings under challenge [Paras 16, 20, 42].

Decision: Impugned order of Appellate Tribunal dated 21.05.2019 set aside – Appeal remanded for fresh decision by Tribunal in accordance with law – Parties granted opportunity to raise all relevant contentions – Appeal disposed accordingly [Paras 45–46].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment – Faceless Regime – Jurisdiction – Petitioners challenged reassessment notices issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, contending only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) under the National Faceless Assessment Centre had jurisdiction post-enactment of Section 151A – Held: Delhi High Court affirms ratio in TKS Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO – JAO and FAO have concurrent jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 148 – No inconsistency with faceless assessment scheme [Paras 16–17, 25].

Doctrine of Merger – Dismissal of SLP – No Declaration of Law – Petitioners relied on dismissal of Revenue's SLP in Deepanjan Roy v. ADIT and other matters to contend that only FAO has jurisdiction – Held: Dismissal of SLP in limine without reasons does not amount to affirmation or merger of High Court’s judgment – Does not constitute binding precedent under Article 141 – Judgments in Fuljit Kaur, Dhirendra Sundar Das, Kunhayammed, Khoday Distilleries relied upon [Paras 20–24].

Consistency in Judicial Interpretation – Delhi High Court Precedents – Multiple writ petitions (including PC Jeweller Ltd., Mala Petrochemicals, Mehak Jagga, Empire Fasteners) dismissed following TKS Builders – Supreme Court has not stayed TKS Builders – Therefore, binding on coordinate benches in Delhi [Paras 18–19, 25–26].

Interim Orders of Supreme Court – No Effect on Ratio – Petitioners relied on stay orders issued by Supreme Court in related SLPs (All India Kataria Education Society, Yukti Export) – Held: Interim stay of proceedings does not nullify or suspend the reasoning of the High Court judgment – Such orders do not overrule settled law laid down by coordinate benches [Paras 9, 27].

Reassessment Proceedings – Validity of JAO Action – Delhi High Court reiterates that jurisdiction of JAO remains intact despite introduction of Faceless Scheme – Objection to JAO’s authority lacks merit in Delhi jurisdiction until Supreme Court holds otherwise [Paras 25–28].

Decision:  All writ petitions dismissed – No merit found in challenge to jurisdiction of JAO – Pending applications also dismissed as infructuous [Para 28].