Property Law – Matrimonial Home – Ownership – Respondent-husband held exclusive title over suit property based on registered Sale Deed – Appellant admitted property was purchased in respondent’s name and made limited loan repayments – Held: No co-ownership or proprietary interest established by appellant – Mere payment of a few instalments or residence during marriage does not create legal ownership rights – Benami plea barred under Benami Transactions Act [Paras 13–18, 23]

Civil Procedure – Mesne Profits – Partial Loan Contribution by Wife – Trial Court awarded mesne profits @ Rs. 3,000 per month – High Court noted appellant had made limited loan repayments and resided permissively during marriage – Respondent admitted joint contributions during cohabitation – Held: Award of mesne profits not justified in totality – Finding on mesne profits set aside [Paras 25–27]

Family Law – Right to Residence – Shared Household – Appellant claimed right to reside under Domestic Violence Act – High Court reaffirmed that right to reside in shared household is not absolute and does not confer ownership – Post-divorce, domestic relationship ceases and so does right to shared residence – Respondent entitled to seek eviction through lawful civil proceedings [Paras 20–22]

Evidence – Registered Document – Presumption of Validity – Sale Deed registered in respondent’s name remained unchallenged – Presumption of lawful execution upheld – Appellant’s admission in pleadings and cross-examination further corroborated ownership of respondent [Paras 11–15]

Appeal – Partial Interference – Findings of Trial Court on title and possession upheld – Findings on mesne profits/damages set aside – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 19, 28]

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Decree of possession upheld – Award of mesne profits/damages set aside – No error in Trial Court’s findings on ownership – Respondent entitled to recover possession – Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Procedure – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Right of Victim – Appellant sought leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in complaint involving serious offences under IPC – Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran held that victims have an unconditional right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. – High Court followed the same in Dharampal v. State of Haryana – Held: Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal [Paras 3–4]

Limitation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 13-day delay in filing the appeal – Delay condoned for sufficient cause shown [Para 1]

Decision: Application under Section 378(4) treated as appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Registry directed to transfer records to Sessions Judge, Mansa – Delay condoned – Appeal to proceed before Sessions Court.

Sales Tax – Definition of Dealer – Club Activity – Profit Motive – Not Established – Exemption Granted – Respondent Hyderabad Race Club engaged primarily in horse racing – Petitioner State contended that activities like sale of oats, tender forms, and food items amounted to business – Held: Club not operating with profit motive – Transactions incidental to charitable purpose – Not a “dealer” under Section 2(e) of APGST Act – Tribunal’s view upheld [Paras 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 39].

Tax Classification – Cattle Feed – Oats Sold to Horse Trainers – Whether Taxable as General Goods or Concessional Cattle Feed – Held: Oats fall within definition of Cattle Feed under Entry 80 – Tax at Concessional Rate Applicable – Horses legally classified as cattle under Cattle Trespass Act – Oats used solely as feed – Entry 80 applicable – Reclassification as “general goods” rejected [Paras 6, 14–17, 27–31, 40–42].

Point of Taxation – First Point of Sale – Whether Taxable on Purchase or Sale Value – Held: Tax to be Levied on Subsidised Sale Value – Respondent sold oats to trainers for ₹10.66 lakhs against purchase price of ₹52.30 lakhs – Entry 80 prescribes tax at first point of sale – Tax to be calculated on sale value [Paras 6, 18, 42].

Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Liberal and Purposeful Interpretation of Entry 80 – Broader Scope Includes Feed for Livestock and Horses – Court held Entry 80 to include all livestock feed – Subsequent legislative amendments (Entries 80A, 80B) show earlier inclusion of various feed types in Entry 80 – No narrow interpretation permitted – Supported by judicial precedents and dictionary definitions [Paras 20–26, 43].

Burden of Proof – State Failed to Disprove Classification – Tribunal Order Justified – Respondent presented sufficient documentary and expert evidence supporting oats as cattle feed – State failed to show contrary – Tribunal rightly upheld concessional rate and rejected full taxation on purchase value [Paras 11, 18, 41, 44].

Decision: Tax Revision Cases dismissed – Orders of STAT upheld – Respondent not a dealer – Oats taxable under Entry 80 as cattle feed – Tax payable on actual sale value, not purchase value [Paras 45–46].

Intellectual Property – Trademark Infringement – Permitted User – Consent Decree Enforcement – Plaintiff “The Indian Express” sought injunction against Defendant for using “New Indian Express” in Mumbai for event promotion, violating Clause 18(iv) of MoS dated 05/02/1995 and Supplemental MoS dated 12/08/2005 – Defendant granted only limited user rights for publishing English daily in five southern states and specified UTs – Held: Defendant’s conduct in Mumbai beyond scope of permitted user – Prima facie case made out for infringement and passing off [Paras 1, 75–78, 93].

Contract – Interpretation of Consent Decree – Negative Covenant – Clauses 17, 18(iv), and 19(iv) of MoS impose absolute restriction on Defendant’s use of title “New Indian Express” outside permitted territory and only for publication – Event organization, even promotional, falls outside permitted scope – Held: Limited permissive use strictly confined to agreed terms – No rights conferred for standalone events or revenue-generating activities outside agreed states/UTs [Paras 73–77, 91–93].

Acquiescence and Waiver – Consent Decree – Defendant argued Plaintiff waived rights by non-objection and joint advertising history – Held: No waiver/acquiescence can override a binding consent decree – Plaintiff’s silence, if any, does not imply consent – IPAB order of 2015 restricting use to southern states & UTs remains unchallenged and binding – No positive act amounting to waiver established [Paras 85–90].

Trademark Law – Derivative Marks – Use of “New Indian Express” – Held: Merely adding “New” to “Indian Express” does not create a new distinctive mark – Defendant’s trademark rights exist only under MoS – Registration alone does not confer independent proprietary rights – Plaintiff’s ownership over “Indian Express” remains absolute and enforceable [Paras 92–93].

Delhi High Court Orders – Not Binding – Defendant relied on interim orders of Delhi High Court (2011) – Held: Findings are not binding or conclusive – Delhi Suit dismissed for non-prosecution – No estoppel arises – IPAB’s order and MoS prevail [Paras 83–84].

Decision: Interim Application allowed – Injunction granted restraining Defendant from using “New Indian Express” for events, promotion or business outside permitted states/UTs – Application allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) – No costs awarded [Para 95].

Civil Procedure – Counter-claim – Maintainability of Additional Pleading by Co-defendant – Inter-defendant Claims – Rejected – Defendant No.1 sought leave to file a rejoinder/additional written statement in response to counter-claim raised by Defendant No.3 – Held: Under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC, counter-claims can only be made by a defendant against a plaintiff and not inter se between co-defendants – Rule 9 does not permit a co-defendant to reply to such counter-claims, as 'parties' refers only to plaintiff and defendant in this context – Permitting such response would result in an impermissible trial within a trial between defendants – Application dismissed with costs [Paras 14–16, 20–22].

Statutory Interpretation – Ejusdem Generis – Application to CPC – Expression 'parties' under Order VIII Rule 9 to be read in the limited context of counter-claims as defined under Rule 6A – General provision must be interpreted in harmony with specific statutory framework – Co-defendant not a proper party to respond to a counter-claim unless made by or against the plaintiff [Paras 15–16].

Case Law Distinction – Inapplicability of Earlier Precedents – Orissa High Court ruling in Chandra Kishore v. Babulal Agarwala and Supreme Court decision in Noorul Hassan v. Nathakpam Indrajit Singh held inapplicable – The former concerned amendment post-pleadings and the latter pertained to election petition procedure under Representation of the People Act, not regular civil suits – Hence, not relevant to instant commercial suit under CPC framework [Paras 17–19].

Delay Tactics – Abuse of Process – Costs Imposed – Court held the application to be frivolous and a dilatory tactic to stall trial of the commercial suit – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1 payable to West Bengal State Legal Services Authority [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Application IA No. GA-COM/7/2025 dismissed – Co-defendant cannot file additional written statement against counter-claim of another co-defendant – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed on Defendant No.1, payable within two weeks.

Stamp Act – Section 35 – Marking of unstamped/unregistered partition deed at interlocutory stage – Trial Court cannot compel payment of stamp duty and penalty before stage of evidence – Exhibits cannot be marked during IA hearing – Impugned order set aside – Matter remanded for decision on IA based on prima facie materials [Paras 5–8].

Stamp Act – Section 35 – Unstamped Instruments – When Duty/Penalty Payable – Under Section 35(a), an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument becomes admissible in evidence only upon payment of requisite stamp duty and penalty – However, such requirement arises only at the stage when a party seeks to admit the document in evidence – Held: At the IA stage, where evidence is not being formally collected, direction to pay duty and penalty is premature [Paras 4–6].

Interlocutory Proceedings – Marking of Exhibits – Improper at IA Stage – In an application for temporary injunction, documents may be looked into for prima facie satisfaction but cannot be formally marked as exhibits – Trial Court erred in marking Exs.P1–P6 and R1–R12 at the injunction stage – Exhibiting of documents is permissible only during trial when evidence is formally tendered [Paras 5–7].

Unregistered Partition Deed – Impounding – When Appropriate – Whether an unregistered partition deed requires impounding under Section 33 or attracting Section 35 consequences arises only when the document is sought to be admitted in evidence – Trial Court may consider impounding at the appropriate evidentiary stage during witness examination, but not at the IA stage [Paras 6–8].

Civil Revision – Impugned Order Illegal – Set Aside – Trial Court’s order directing payment of stamp duty and penalty before trial commenced held illegal and improper – Order quashed – Trial Court directed to decide I.A. No.477/2017 based on oral and documentary materials placed for prima facie consideration without treating them as exhibits [Paras 7–9].

Direction for Expeditious Disposal – Trial Court directed to dispose I.A. No.477/2017 within three weeks and the suit within one year, avoiding unnecessary adjournments; parties directed to cooperate [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Arrest Warrants – Economic Offences – Petitioner challenged trial court’s order rejecting application under Section 70(2) CrPC for converting arrest warrants into bailable warrants – Allegation of tax evasion of over ₹10.65 crores under CGST and Customs Acts – Held: Offences are grave economic crimes with national fiscal implications – Petition raises significant legal issue involving conflicting High Court precedents – Matter referred to Larger Bench [Paras 1–5, 22–30]

Economic Offences – Tax Evasion – Gravity of Offence – Court held that economic offences involving fake ITC claims and massive loss to public exchequer must be viewed seriously – Mere readiness to appear or quantum of sentence is not sufficient ground to convert non-bailable warrants – White-collar crimes affect national economy and require stricter bail considerations [Paras 6–9, 12–17]

Judicial Precedent – Conflicting Coordinate Bench Decisions – In view of divergent rulings in P.C. Purohit v. Union of India and Girdhar Gopal Bajaria v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Court emphasized that judicial propriety demands matter be referred to Larger Bench – Coordinate Bench cannot override previous ruling of equal strength – Reference made to Chief Justice for constitution of Special/Larger Bench [Paras 22–30]

Decision: Petition not decided on merits – Matter referred to Special/Larger Bench to resolve conflict in precedents – Chief Justice requested to constitute appropriate bench to answer whether arrest warrants in serious economic and criminal cases can be converted into bailable warrants as a matter of right under Sections 70(2) CrPC or 72(2) BNSS.

Compassionate Appointment – Delay of nine years – SBI scheme withdrawn w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Death in 2003 but application filed in 2012 – Financial crisis long tided over – No vested right to appointment – Prayer rejected – Bank directed to process ex-gratia claim on submission of documents and to release family pension arrears without life certificate [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Delay and Laches – Father died in harness in 2003; petitioner attained majority in 2011 and applied in 2012; scheme for compassionate appointment withdrawn by SBI w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Held: application filed nearly nine years after death defeats the very object of compassionate appointment which is to alleviate immediate financial crisis – Petitioner’s family having survived the crisis, no right to appointment survives; rejection of request upheld [Paras 10–13].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Scheme – Petitioner argued that scheme prevalent at time of death (2003) should apply – Court: even under earlier scheme, application filed after inordinate delay cannot be entertained in view of principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 – Purpose is not employment by succession but immediate relief; delayed claim not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Ex-Gratia Compensation – SBI Scheme – Petitioner alternatively sought ex-gratia lump sum payment – SBI required certain additional documents (letter dated 15.12.2018) – Held: petitioner to furnish required documents within six weeks; SBI to decide claim within three months and either release admissible amount or communicate a reasoned order [Para 14].

Family Pension – Arrears – Petitioner entitled to arrears of family pension from February 2018 to July 2018 – Since matter remained pending before Court, arrears to be paid without insisting on a life certificate for that period; direction issued to release payment within three months [Para 15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Claim for compassionate appointment rejected – Directions issued for processing ex-gratia claim and release of family pension arrears [Para 16].

Service Law – Dismissal – Unauthorised Absence – Back Wages – “No Work No Pay” – Earlier LPA Granted Only Pensionary Benefits – No Direction for Back Wages – Employee Did Not Perform Duty for Period 09.06.2001–22.10.2007 – Held, Dependents Not Entitled to Back Wages; Treatment of Absence as Duty Without Pay for Pension Purposes Proper [Paras 10–12].

Pensionary Benefits – Earlier Judgment (22.11.2011) – Scope – Division Bench Only Directed Release of Amount in Pension Calculation Chart – No Mandate to Grant Back Wages – Appellant Having Accepted Pension Benefits Cannot Reopen Issue – Order Dated 22.03.2012 Consistent With Earlier LPA Directions [Paras 10–12].

Compassionate Appointment – Consideration – Dependent Daughter Failed Recruitment Test – Authorities Gave Multiple Opportunities and Guidance – Court Reiterates Direction to Consider Eligible Dependent as Per Rules – No Mandamus to Appoint – Only Consideration Permitted [Paras 8, 13–14].

Service Jurisprudence – “No Work No Pay” – Principle Reaffirmed – Back Wages Not Automatic Upon Quashing of Dismissal When No Work Rendered – Especially When Employee Was Absent and Later Died Before Fresh Enquiry Could Be Held [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Denial of back wages upheld – Direction to consider compassionate appointment reiterated, subject to eligibility [Para 14].