Income Tax – Registration of Charitable Trust – Appeal against ITAT Order – Respondent trust’s registration under Section 12AA cancelled by Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (CIT€) due to non-commencement of activities – ITAT set aside the cancellation, holding that activities need not commence for registration eligibility – High Court upheld ITAT’s decision, referencing precedents that registration can be granted based on proposed activities aligning with charitable objectives [Paras 1-13].

Procedure for Registration under Section 12AA – Requirements – High Court held that CIT€ must assess the genuineness of trust’s objects and proposed activities – Non-commencement of activities alone not a ground for refusal – Cited cases include Ananda Social and Educational Trust vs. CIT (2020) and Director of Income Tax vs. Foundation of Ophthalmic & Optometry Research Education Centre (2013) affirming registration eligibility based on objectives [Paras 5-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court found no merit in the revenue’s appeal, affirmed ITAT’s order – Held that the CIT€ improperly refused registration based solely on non-commencement of activities without doubting the genuineness of charitable objectives [Para 13].

Pre-emption Rights – Tenancy and Co-sharer Claims – Plaintiffs sought to pre-empt a sale based on tenancy claims over the suit land – Defendants claimed superior rights as tenants in possession – Rival pre-emptors, Samey Singh and Partap, also filed suit claiming rights as co-sharers and tenants.

Tenancy Rights – Evidence and Presumptions – Trial court and first appellate court found that plaintiffs failed to prove tenancy rights – Defendants Samey Singh and Partap found to be in possession as tenants – Presumptions under Section 44 of Punjab Land Revenue Act discussed.

Co-sharer Rights – Superior Right to Pre-empt – Samey Singh and Partap established as co-sharers by virtue of a prior sale deed – Court upheld their superior right to pre-empt the sale under Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 – Tenancy rights of plaintiffs not supported by evidence.

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Second Appeal – Concurrent findings of lower courts based on proper appreciation of evidence – High Court cannot interfere with such findings unless specific exceptions are met – Reference to Supreme Court judgments on the scope of second appeals.

Decision: Appeals dismissed. Lower courts' judgments affirmed. Plaintiffs' suit to pre-empt the sale dismissed. Rival pre-emptors Samey Singh and Partap's suit decreed, affirming their right to pre-empt based on co-sharer status.

PIL - Town Planning – Change of Land Use – Petition challenged the conversion of land designated for sports complex to residential and commercial use by CIDCO – Contention that such conversion violates MRTP Act and prior Government Resolutions – High Court found CIDCO's actions contrary to statutory provisions and lacking necessary government approval – CIDCO's tender process for allotment to private developers held illegal [Paras 1-23].

Government Resolution – Compliance – State Government's shift of sports complex site to a rural area without infrastructure questioned – High Court held decision arbitrary and against public interest – Directed reinstatement of land use as per original government resolution [Paras 20-22].

Public Land Allotment – Arbitrary and Illegal Allotment of Public Land for Commercial Use – Challenge to Government Decision and CIDCO Tender Process – High Court examines lack of legal basis and disproportionate pricing of land allotted to State Government and private parties – Comparison with similar allotments at significantly lower rates – Held: The decision to demand Rs. 2500 crores from the State Government for 20 acres, while 36 acres were allotted to NMMC for Rs. 22.17 crores, was arbitrary and lacked any legal foundation. The transfer of cost burden to NMMC and subsequent tender for private allotment was manipulative and not justified by any record. [Paras 86-88]

Public Interest and Sports Facilities – Illegal Shifting of Reserved Land for Government Sports Complex – High Court finds Government and CIDCO’s actions contrary to public interest – Emphasizes need for proportionate and reasonable pricing of public land and adherence to earmarked purposes – Decision to shift sports complex to a remote area without justification is illegal and arbitrary – Public interest in maintaining sports facilities highlighted. [Paras 89-91]

Earmarking and Reservation of Public Land – High Court stresses importance of preserving earmarked land for public facilities – CIDCO’s allotment of land reserved for Government Sports Complex to private parties deemed illegal – Maintains that earmarked land should be treated akin to reserved land – Actions contrary to CIDCO’s established zoning and development plans quashed. [Paras 93-95]

Judicial Oversight of Executive Actions – Importance of Judicial Scrutiny in Preventing Unreasonable Government Decisions – High Court rejects delay and laches argument in public interest matters – Asserts that public interest must prevail over private interest – Reiterates importance of maintaining public amenities for future generations. [Paras 96-97]

Sports and Public Welfare – Supreme Court and High Court Emphasis on Importance of Sports Facilities – High Court references judicial opinions and literature underscoring significance of sports in society – Criticizes Government’s lack of commitment to developing sports infrastructure – Decision to commercialize earmarked land instead of utilizing it for sports facilities quashed. [Paras 98-115]

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held: Government Resolution shifting sports complex from Ghansoli to Nanore quashed – CIDCO directed to hand over land at Ghansoli for Government Sports Complex free of cost or at a specified rate – Allotment of plot to private respondent set aside with refund and interest – State Government allowed to develop additional sports facilities at Nanore if desired – Four-week stay on order for handing over land. [Paras 116-118]
 

Bail Application – Section 439 Cr.P.C. – Petitioner accused of sexual assault on a minor – Bail application filed after one month of judicial custody – Defence claims false implication and completed investigation – Prosecution contends risk of intimidation and tampering with evidence – Supreme Court precedents emphasize bail as the rule and jail as the exception – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-11].

Judicial Custody – Investigation Complete – Petitioner in custody for 30 days – Completed medical examination and final report submitted – Prolonged detention deemed unnecessary in light of completed investigation [Paras 6, 11].

Supreme Court Precedents – Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. – Grant of bail is the rule, jail is an exception – Discretion to be exercised judiciously and compassionately – State of Kerala v. Raneef – Indefinite detention of undertrial prisoners violates Article 21 – Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar – Prolonged pre-trial detention unreasonable and unfair [Paras 7-10].

Bail Conditions – Petitioner released on executing bond with sureties – Conditions include regular reporting to the Investigating Officer, non-inducement of victim or witnesses, non-commission of offences, and surrender of passport – Provisions for modification and cancellation of bail outlined [Paras 11, (i)-(ix)].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner released on bail subject to conditions aimed at preventing interference with investigation and ensuring appearance for trial.

SARFAESI Act – Agricultural Land Exemption – Writ Jurisdiction: Petitioner challenged the initiation of SARFAESI Act proceedings against its agricultural land, arguing that such land is exempt under Section 31(i) of the Act. The High Court reiterated that the classification of land in revenue records alone does not determine its status under SARFAESI; actual use and intention of the parties are crucial. The court emphasized that such determinations are within the jurisdiction of the appropriate tribunal and not for writ courts unless exceptional circumstances exist [Paras 1-9].

SARFAESI Act – Alternative Remedy – OTS Proposal: High Court dismissed the petition, stressing the availability of statutory remedies under SARFAESI Act. The court noted the petitioner's request for a new OTS did not warrant interference in SARFAESI proceedings. It reaffirmed the principle that borrowers do not have a vested right to an OTS, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner directed to pursue remedies under SARFAESI Act. The court allowed for the possibility of a mutually acceptable settlement between the parties, clarifying no opinion on the merits [Paras 13-14].

Civil Law – Recovery of Money – Suit for recovery of ₹3,39,101/- – Commercial Court dismissed the suit – Appellant claims services rendered, respondent disputes cash payments – Held, respondent failed to establish cash payments – No credible evidence supporting cash payments – Appellant’s appeal allowed – Judgment and decree set aside – Respondent liable for principal amount and interest [Paras 1-36]. 

Evidence Law – Burden of Proof – Defendant’s burden to prove cash payments – No receipt or acknowledgment from appellant – Defendant’s testimony not supported by corroborative evidence – Court found testimony self-serving and unsubstantiated [Paras 24-33]. 

Interest on Due Amount – Appellant entitled to interest at 18% per annum on the outstanding amount from the date of legal notice till the institution of the suit – Further interest at 12% per annum from the date of institution till realization – Costs awarded to appellant [Paras 34-37]. 

Decision:   Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree by the Commercial Court set aside – Appellant entitled to recover ₹3,39,101/- with interest as specified – Costs awarded to appellant. 

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Framing of Charges – Section 306 IPC – Allegations based on suicide note – Deceased allegedly committed suicide due to non-repayment of loan by petitioner – Suicide note does not indicate instigation or intent to abet suicide by petitioner – Mere refusal to repay loan insufficient to constitute abetment – Insufficient material to frame charges under Section 306 IPC – Order framing charges set aside – Petitioner discharged [Paras 1-37].

Evidence Law – Suicide Note – Role in Framing Charges – Suicide note alleging harassment due to unpaid loan – Forensic report inconclusive on handwriting – No direct or indirect evidence of instigation or intent to abet suicide – Charge under Section 306 IPC requires clear instigation or aiding of suicide [Paras 19-30].

Legal Principles – Framing of Charges – Judicial Review – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Court’s duty to sift and weigh evidence to determine prima facie case – Charges should not be framed on suspicion alone – Application of principles from Prafulla Kumar Samal and Kanchan Kumar cases [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order framing charges under Section 306 IPC set aside – Petitioner discharged in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 355/2020.
 

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Recovery Proceedings Against Personal Guarantors – Petitioners, personal guarantors of term loans and working capital facilities granted to M/s Asian Colour Coated Ispat Limited (ACCIL), challenged the recovery actions initiated by respondents post-approval of a resolution plan by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The main contention was that with the assignment of the principal borrower's debt and issuance of No Due Certificates, no liability remained against the petitioners​​.

Assignment of Debt and Personal Guarantees – Petitioners argued that the assignment of debt to M/s Hasaud Steel Limited and the issuance of No Due Certificates to the principal borrower extinguished their liability as guarantors. They contended that only the assignee of the debt could enforce the personal guarantees​​.

Excluded Rights in Resolution Plan – The resolution plan approved by the NCLT included provisions for "excluded rights" that allowed financial creditors to pursue legal remedies against personal guarantors. The NCLAT upheld the financial creditors' rights to proceed against the guarantors, stating that such rights were explicitly safeguarded in the resolution plan​​.

Supreme Court's Affirmation – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals against the NCLAT's decision, affirming the financial creditors' rights to recover from the personal guarantors despite the approval of the resolution plan and assignment of debt​​.

Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the financial creditors retained the right to pursue recovery actions against the petitioners as personal guarantors. The petitioners' claims were found to be without merit in light of the comprehensive framework of the IBC and the specific provisions of the resolution plan​​.

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Petition challenging the recall of a key witness (PW-2) for re-examination – Respondent sought recall to correct errors and omissions during prior cross-examination conducted by a legal aid counsel – Trial Court’s decision to allow recall upheld – No manifest error in Trial Court’s decision; re-examination deemed necessary for just decision and to avoid miscarriage of justice [Paras 1-10].

Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Application – Importance of re-examining PW-2 due to their vital role in the case – Previous counsel did not represent respondent's choice – Respondent entitled to correct bona fide errors – Court emphasizes the importance of fair trial and just decision, balancing against unnecessary delays and hardship to witness [Paras 5-9].
 

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Held – Trial Court’s order to recall PW-2 for re-examination upheld – No interference warranted as the decision aids in achieving a just trial outcome [Paras 9-10].