Renewable Energy – Generation Based Incentive (GBI) – Interpretation of Clause 8 of MNRE Guidelines (2010) – Power to Remove Difficulties – Committee’s Decision – Tariff Determination – Scheme provided that GBI shall be the difference between tariff determined by CERC and the Base Rate (Rs. 5.50/kWh escalated annually) – Committee under Clause 8 decided that tariff prevailing at project registration (as determined by State Commission, Rs. 15.84/kWh) alone would apply – Held: Committee exceeded its jurisdiction – Power to “remove difficulties” cannot rewrite or alter substantive provisions of the Guidelines or the MoU executed between IREDA and the Distribution Utility – Decision of Committee dated 15.03.2013 not tenable [Paras 38–43].

Administrative Law – Waiver – Acquiescence – Estoppel – Conduct of Party – CSPDCL, by its letter dated 28.06.2013, accepted applicability of Rs. 15.84/kWh as per MNRE Guidelines and failed to challenge the Committee’s decision – Further, it earlier pursued same issue before CSERC and APTEL where it was rejected – Filing writ petition in 2017 after two years of APTEL’s rejection shows acquiescence and waiver of right – Held: By its conduct, respondent abandoned its claim and was estopped from reopening issue [Paras 55–58].

Writ Jurisdiction – Monetary Claims – Delay and Laches – Limitation – Petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for payment of differential GBI amounts to a money recovery claim – Relief corresponding to civil suit remedy, which would be barred by limitation – Writ not maintainable – Reliance placed on Tilokchand & Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110 – Held: Learned Single Judge erred in entertaining time-barred monetary claim; petition ought to have been dismissed [Paras 51–53, 59–61].

Judicial Discipline – Non-consideration of Estoppel Plea – Error Apparent – Learned Single Judge failed to return finding on appellant’s plea of estoppel despite noting it – Omission held to vitiate impugned judgment [Para 60].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Single Judge dated 21.05.2025 set aside – Writ Petition (C) No. 4527/2017 dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 62].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Appeal Against Acquittal – Allegation of persistent harassment due to land dispute resulting in suicide – Trial Court acquitted accused/respondents under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC – Appellate Court held that mere existence of land dispute and allegation of threats without proximate and direct evidence of instigation or intentional aid is insufficient to constitute abetment – No injuries found except ligature mark – Absence of any prior complaint or FIR weakens prosecution case – Held: Acquittal justified, no illegality or perversity found in trial court's judgment [Paras 2–24]

Criminal Law – Standard of Proof – Presumption of Innocence – Prosecution witnesses were mostly family members whose testimonies contained contradictions and exaggerations – Independent witnesses stated no quarrel or harassment – Prosecution failed to prove mens rea or active role of accused in causing suicide – Trial Court’s findings based on reasonable appreciation of evidence – Held: Suspicion cannot substitute legal proof beyond reasonable doubt – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12–15, 22–24]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Appeal Against Acquittal – Appellate court must not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse, illegal, or manifestly erroneous – If two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted – Citing authoritative precedents, Court reaffirms legal principles guiding appellate interference in acquittal – Held: No error in trial court judgment – Acquittal affirmed [Paras 20–24]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 10.12.2019 passed by the Sessions Court, Panna, affirmed – No ground made out for interference – Order regarding disposal of property also affirmed.

Criminal Law – Sanction for Prosecution – Section 197 CrPC – PC Act Ss. 13(1)(c), 13(2) – IPC Ss. 409, 468, 471 – Allegation that petitioner misused official position as Secretary, TN Legislative Assembly, and claimed travel allowance for private visit – Petitioner obtained Speaker’s permission and undertook travel; no records of meeting with Secretary General, Lok Sabha – Held: Whether trip was private or official is factual issue – Since act reasonably connected with official duty, sanction under Section 197 CrPC mandatory – Cognizance without sanction improper – Prosecution directed to seek sanction by 31.12.2025, failing which petitioner entitled to discharge [Paras 16-21].

Prevention of Corruption Act – Requirement of Sanction – Section 19(1), PC Act – Petitioner had retired in 2011; amendment requiring sanction for former public servants came only in 2018 – Hence, no sanction needed under PC Act – However, CrPC S.197 sanction still required as alleged act connected with official duty [Paras 12-14, 20].

Scope of Discharge – Prima Facie Case – Trial Court dismissed discharge petition without considering sanction issue – High Court held that sanction requirement goes to root of jurisdiction – Without sanction, proceedings cannot continue – Discharge postponed until sanction issue resolved [Paras 10-13, 20-21].

Decision – Criminal Revision partly allowed – Respondent directed to seek sanction by 31.12.2025 – If sanction not obtained, petitioner entitled to discharge – Till then, trial Court not to frame charges [Paras 20-22].

Land Laws – Partition of Joint Holding – Ex Parte Proceedings – Allegation of Wrong Address – Petitioner challenged partition order dated 30.08.2018 and appellate order dated 09.08.2024 on ground that respondent No.3 mentioned wrong address to prevent his participation – Held: Petitioner failed to produce any material, including jamabandi or revenue record, to prove that respondent No.3 knew his correct address or intentionally misrepresented it – Mere allegation without supporting document insufficient to vitiate partition proceedings [Paras 4–5].

Participation in Proceedings – Estoppel – Record showed petitioner’s counsel had appeared before Assistant Collector, gave no objection to Naksha Bey, and submitted reply on 28.08.2018 – Finding of Financial Commissioner that petitioner participated in proceedings remained uncontroverted – Having participated and failed to object to Naksha Alif, mode of partition, Naksha Bey, or Naksha Zeem, petitioner estopped from challenging partition after conclusion of proceedings [Paras 6–7].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court under Articles 226/227 will not re-appreciate findings of fact or reopen concluded partition proceedings absent jurisdictional error, fraud, or procedural illegality – No such infirmity found – Petition dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of Assistant Collector (30.08.2018) and Financial Commissioner (09.08.2024) upheld – All pending applications closed [Paras 8–9].

Criminal Law – Discharge – Scope under Sections 438 & 442 BNSS (Corresponding to Sections 227–228 CrPC) – Revision against rejection of discharge – Petitioner/Accused No.11 sought discharge on the ground that his name did not appear in FIR or witness statements and that the only material against him was the confession of Accused No.4 before police – Held: At the stage of considering discharge, court is to examine only whether prima facie material exists to proceed to trial – Strong suspicion suffices; not necessary to evaluate admissibility or evidentiary weight of confession – Whether confession is hit by Section 25 or saved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to be decided after full trial – Trial Court justified in rejecting discharge [Paras 7–16].

Evidence – Confession of Co-Accused – Inadmissibility – Confession of Accused No.4 implicating Petitioner recorded by Investigating Officer – Though confession to police is inadmissible under Section 25 Evidence Act, its evidentiary value, if linked to recovery or corroboration, can be examined during trial – Discharge cannot be claimed solely on that ground at pre-trial stage [Paras 13–15].

Criminal Law – Prima Facie Case – Standard for Framing Charge – Principles reiterated from Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala (2010), State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao (2023), and State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (2021) – At stage of discharge, Judge has to sift and weigh prosecution material to see if strong suspicion exists; not to undertake detailed analysis or determine guilt [Paras 9–12].

Criminal Revision – Discharge Rejection – Petitioner found to be suspect sheet holder and son of co-accused alleged to have conspired – Recovery of weapon and alleged role reflected in charge-sheet sufficient to proceed – No prima facie case for discharge made out – Revision dismissed [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order of Trial Court refusing discharge confirmed – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum Awarded in Excess of Claim – Just Compensation – Tribunal awarded ₹1.3 Crores against claimed ₹82 Lakhs – Insurance Company objected to grant of compensation beyond claim – Held: Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, courts and tribunals are empowered to grant “just compensation” irrespective of claimed amount – Social welfare legislation permits award above claimed figure to meet ends of justice – No legal embargo on granting compensation more than what is claimed [Paras 42-52] –

Assessment of Income – Guesswork in Absence of Documentary Proof – Permissible – Claimant’s income assessed as ₹20,000/month though no tax returns or formal proof was filed – Tribunal relied on lease agreements, oral testimony, and surrounding circumstances – Held: In motor accident cases, adjudication of income can involve reasonable estimation or guesswork where evidence is credible – Income determined by tribunal based on broad-based judicial approach found justified [Paras 53-61] –

Permanent Disability – Evidence – Medical and Lay Witnesses – Compensation for Future Care – Claimant rendered 100% disabled due to spinal cord injury (C5-C6) – Evidence from 20 witnesses including treating doctors, physiotherapists, hospital administrators, and attendants established permanent incapacitation – Costs of long-term physiotherapy, personal assistants, and medical expenses proved – Tribunal’s award supported by extensive documentary and oral evidence [Paras 17-41] –

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court's Deference to Tribunal’s Factual Findings – Insurance Company challenged only two components: compensation exceeding claim and lack of income proof – Tribunal’s findings on all other heads of compensation remained unchallenged – Held: Where tribunal takes a possible view based on evidence, appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported by record [Paras 62-63] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award of ₹1.3 Crores upheld – Insurance Company and other respondents directed to deposit awarded amount within 2 months – Claimant permitted to withdraw full compensation without security – No costs [Paras 63-64].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Appeal Against Acquittal – Respondent accused of driving a tanker rashly and hitting a cyclist who died on the spot – Eyewitness accounts (PW5 and PW6) found inconsistent, contradictory, and uncorroborated by physical evidence – No mechanical inspection of the cycle conducted – Tanker inspection showed no fresh damage – No photographs or reliable scene reconstruction adduced – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified [Paras 2–6, 13–15, 20–21].

Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictions – PW6 claimed to witness the accident from both inside and outside a bus – PW5 admitted he did not see the driver – Statements made under Section 161 CrPC by PW6 contradicted his court deposition – No proof of witness presence at scene through memos or photographs – Held: Testimonies unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5, 13–14].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal by Trial Court reinforces presumption of innocence – Appellate court must be cautious in overturning acquittals unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable or perverse – Held: Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on evidence – No grounds for interference [Paras 17–19].

IPC Section 304A – Requirement of Proof – Essential ingredients include rash or negligent act directly causing death – High speed alone not sufficient to infer rashness – Mere occurrence of accident not proof of negligence – Held: In absence of evidence on speed, traffic conditions, or manner of driving, conviction under Section 304A cannot be sustained [Paras 10–12, 16].

Presumption of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Inapplicability – Held: Principle applies only when circumstances unmistakably point to negligence – Not attracted merely because an accident occurred – Criminal negligence must be established through specific evidence, not inference [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279 and 304A IPC upheld – Court finds prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment found reasonable, based on lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution case – Double presumption of innocence reinforced [Paras 20–21].

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum – Concealment of Income – Revision Dismissed – Revisionist-husband, a company director, challenged Family Court order directing payment of ₹20,000/- p.m. each to wife and daughter – He alleged that maintenance was excessive considering his income of ₹2.4 lakh p.a. – Wife alleged concealment of true income and production of manipulated ITRs – Documentary evidence showed deposits exceeding ₹67 lakh in company accounts and assets worth over ₹1 crore – Court found deliberate suppression of income – Held: Revisionist had sufficient means and moral/legal duty to maintain wife and daughter [Paras 15–27].

Wife Living Separately – Justifiable Cause – Evidence showed wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment – Husband failed to cross-examine her on key allegations – Trial court rightly held that she was living separately for sufficient reasons [Paras 10–11].

Wife’s Qualification – Capability to Earn – Effect – Wife, though qualified (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma), left employment at husband’s insistence – Presently unemployed and caring for minor child – Mere capability to work not ground to deny maintenance [Paras 12–14].

Standard of Living – Principle of Parity – Wife entitled to live in similar standard as husband – Husband’s attempt to evade liability by showing reduced income rejected – Maintenance to ensure dignity and prevent destitution – Court reiterated that sustenance implies living consistent with family status [Paras 18–22].

Determination of Quantum – Guiding Principles – Reaffirmed Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor meagre – Financial capacity, lifestyle, inflation, and dependent obligations to be considered [Para 23].

Presumption – Able-Bodied Husband – Following Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Del 174) – Able-bodied man presumed capable of earning sufficient to maintain wife and child; concealment of income invites adverse inference [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court order upheld – ₹20,000/- per month each to wife and minor daughter affirmed – No interference warranted [Para 30].

Income Tax – TDS Credit – Non-reflection in Form 26AS – Refund entitlement – Petitioner, a cooperative society exempt under Section 80P, sought refund of TDS deducted for A.Y. 2009–10 to 2015–16 – Department refused refund citing mismatch with Form 26AS – Held: Once assessee furnishes Form 16A evidencing deduction, Assessing Officer must verify and grant credit even if TDS is not reflected in Form 26AS – Assessee cannot be denied refund for fault of deductor [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Tax Administration – CBDT Circular No. 05/2013 – Compliance – CBDT directed that when assessee produces TDS certificate, Assessing Officer must verify payment with deductor and grant due credit – High Court reiterates that AOs are bound to follow the circular and cannot compel taxpayers to suffer delays caused by third parties [Paras 7–8].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Refund of wrongly withheld TDS – Court follows Delhi High Court’s Court on Its Motion v. CIT and Allahabad High Court’s Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. UOI – Mandamus issued directing AO to verify petitioner’s documents and pass refund order within four weeks – Assessee entitled to rely on cited precedents and CBDT circular before AO [Paras 4, 6, 9–11].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 to verify Form 16A certificates and issue refund in accordance with law within four weeks.