Taxation Law - Municipal Property Tax – Mandatory Compliance with Procedural Safeguards – Sections 233 and 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 read with the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Cess and Surcharge) Rules, 2011 – Demand Notices Quashed – The Court held that the demand notices issued by the Municipality for property tax arrears were vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 233 of the Act and Rules 4 and 10 of the 2011 Rules – The notifications mandatorily required under Rule 4(4) (regarding publication of basic property tax notifications) and Rule 10 (calling for self-assessment returns) were not issued in the manner prescribed – Held: Absence of such notifications renders any subsequent levy illegal and without authority of law [Paras 3, 9-13, 27].

Article 265 of the Constitution of India – Taxation Without Authority of Law – Demand Notices Held Unconstitutional – The Court reaffirmed the principle that taxes cannot be collected without authority of law – Non-compliance with the statutory mandate under the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules led to the conclusion that the property tax arrears were levied without lawful authority – Held: Demand notices are invalid being violative of Article 265 of the Constitution [Paras 8, 12, 13].

Alternative Remedy – Inapplicability When Levy Itself Is Non-Est – The Court rejected the Municipality's argument that the respondents ought to have availed the statutory appellate remedy under Rule 16(4) of the 2011 Rules – Held: Where the levy itself is non-existent in law, the existence of an appellate remedy is irrelevant – Tax demand set aside as a jurisdictional error [Paras 13].

Culture of Justification – Doctrine of Reasonableness and Fairness in State Action – The Court emphasized the need for tax authorities to adhere to a 'culture of justification' where any demand on citizens must be supported by legal authority and due process – Arbitrary demands without adherence to mandatory procedures offend constitutional guarantees [Paras 8-9].

Decision of the Court – Appeals Dismissed – Demand Notices Invalidated – The Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, dismissed the appeals filed by the Perinthalmanna Municipality, and directed that any future assessment or demand for property tax must comply strictly with the statutory framework laid down in the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the 2011 Rules [Paras 12-13, 27].

Attachment Before Judgment – Existence of Prima Facie Claim and Threat of Alienation – Order 38 Rule 5 & 6 CPC – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, a landowner and developer, challenged the order of the Special Commercial Court making absolute an attachment before judgment of 2.5 acres of land – The plaintiff/respondent, a marketing agent, filed the suit claiming recovery of ₹3,19,75,543/- based on an MoU alleging payments made and wrongful conduct by the defendant in diverting project funds and violating marketing rights – The High Court upheld the Special Court’s finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case through substantial documentation and correlation statements and established a threat of alienation as the defendant had begun independent marketing and sale of the property in violation of the MoU – Held: Special Court correctly exercised discretion in attaching property to secure the suit claim and to prevent the decree from becoming infructuous – Appellate interference was unwarranted as no perversity or arbitrary exercise of discretion was shown [Paras 39-50].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Limited Power of Appellate Court under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC – Appeal Rejected – The High Court reiterated that appellate courts should not substitute their discretion unless the trial court’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or perverse – The Special Court's decision was found reasoned, based on material on record, and compliant with judicial principles, leaving no ground for interference under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC – Appeal dismissed with liberty to appellant to seek modification before the trial court if circumstances change [Paras 53-57].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed with liberty to appellant to apply before trial court for variation or modification of attachment if so advised – No order as to costs [Paras 59-60].

Criminal Law - Successive Bail Petition – Maintainability Before High Court After Earlier Rejections – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, accused of grave offences including sexual assault, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite prior dismissal by Sessions Court, High Court, and Supreme Court – Held: Though Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, judicial discipline mandates initial approach to Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist – Petitioner failed to plead or prove compelling circumstances for bypassing trial court – Following established precedents, High Court refused to entertain petition without prior trial court recourse [Paras 3-23].

Judicial Discipline – Bypassing Sessions Court – Exceptional Circumstances Requirement – Affirmed – Citing authoritative judgments, the Court reiterated the principle that High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked directly when the trial court has previously declined relief unless there are fresh developments or special reasons justifying deviation – As no such factors were demonstrated, petition was relegated to trial court [Paras 10-22].

Roster Allocation and Judicial Consistency – Clarification Applied – In light of Supreme Court's direction on listing of bail applications under the same FIR before the same judge where possible, the Court clarified that due to roster changes and absence of prior judge, present bench could entertain the matter, but on merits, relief was declined [Paras 6-8].

Relief and Directions – Petitioner Relegated to Trial Court – Expeditious Consideration Ordered – Considering judicial custody since May 2024 and to avoid prolonged incarceration, High Court directed the trial court to decide the bail application within ten days if moved by petitioner – Liberty granted to approach High Court thereafter if necessary [Paras 23-24].

Matrimonial Law  – Maintenance - Nullity of Marriage – No Entitlement to Interim Maintenance – Sections 12, 23 of Domestic Violence Act – Orders Set Aside – The revisionist challenged interim maintenance awarded to opposite party-2 under the Domestic Violence Act after the marriage was judicially declared null and void – The Court held that following the declaration of nullity, the opposite party-2 could not claim benefits under the Domestic Violence Act as no domestic relationship subsisted under Section 2(f) – Orders granting maintenance were held to be unsustainable [Paras 1, 24].

Effect of Declaration of Marriage as Void – Legal Consequences – The Court reiterated that a decree declaring marriage void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act relates back to the date of marriage – Consequently, there remains no legal relationship between the parties to attract provisions of the Domestic Violence Act – Therefore, maintenance cannot be awarded when the foundational domestic relationship is legally extinguished [Paras 24-25].

Presumption of Marriage – Withdrawal of Appeal Reinforces Nullity – The opposite party-2 had withdrawn her appeal against the nullity decree, making the decree final – The Court held this withdrawal reinforces the conclusion that no valid marriage existed, rendering the subsequent maintenance claim unsustainable [Paras 13, 24].

Illegal Continuation of Proceedings – Orders Passed Without Jurisdiction – The Court found that both the Trial Court and Appellate Court erred by ignoring the legal status of the relationship – Held: When the marriage is void ab-initio, no protection under the Domestic Violence Act survives, and proceedings under Section 12 or Section 23 could not be validly continued [Paras 14-16, 24].

Final Decision – Revision Allowed – Maintenance Order Quashed – The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the orders granting interim maintenance, and held that the opposite party-2 was not entitled to any maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act following the nullity of marriage [Paras 26-27].

Civil Law – Partition and Possession – Second Appeal - No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting partition and separate possession of ½ share to the respondent/plaintiff – The Courts below based findings on admitted facts and evidence, including judicial admissions in pleadings and documents – Held: No substantial question of law arises where findings are based on proper appreciation of facts; second appeal liable to be dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-15, 29-30].

Adverse Possession – No Proof of Ouster – Claim Denied – Appellant's plea of exclusive possession and adverse possession since father’s death was rejected – Mere long possession by one co-sharer does not constitute ouster in absence of clear hostile claim – Courts correctly held that possession by one co-owner is deemed on behalf of all co-owners – Adverse possession and ouster claims not proved by evidence [Paras 21-22, 25-27].

Judicial Admissions – Admissions in Pleadings and Legal Notices Binding – Defendant admitted in written statement and legal notice that suit properties were joint family properties – Admission being best evidence, the burden shifted to defendant to prove relinquishment by plaintiff, which was not discharged – Courts below rightly relied on judicial admissions to grant partition [Paras 17-19].

No Scope for Reappreciation of Facts in Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Law clarified that High Court does not re-examine findings of facts in second appeal unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or misapplication of law – No such perversity or legal error found in concurrent judgments of lower Courts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13, 28-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees granting the plaintiff ½ share in the property and dismissed the second appeal without costs [Para 30].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Fir and Proceedings – Section 498A IPC – Vague and General Allegations Against Husband’s Relatives – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioners, relatives-in-law residing separately, challenged FIR and charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC – Allegations against them found to be vague, omnibus, without specific details of cruelty or harassment – Complainant herself restricted allegations under Domestic Violence Act only against husband, no mention of petitioners therein – Held: Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, quashing warranted [Paras 5-18].

Omnibus Allegations – Absence of Specific Role – No Prima Facie Case – Quashing Justified – FIR and Section 161 CrPC statements lacked specific incidents or roles attributable to petitioners – Injury report did not implicate petitioners – Held: Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained in absence of specific, concrete allegations; continuance of trial against petitioners unjustified [Paras 12-17].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Inherent Powers – Application of Bhajan Lal Guidelines – Court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC applying Bhajan Lal categories (1, 3, and 5) where allegations even if taken at face value did not constitute offence against petitioners – Held: Exercise of inherent power justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 19-20].

No Prejudice to Husband’s Trial – Proceedings Against Husband Unaffected – Court clarified that quashing order applies only to present petitioners; proceedings against husband to continue independently on merits before the trial court [Para 23].

Final Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Charge-sheet and all proceedings arising out of Amdanga P.S. Case No. 160/2020 quashed against petitioners; CRR allowed [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Forensic Examination & Voice Sample – Sections 45A, Indian Evidence Act & 349 BNSS – Revision Allowed – Accused Electrical Inspector facing trial for alleged demand and acceptance of ₹8,000/- illegal gratification sought forensic examination of defence audio/video recordings and securing of complainant’s voice sample – Trial court rejected on grounds of delay, non-examination of persons in video, and possibility of tampering – Held: Such grounds speculative; delay alone not fatal, and possibility of tampering strengthens case for expert analysis – Magistrate empowered under Section 349 BNSS (and as per Ritesh Sinha) to order voice sample even from non-accused – Right to privacy under Articles 20(3) & 21 not absolute; may be curtailed for compelling public interest – Order set aside, forensic examination and voice sample collection directed under judicial supervision – Trial to be expedited [Paras 1-4, 8-21].

Criminal Trial – Forensic Examination of Defence Evidence – Section 45A, Indian Evidence Act – Delay in recording or speculative possibility of editing not valid grounds to deny expert analysis – Expert opinion necessary to determine authenticity – Refusal amounts to curtailing defence rights [Paras 8-11, 20-21].

Voice Sample – Power to Compel – Section 349 BNSS; Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. – Magistrate has authority to order voice sample from any person, including witness – Privacy right not absolute – Judicial safeguards ensure fairness – Refusal unjustified in present case [Paras 12-18, 21].

Right to Fair Trial – Denial of scientific comparison of defence evidence restricts accused’s opportunity to rebut prosecution – Contrary to settled principles – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 11, 19-20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Trial court order dated 01.02.2025 set aside – Forensic examination of pen drive (Ex-D6) and video by Government Forensic Lab ordered – Voice sample of PW-2 to be taken for limited expert comparison – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 20-21].

Company Law - Company Winding Up – Inability to Pay Debt – Section 433(e) of Companies Act – Winding Up Confirmed – Appeal dismissed - The appellant challenged the winding up order on grounds of disputed liability and acquittal under Section 138 NI Act – Held: Execution of demand promissory note admitting debt, absence of timely dispute, and decree passed in Summary Suit against appellant demonstrated liability and inability to pay – Belated disputes raised only in winding up reply were not bona fide – Court upheld winding up in public interest to prevent misuse of corporate status against creditors [Paras 14-39].

Criminal Acquittal vs Civil Liability – Distinct Standards of Proof – No Effect on Civil Proceedings – The Court held that acquittal in criminal proceedings based on proof beyond reasonable doubt does not absolve civil liability determined on preponderance of probability – Mere acquittal under Section 138 NI Act does not nullify acknowledged debt or decree obtained in civil court – Civil liability established through decree and demand promissory note prevails [Paras 30-31].

Late Raising of Disputes – Absence of Prior Denial of Liability – Conduct Indicative of Inability to Pay – The Court observed that disputes regarding debt quantum were raised for the first time after issuance of winding up notice, with no prior objection despite several communications – Such conduct was held to be an afterthought and an attempt to evade legitimate dues, justifying the winding up under Section 433(e) [Paras 22-24, 28].

Effect of Summary Decree – Conclusive Evidence of Liability – Appeal Dismissed – The Court noted that appellant did not challenge or satisfy the decree passed in Summary Suit based on same transactions – Existence of decree is decisive of indebtedness and inability to pay – Reiterated principle that companies unable to pay their debts should be wound up to protect future creditors [Paras 31-33].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Winding Up Confirmed – Court found no merit in appeal – Decreed debt remained unpaid, appellant had ceased business activities and had no assets – Winding up confirmed to prevent further creditor prejudice – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 39-40].

Civil Law  – Suit for Declaration of Title – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant filed suit for declaration claiming that sale deed dated 30.04.2012 was executed under misrepresentation and without payment of consideration – Trial court and first appellate court held that appellant executed sale deed after receiving full consideration and was not in possession of suit property – Held: Findings based on evidence including admission of signatures and photograph on registered sale deed – Under Section 100 CPC, in absence of perversity or misreading of evidence, High Court cannot interfere with concurrent factual findings – Second appeal dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Registered Sale Deed – Presumption of Validity – Sections 32 and 34 of Registration Act – Sale Deed Upheld – The appellant claimed execution of mortgage deed but admitted signatures and photograph on sale deed registered before Sub-Registrar – Held: Presumption of correctness applies to registered documents under Sections 32 and 34 of Registration Act – No credible evidence adduced to rebut statutory presumption – Allegation of absence of consideration and misrepresentation rejected – Sale deed upheld as valid [Paras 7-10].

Limitation – Challenge to Registered Document – Bar under Limitation Act – Suit Dismissed – The appellant challenged registered sale deed after over three years, claiming ignorance till mutation proceedings – Held: Courts below correctly held suit barred by limitation and appellant failed to show justifiable cause for delay – Suit correctly dismissed on limitation grounds [Paras 4, 11].

Relief of Declaration without Possession – Bar under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act – Suit Not Maintainable – Held: Both courts below rightly found appellant was not in possession – In absence of consequential relief for possession, declaratory relief not maintainable under Section 34 of Specific Relief Act – No ground for interference [Para 11].

No Substantial Question of Law – Section 100 CPC – Interference Not Warranted – Held: Appellant failed to demonstrate any perversity or misapplication of law in findings – Supreme Court precedents reiterate interference in second appeal permissible only on substantial question of law – Mere disagreement with concurrent findings no ground to entertain second appeal – Appeal dismissed [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court affirmed findings of both lower courts regarding due execution of sale deed, receipt of consideration, and absence of possession of appellant – No substantial question of law arising for consideration – Appeal dismissed [Para 15].