Income Tax – Characterization of Receipts – Settlement Agreement – Rs. 32.42 crores received by ITC from ELEL under a settlement agreement related to disputes over a hotel operating license agreement – Issue of whether the sum is capital or revenue receipt – ITAT held it as a long-term capital gain – High Court reversed, determining it as a revenue receipt, taxable as business income [Paras 1-32].

Licenses and Trading Contracts – Legal Nature – Examination of the operating license agreement dated May 3, 1986, between ITC and ELEL – Agreement found to be a trading contract with no right, title, or interest conferred on ITC – Termination and subsequent settlement considered part of ITC’s ordinary business activities – Held that the sum received is a revenue receipt [Paras 14-21].

Evidentiary Considerations – Treatment of Receipts – Analysis of the purpose and nature of the settlement payment – Reliance on precedents distinguishing capital from revenue receipts – Court concluded that the settlement was compensation for the termination of a trading contract, thus revenue in nature [Paras 24-29].

Legal Precedents – Application of Judicial Principles – Cited Supreme Court judgments to distinguish between capital and revenue receipts – Compensation related to trading operations generally considered revenue receipts unless related to loss of a source of income – Settlement for termination of trading contracts treated as revenue receipts [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – ITAT’s finding reversed – Rs. 32.42 crores held to be revenue receipt and taxable accordingly – High Court’s judgment upheld [Para 32].
 

Bail – Discretion of Court – Judicial Custody and Completion of Investigation – Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the accused, Dr. Efthickar Ahamed, who has been in judicial custody for 45 days, with the investigation completed and the final report filed – Supreme Court precedents emphasize bail as the rule and jail as the exception, with a focus on Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Bail granted with stringent conditions [Paras 1-11].

Criminal Antecedents – Impact on Bail Decision – Prosecution’s opposition based on accused’s involvement in a similar crime – Court acknowledges previous criminal antecedents but stresses the completion of investigation and lack of need for further detention – Bail granted subject to conditions to ensure no further offenses and no tampering with evidence [Paras 4-6, 11].

Right to Bail – Constitutional Perspective – Court references Supreme Court decisions underscoring the right to bail as integral to personal liberty under Article 21 – Emphasizes that once the charge sheet is filed, continued detention requires strong justification – Accused’s continued detention deemed unnecessary post-investigation [Paras 7-10].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petitioner directed to be released on executing a bond with two solvent sureties – Specific conditions imposed to ensure appearance before the investigating officer, prevent inducement or threat to witnesses, prohibit further offenses, and restrict movement within certain areas [Paras 11-12].
 

Hindu Succession Act – Daughters’ Right to Inheritance – Appeal challenged trial court’s decree granting 1/8^th share of property to the respondent, a daughter of the deceased – Appellants claimed an oral agreement among heirs excluding daughters from the property share – Trial court decreed in favor of the respondent – High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming equal inheritance rights of daughters under Section 8 of the Act [Paras 1-32].

Mutation – Illegality of Excluding Daughters – The mutation of property in the names of only the sons deemed illegal – High Court emphasized that daughters, as Class-I heirs, are entitled to equal share and proper mutation reflecting all heirs [Paras 23-24].

Constructive Trust – Contributions to Property – Appellants’ claim of exclusive ownership due to constructing a building on the inherited land with personal funds rejected – High Court held that contributions did not negate respondent’s statutory share [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree of the trial court upheld – Respondent entitled to 1/8^th share of the property and profits [Paras 32].

Trusts and Estates – Development Agreement – Originating Summons for Opinion – Plaintiff sought court’s opinion on executing a Development Agreement concerning Raghunath Chatterjee Street property for the benefit of deities – Agreement to include adult male descendants as confirming parties – Court affirmed benefit for deities and consent from family members – Deities’ safety considered paramount, proposals for property development approved [Paras 1-20].

Maintenance and Security of Deities – Funds Insufficiency – Plaintiff highlighted financial challenges in maintaining properties and deities – Proposal by defendant no. 13 for property development included financial benefits for deities and allocation of ground floor – Court approved proposals ensuring safety and upliftment of deities, considering current financial state and property conditions [Paras 7-19].

Procedural Aspects – Compliance with KMC Regulations – Court directed compliance with Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) rules for property development – Proposals modified in accordance with FAR and permissible construction area – Court emphasized adherence to municipal guidelines and proper planning [Paras 13-20].

Decision: CSOS 1 of 2023 disposed of – Court affirmed the benefit of executing Development Agreement for deities – Approved proposals ensuring deities’ safety and financial upliftment – Confirming parties from family directed to join Agreement [Para 21].
 

Contract Law – Dealer Agreement – Appellant, a public sector oil corporation, introduced digital e-locking and VSAT systems in retail outlets – Imposed monthly and annual charges on the respondent-dealer without explicit consent – Single Judge held such unilateral imposition invalid under dealership agreement terms – Appeal by appellant dismissed – Corporation required to bear installation and maintenance costs as per agreement [Paras 1-16].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Alternative Remedy – Appellant contended writ petition not maintainable due to arbitration clause – High Court held alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction in contractual disputes involving public authorities, relying on Supreme Court precedent – Appeal dismissed [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – Responsibility for installing and maintaining e-locking and VSAT systems lies with appellant-corporation – Imposition of charges on respondent-dealer without consent invalid – Writ petition maintainable despite arbitration clause – Costs not awarded – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 13-16].

Trusteeship Removal – Grounds of Removal – The appellant was removed from his position as hereditary trustee due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements under Sections 29 and 30 of the Act, unauthorized leasing of temple properties, improper handling of property registers, and unauthorized collection of donations for temple renovations. The court found that the appellant failed to provide satisfactory explanations for these charges, justifying his removal [Paras 1-26].

Preparation and Maintenance of Property Registers – The appellant omitted certain properties from the new property register and failed to submit the old property register, violating Sections 29 and 30 of the Act. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining accurate records and the statutory obligations under the Act [Paras 10-16].

Unauthorized Leasing of Properties – The appellant leased out temple properties without the necessary permissions from the Commissioner, violating Section 34 of the Act. The court upheld the respondent’s finding that this constituted a serious breach of trust and justified removal from trusteeship [Paras 17-20].

Improper Collection of Donations – The appellant collected donations without forming a Thiruppani committee and without proper authorization, violating Rules 53 and 56. The court underscored the procedural requirements for collecting donations and the appellant’s failure to comply with them [Paras 21-25].

Decision - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed. The order of removal passed by the respondent is upheld, and the appellant’s removal from the position of hereditary trustee is confirmed [Para 26].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Pleadings – Petitioner challenged the trial court’s partial rejection of the amendment application – Contention that proposed amendment did not change cause of action – High Court held proposed amendment only explained existing cause of action without introducing a new one – Trial court’s order set aside [Paras 1-16].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI, Rule 17 CPC – Legal principles governing amendments – Court emphasized amendments should be allowed if they are necessary for determining the real questions in controversy – Found that trial court erred in holding that proposed amendment introduced a distinct cause of action [Paras 3-13].

Limitation Issue – Preliminary Objection – Respondents’ objection on the ground of limitation discussed – Court held that merits of limitation objection cannot be decided at the amendment stage – Reaffirmed that the proposed amendment did not prejudice respondents as they could file an additional written statement [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Trial court’s order rejecting the amendment application in part set aside – Petitioner allowed to incorporate the amendment in the plaint – Respondents granted liberty to file additional written statement [Paras 14-16].
 

Maintenance for Minor Child – Revision against trial court’s order – Respondent directed to deposit maintenance arrears and continue interim payments – Revision against ex-parte maintenance order favoring minor child – Trial court’s direction for respondent to pay Rs.25,000 p.m. as maintenance – Respondent’s plea to set aside ex-parte order granted, with costs of Rs.5,000 – High Court directs respondent to deposit entire arrears and continue interim maintenance of Rs.5,000 p.m. [Paras 1-6].

Trial Court’s Order – Interim Maintenance – Respondent agreed to deposit entire arrears – High Court directed trial court to expedite disposal of maintenance case – Emphasized adherence to fair process and timely payment [Para 5].

Modification of Order – Respondent’s compliance with maintenance arrears – High Court modified earlier order allowing deposit of entire arrears within two weeks – Registry directed to issue corrected order copy [Paras 2-5].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case disposed of with directions to deposit arrears and continue interim maintenance – Trial court to dispose of maintenance case on merits within three months – Connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition closed [Para 6].

Encroachment Removal – Interim Protection – Petitioners challenged the demolition of structures on land claimed to be private, arguing that the JDA’s actions were beyond their authority under Section 72 of the JDA Act, as the land was not public. The court considered the interim prayer due to the Vacation Bench's limited role and emphasized that individual cases were not adjudicated by the Division Bench's general directions [Paras 1-13].

Land Acquisition – Possession and Title – Petitioners asserted rightful possession and title over the land, challenging the JDA's initiation of demolition without specific orders concerning their individual cases. The court noted the petitioners' claims of title and possession, providing interim protection until a Regular Bench could examine the matter post-vacation [Paras 16-24].

Right to Property – Article 300-A – The court referenced the Supreme Court’s recent judgment outlining the seven sub-rights under Article 300-A of the Constitution, emphasizing the necessity for the State to comply with these rights during land acquisition and related actions [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Interim Relief Granted – The court restrained the JDA from demolishing the petitioners' property on private land, recognizing their entitlement to protection under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matters were scheduled for hearing before a Regular Bench [Paras 27-28].