Devaswom Board – Temple Administration – Welfare of Temple Animals – Complaint regarding deplorable condition of Gosala at Vaikom Mahadeva Temple – Allegation of starvation, inadequate shelter, poor drainage, lack of veterinary care and non-appointment of full-time cowherd – Ombudsman’s Report No.48/2025 placed before Court – Photographs and Advocate Commissioner’s report revealed pathetic condition of bulls and cows donated by devotees through ritual ‘nadayiruthal’ – Held: Travancore Devaswom Board has shown little priority to welfare of animals and systemic lapses require immediate corrective measures [Paras 2–9].

Animal Welfare – Religious Significance of Nandi – Court referred to Nandi Upapurana describing Nandi as vahana and foremost devotee of Lord Shiva – Observed that bulls and cows in temple premises are objects of reverence and their neglect is shocking and disturbing – Temple authorities bound to ensure dignity, hygiene and proper care of animals donated by devotees [Paras 10–11].

Administrative Accountability – Directions to Devaswom Board – Court directed designation of specific Administrative Officer responsible for Gosala maintenance – Mandated repairs to cowshed, separate feeding spaces for bulls and cows, proper drainage and ventilation, appointment of full-time cowherd (Gopalakan), enhancement of fodder arrangements and opening of separate bank account exclusively for Gosala maintenance – Officer made directly answerable to Court and liable for lapses – Ombudsman directed to conduct regular and surprise inspections [Paras 12–14].

Policy Direction – Long-term Measures – Board permitted to retain one bull symbolically at Vaikom and shift others to Kalikavu Bull Protection Centre – Directed to complete repairs at Kalikavu within three months – Board advised to prepare comprehensive master plan for establishment and maintenance of Gosalas in Siva temples using dedicated funds and sponsorships [Paras 13–14].

Decision: DBP disposed of with detailed mandatory directions – Compliance affidavit to be filed within three months – Matter posted for compliance report on 25/05/2026.

Civil Law - Partition – Settlement Deed Creating Life Estate and Vested Remainder – Settlement deed conferred life interest on mother without power of alienation and vested remainder on her sons and their male progeny – Both sons predeceased life estate holder – Held, vested rights accrued on date of settlement and not contingent – Death of vested remaindermen before possession does not defeat their interest – Their widows and legal heirs entitled to succeed to such vested shares – Life estate holder had no right to execute relinquishment deed – Relinquishment ineffective – Trial Court decree upheld [Paras 41-46, 55-56].

Family Status – Validity of Marriage – Presumption from Cohabitation – Appellant claimed to be legally wedded wife of Tammi Naidu – Oral evidence of herself, relatives and tenant coupled with documentary evidence (criminal proceedings describing her as wife) proved marriage – Long cohabitation raises strong presumption of valid marriage – No cross-appeal against trial court finding – Held, appellant is legally wedded wife – Finding affirmed [Paras 25-27].

Legitimacy and Heirship – Proof of Relationship – Plaintiff claimed to be son born to Madhavarao and Anjamma – Evidence of mother, independent witness and admissions of defendants established marriage and paternity – Presumption in favour of marriage where parties lived together as husband and wife – No rebuttal by cogent evidence – Held, plaintiff proved to be son and legal heir of Madhavarao [Paras 28-33].

Will – Proof of Execution – Registered Will must satisfy Section 68 Evidence Act read with Section 63 Succession Act – Scribe and two attesting witnesses examined – Evidence established that testatrix gave instructions, Will was read over, thumb impression affixed in presence of attestors and attested accordingly – No suspicious circumstances – Held, Will duly proved – Beneficiary entitled to share of testatrix [Paras 34-39].

Limited Estate – Power of Alienation – Life estate holder cannot convey better title than possessed – Settlement deed conferred only right of enjoyment without power of alienation – Relinquishment deed executed by life estate holder held ineffective – Vested remainder could not be defeated by such relinquishment – Rights of widows and son of predeceased vested remaindermen protected [Paras 42-45, 55].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Absence of Cross-Appeal – Respondent cannot seek larger relief in appeal without filing cross-appeal or cross-objections – Trial Court findings regarding shares accepted for over two decades – Held, in absence of challenge, respondents cannot seek modification of decree to claim entire property – Appeals confined to grounds raised by appellant [Paras 49-53].

Decision: A.S. Nos. 804 and 820 of 2002 dismissed – Common judgment and decree dated 09.09.1998 in O.S. Nos.13 and 18 of 1986 confirmed – Parties to bear their own costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction of Partner – Acquittal of Firm – Trial Court acquitted A1 firm and A3 partner but convicted A2 partner – Magistrate proceeded on erroneous factual premise treating A1 as partner instead of firm – Non-application of mind regarding vicarious liability under Section 141 – Appellate Court failed to notice fundamental error – Held: Findings of guilt based on erroneous presumption of fact are perverse and unsustainable – Matter remanded for retrial against firm and A2 – Acquittal of A3 confirmed [Paras 8-13].

Vicarious Liability – Partnership Firm – Distinction between Company and Firm – Reliance placed on Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar (2025) 10 SCC 96 – Partnership firm not a separate legal entity distinct from partners – Liability of partners is joint and several and not purely vicarious – However, in present case firm was arrayed as accused and acquitted due to misappreciation of facts – Judgment relied upon by respondent not applicable to sustain conviction founded on factual error [Paras 10, 12].

Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Rebuttal – Cheque issued from firm’s account and signature not disputed – Statutory presumption arises – Defence sought to rebut through oral and documentary evidence alleging forged invoices and absence of corresponding sales tax entries – Held: In view of foundational factual error in appreciation of accused status, matter requires fresh adjudication on merits by trial Court [Paras 6-9, 12-13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Remand for Retrial – Error apparent on face of record regarding identity and liability of accused – Interest of justice demands retrial – No separate notice required to firm for remand as firm not distinct legal entity apart from partners – Evidence already adduced to be considered – Parties permitted to lead additional evidence – Trial directed to be concluded within two months – Appeal against acquittal rendered infructuous [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Criminal Revision disposed of – Conviction and sentence of petitioner/A2 set aside – Matter remanded for retrial against firm (A1) and petitioner/A2 – Acquittal of A3 confirmed – Trial Court directed to conclude proceedings within two months.

Income Tax – Reassessment – Section 147/148 – Double Reopening on Same Transaction – Cash deposits of Rs.4,42,47,290/- in Canara Bank for AY 2019-20 earlier examined by ITO under Section 147 – Assessment Order dated 30.03.2023 passed determining income at NIL after verification of returns filed under different PAN – DCIT subsequently issued fresh notice under Section 148 on 30.06.2025 on identical transaction treating same deposits as escaped income – Held: Same transaction cannot be subjected to reassessment twice under Section 147 – Subsequent proceedings invalid [Paras 6.4-6.6, 10].

Reopening of Assessment – Change of Opinion – Tangible Material – It is well settled that reassessment cannot be initiated on the same material already considered in earlier proceedings – Reopening on identical facts amounts to review, which is impermissible – Assessing Officer must have “reasons to believe” based on tangible material – Mere suspicion or ipse dixit insufficient [Paras 7, 7.1-7.2].

Finality of Assessment – Doctrine of Finality – Earlier assessment order passed under Section 147 attained finality and was not challenged or reversed – Quasi-judicial authority cannot sit in appeal over concluded findings of another competent authority on same subject-matter – Finality of adjudication must be respected for orderly administration of tax law [Paras 6.11-6.12, 9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Maintainability – Though Income Tax Act provides statutory remedies, existence of alternative remedy is not absolute bar to exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 – Where jurisdictional error apparent and facts undisputed, relegating assessee to statutory remedy would cause prejudice – Writ petition maintainable [Paras 5, 5.1-5.5].

Principle Against Double Jeopardy in Taxation – Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa – Assessee cannot be vexed twice for same cause and same transaction – Initiating fresh reassessment for identical deposits amounts to impermissible duplication – Protection extends to both assessee and Revenue to prevent multiplicity [Paras 6.7-6.9].

Jurisdictional Error – Self-Contradictory Reasoning – DCIT acknowledged earlier reassessment by ITO computing income at NIL yet proceeded “to protect the interest of revenue” – Held: Such reasoning self-conflicting and arbitrary – Mechanical rejection of explanation without fresh material vitiates proceedings [Paras 6.1, 6.13, 9].

Decision: Order dated 24.06.2025 passed under Section 148A(3) quashed – Notice dated 30.06.2025 issued under Section 148 and intimation dated 25.07.2025 under Section 144B set aside – Writ Petition allowed – No order as to costs – Questions of law, if any, left open [Paras 10-12].

SARFAESI Act – Alternative Remedy – Writ against DRT Interim Order – Single Judge quashed DRT order rejecting interim relief in S.A. under Section 17 – Statutory appeal available under Section 18 – Supreme Court repeatedly held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious remedy exists – Held: Entertaining and allowing writ petition on first day without exhausting statutory remedy is contrary to law laid down in Satyawati Tondon and subsequent decisions – Impugned order set aside [Paras 19-21, 25].

Maintainability of Special Appeal – Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules – DRT constituted under Entry 45 List I (Banking) – Exclusionary clause in Rule 5 not attracted – Special appeal maintainable against order of Single Judge in SARFAESI matters – Held: Appeal maintainable [Paras 4-5].

DRT Order – Speaking or Non-Speaking – Single Judge held DRT order to be non-speaking – Division Bench perused DRT order and found detailed consideration of submissions and recording of reasons – Whether reasons justified is matter for appeal under Section 18 – Held: DRT order cannot be termed non-speaking – Writ not maintainable on such ground [Paras 17-18, 20].

Writ Jurisdiction – Exceptions to Alternative Remedy Rule – Exceptions limited to cases of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, challenge to vires, or action contrary to statute – Respondents heard before DRT – No violation of statutory provisions or jurisdictional error demonstrated – Held: Case does not fall within recognised exceptions – Writ wrongly entertained [Paras 19-20].

Auction Purchaser – Non-Issuance of Notice – Writ petition allowed on first day without issuing notice to auction purchaser despite issuance of sale certificate – Held: Procedure improper and prejudicial to rights of auction purchaser [Para 23].

Article 227 Jurisdiction – Roster Allocation – Single Judge exercised powers under Article 227 though jurisdiction as per roster dated 31.07.2025 vested in different Courts – Held: Order passed without jurisdiction in view of roster allocation – Unsustainable [Para 24-25].

Decision: Special Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of learned Single Judge quashed – Respondent nos. 1 to 3 granted liberty to file appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 – No order as to costs.

Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Second Appeal – Suit for Possession and Declaration – Dismissal Upheld – Appellant's suit for possession of DDA Slum Flat and declaration that documents dated 27.03.2000 were forged and fabricated was dismissed by Trial Court on 19.04.2017 on the grounds that the Plaintiff had failed to prove possession and the Suit was barred by limitation – Appeal was preferred only on 04.09.2021 with a delay of 1589 days, accompanied by an Application under Order XLI Rule 3-A CPC for condonation of delay – District Judge dismissed the delay condonation application on 24.09.2025 and consequently dismissed the Appeal – Appellant challenged the said order in the present Second Appeal – Held: No merit in the present Appeal – Second Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-3, 37-38].

"Selectively Active in Court" – Participation in Execution Proceedings While Ignoring the Right of Appeal – First Ground of Delay Rejected – Appellant claimed to be a senior citizen suffering from serious ailments, physical incapacity and extreme financial hardship preventing timely filing of the Appeal – No medical documents were placed on record to substantiate incapacitation – Second ground of inability to engage a legal counsel also rejected because the Appellant had appeared before the Executing Court on 13.02.2018, 20.03.2018 and 27.09.2018 in Execution Petition No. 387 of 2017 – Appellant was fully aware of the Decree and actively resisted execution till possession was taken on 18.03.2021 – Held: If the Appellant could contest Execution proceedings, there was no reason why he could not have filed the Appeal on time – "The Appellant had failed to act diligently and has remained selectively active in approaching the Court" [Paras 26-29].

Covid-19 Pandemic Cannot Rescue Delay That Pre-Dates the Pandemic – Third Ground Rejected – Third ground for condonation of delay was that the Covid-19 Pandemic had rendered the Appellant, a vulnerable senior citizen, unable to file the Appeal in time – District Judge correctly noted that even if the period of Covid-19 Pandemic was excluded in terms of the Supreme Court's Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 (In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation), the statutory period of limitation of 90 days from 19.04.2017 had expired long before the onset of the Pandemic – No cogent explanation was furnished for the period from 19.05.2017 to 01.03.2020 – Ground rightly rejected [Paras 30-32].

Conduct, Behaviour and Attitude of Litigant Are Decisive in Condonation – Liberal Approach Cannot Override Diligence – Delay was not rejected mechanically but on account of the Appellant's conduct – Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunath Nafar Academy & Ors. held that "conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to the inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration" and that "courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties" – Supreme Court in Basawaraj vs. Land Acquisition Officer held that condoning inordinate delay without sufficient cause "amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature" – No sufficient cause having been shown, the delay condonation application was rightly dismissed and no interference warranted [Paras 33-37].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed – No infirmity found in the order of the District Judge dismissing the Application under Order XLI Rule 3-A CPC for condonation of delay of 1504 days in filing the Appeal – Appeal disposed of along with pending applications.

Bail – Assault on Public Servant – Allegation of dragging police constable on bonnet of moving car during lawful checking – Prima facie concerted act by occupants to obstruct official duty – Seriousness of offence and stage of investigation weigh against grant of bail – Role of applicant not found minimal at this stage – Bail rejected [Paras 7, 8, 12, 27].

Bail Jurisprudence – Reliance on Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI – Principles against mechanical arrest and prolonged incarceration – Distinguished – Case involves deliberate assault on police personnel during sensitive security arrangement – Gravity and surrounding circumstances justify continued custody – No absolute rule of bail merely because investigation substantially complete [Paras 9–11].

Common Intention – Participation of Co-accused – Applicant claimed to be mere passenger – Prosecution version indicates collective act in furtherance of common intention – Specific allegations of pulling, throwing and dragging complainant – Role to be examined at trial – Discretionary relief declined [Paras 5, 7, 8].

Contempt of Court – Advocate Convicted for Criminal Contempt – Rule 16 of M.P. High Court (Conditions of Practice) Rules, 2012 – Advocate found guilty of criminal contempt and conviction affirmed by Supreme Court – No material showing purgation of contempt – Appearance before Court without compliance violative of Rule 16 – Show-cause notice directed – State Bar Council directed to inform steps taken [Paras 16, 21–24].

Regulation of Advocates’ Appearance – Inherent Powers of Constitutional Courts – Courts empowered to regulate appearance of advocates to preserve dignity and orderly functioning – Reliance on Supreme Court Bar Association, Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala, Mahipal Singh Rana and R. Muthukrishnan – Conduct of counsel found aggressive and bordering on defiance – Action warranted to uphold institutional discipline [Paras 17–20].

Decision: First bail application under Section 483 BNSS dismissed – Office directed to issue show-cause notice to Shri Awdhesh Singh Bhadauria regarding appearance despite subsisting conviction for criminal contempt – Notice to State Bar Council to report compliance/action – Matter to be listed under “Direction” in week commencing 06/04/2026.

Commercial Suit – Disclosure of Documents – Order XI Rule 1 CPC (as amended by Commercial Courts Act) – Additional Documents at Argument Stage – Suit marked undefended as defendant forfeited right to file written statement – Plaintiff sought leave to disclose documents which were in its power and possession but not filed with plaint – Held: No absolute bar under Sub-Rule 5 to Rule 1 of Order XI – Court may grant leave even after Sub-Rule 4 stage upon showing “reasonable cause” – Legislature consciously engrafted Sub-Rule 5 permitting exercise of judicial discretion – Leave granted subject to costs [Paras 15–19, 25–28].

Reasonable Cause – Meaning and Scope – Lower Threshold than “Good Cause” or “Sufficient Cause” – Plaintiff explained that documents were either located at plant office, stored in archived email database, or in possession of sister concern and were traced only after Court’s queries during arguments – Held: Causes shown were just, cogent and reasonable – At stage of granting leave, Court not required to test genuineness or veracity of documents – Such scrutiny to be undertaken at trial [Paras 21, 23–24, 26–27].

Undefended Suit – Right of Audience – Defendant having forfeited right to file written statement cannot claim right of audience in application – However, defendant entitled to cross-examine second witness limited to additional documents permitted to be disclosed [Paras 4, 29].

Scope of Judicial Discretion – Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – No Outer Time Limit Fixed – Even at argument stage, additional documents may be permitted if reasonable cause shown – Right of plaintiff to present case is a vested right in adversarial litigation – Court’s jurisdiction at this stage confined to considering whether documents should be taken on record and not their evidentiary value [Paras 25–27].

Directions – Plaintiff permitted to disclose documents annexed as “C-1” to “F” – Additional Judges’ Brief of Documents to be filed – Leave granted to file affidavit of evidence of second witness restricted to said documents – Disclosure subject to payment of Rs. 50,000/- as costs to Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks – Defendant entitled to limited cross-examination [Paras 28–31].

Decision: Application allowed – Leave granted to disclose additional documents and file affidavit of second witness restricted to such documents – Costs of Rs. 50,000/- imposed – Defendant entitled to limited cross-examination.

Criminal Contempt – Forgery and Impersonation in Judicial Proceedings – Filing of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal in Name of Wife without her Knowledge – Attempt to Leave Country in Violation of Court Order – Apology Accepted – Respondent had instituted WP(C) No. 18665/2024 and W.A. No. 942/2024 in the name of his wife without her consent by forging her signatures on vakalat and affidavit – Registrar (Judicial) enquiry confirmed impersonation – Respondent also attempted to travel abroad in violation of interim order and was deboarded – Division Bench held conduct to be contemptuous and directed initiation of suo motu contempt – In present proceedings, respondent pleaded guilty, tendered unconditional apology in conformity with Rule 14(a) of 1988 Rules, and complied with direction to pay Rs.1,50,000/- each to Kerala Legal Services Authority and to his wife – Held: Apology found genuine and bona fide – Respondent discharged from contempt – Closure not to affect pending or future civil/criminal proceedings [Paras 2–8, 13–16].

Contempt Proceedings – Plea of Guilt – Compliance with Directions – Rule 14(a) of Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988 – Affidavit initially defective – Court directed filing of additional affidavit in conformity with Rules – Respondent expressly pleaded guilty, acknowledged charges, and reiterated unconditional apology – Court satisfied that apology was not a device to evade punishment but reflected genuine remorse – Discretion exercised to accept apology and discharge contemnor [Paras 11–15].

Judicial Discipline – Violation of Interim Orders – Attempted Departure from India – Despite pendency of interlocutory application and subsisting interim order dated 09.12.2024, respondent attempted to leave India and was deboarded based on report of FRRO – Conduct considered aggravating circumstance in earlier writ appeal – Nevertheless, subsequent compliance and remorse considered sufficient to close contempt proceedings with caution that other proceedings shall continue independently [Paras 7–8, 16].

Decision: Unconditional apology accepted – Respondent discharged – Contempt of Court Case closed – Clarified that order shall not affect any pending or future civil or criminal proceedings arising from the same allegations.