Disciplinary Proceedings – Continuation Despite Acquittal in Criminal Trial – Scope Clarified – Petitioner, a Junior Language Teacher, challenged disciplinary proceedings on the ground of acquittal in criminal trial involving POCSO charges—Court held that departmental proceedings are governed by preponderance of probabilities and not by strict criminal law standards—Held: Acquittal due to hostile witnesses does not preclude disciplinary action, and such proceedings are valid and distinct from criminal trials [Paras 5-11].

Misconduct by Teacher – Fiduciary Duty Breach Established – Serious Allegations of Sexual Abuse – Despite acquittal in criminal court, domestic inquiry found the petitioner guilty of grossly unbecoming behaviour, corroborated by school teachers and victim’s initial statements—Held: Teacher, being in a fiduciary position, failed in his duty; conduct amounts to grave misconduct justifying disciplinary proceedings [Paras 4, 10-12].

Premature Challenge to Disciplinary Proceedings – Interference Not Warranted – Court noted that petitioner approached court at show cause notice stage prior to imposition of penalty—Held: Premature interference in disciplinary process unjustified, writ petition dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s right to contest final order [Para 13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Departmental Proceedings Upheld – High Court declined to quash disciplinary action against petitioner, upholding manager’s authority to proceed with proposed punishment of compulsory retirement despite criminal acquittal—Writ Petition dismissed with observations supporting independence of disciplinary proceedings from criminal prosecution [Paras 13-14].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment under Section 147 – Full and True Disclosure – Reopening Beyond Four Years Invalid – The petitioner, BPCL, challenged reassessment notices issued under Section 148 for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 – Revenue alleged failure to disclose facts regarding dividend income received from BPCL Trust and wrong deduction under Section 32AC – Held: The Court found all relevant facts were fully disclosed in original scrutiny assessments under Section 143(3), including investment in BPCL Trust and dividend income – The reopening beyond four years without specific failure of disclosure was held to be without jurisdiction – Reassessment quashed [Paras 25-30, 34-35].

Reassessment – Change of Opinion – Impermissible Ground – Mere Re-evaluation of Existing Facts Not Sufficient – Assessing Officer reopened assessment based on existing records and submissions made during original assessment proceedings – Court held that such reopening amounted to a change of opinion, which is not a valid reason for invoking Section 147 – The reasons recorded lacked specificity and did not disclose any new material – Held: Reassessment invalid and notices liable to be quashed [Paras 31, 35].

Exempt Income – Section 10(34) – Income Received from Trust Holding Shares – Trust a Sole Beneficiary Structure – Income Already Considered – BPCL had received dividend from a trust holding shares for its benefit – Revenue argued that since the Trust is not a company, dividend cannot be exempt – Held: Petitioner had disclosed this structure during original assessment – Income from the Trust was acknowledged and considered in disallowance under Section 14A – No failure to disclose found – Exemption claim not ground for reassessment [Paras 28-30].

Deduction under Section 32AC – Eligibility of LPG Cylinders as Plant & Machinery – Disclosure Fully Made – Court held that BPCL had disclosed all relevant details regarding claim under Section 32AC, including asset-wise investment – Assessment records clearly reflected those details – Reassessment on this issue was also held invalid as it lacked any failure of disclosure and was a mere reanalysis of same data – Held: Reassessment on this ground also quashed [Paras 34-35].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Reassessment notices and rejection orders for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 quashed – Held: No failure to disclose material facts and reopening was impermissible change of opinion – Rule made absolute [Paras 37-38].

Taxation Law - Income Tax Act – Capital vs. Revenue Receipt – Sales Tax Incentive under Maharashtra Schemes – Capital Receipt Not Taxable – The Court was called upon to decide whether sales tax incentives received by Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Reliance Industries Ltd. under the 1979 and 1983 State Industrial Promotion Schemes constituted capital or revenue receipts – The Tribunal had given conflicting rulings in both cases – Held: Applying the purpose test laid down by the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel, Ponni Sugars, and Chaphalkar Brothers, the Court held that the object of the schemes was to promote capital investment and industrialization in backward areas and not to supplement operational income – Accordingly, the incentives were capital in nature and not chargeable to income tax – Revenue’s appeal dismissed and assessee’s appeal allowed [Paras 1–3, 22, 29, 32, 39–41, 45–47].

Subsidy Classification – Manner of Disbursement Not Determinative – Capital Receipt Upheld – The Court emphasized that merely because the incentive was linked to the extent of production or collected through tax mechanisms does not convert a capital receipt into a revenue one – What matters is the underlying object of the subsidy – Held: The form and mode of disbursement are irrelevant so long as the purpose is capital formation [Paras 40–41].

Tribunal’s Divergent Views – Harmonized by Applying Apex Court Law – Finality Achieved – The Court noted the conflicting rulings of the ITAT in the cases of Bajaj Auto Ltd. and Reliance Industries Ltd. – Held: Such divergence was harmonized by applying consistent and binding rulings of the Supreme Court that had settled the nature of such incentives – Both incentives held to be capital receipts [Paras 38, 45–47].

Foreign Exchange Fluctuation – Claim Covered by Woodward Governor – Rejected – One of the questions involved capitalization of foreign exchange losses and unpaid interest on foreign loans – Held: The issue was squarely covered by the Supreme Court in the Woodward Governor case and answered against the assessee [Para 18].

Guest House and Foreign Travel Expenses – No Interference Warranted – Revenue raised objections on guest house expenses under Section 37(4) and foreign travel of executives and spouses – Held: Guest house issue was a misframed question; foreign travel involved negligible amount and part was already disallowed by CIT(A) – Court found no reason to interfere [Paras 19–20].

Decision – Appeals Disposed – Assessee’s Appeal Allowed – Revenue’s Appeal Dismissed – The Court held that the sales tax incentives received under the 1979 and 1983 Schemes were capital in nature and not taxable – Consequently, Bajaj Auto’s appeal was allowed and the Revenue’s appeal against Reliance Industries was dismissed – Judgments of Tribunal and lower authorities modified accordingly [Paras 45–47].

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Domestic Enquiry – Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the dismissal order and subsequent Labour Court award rejecting his claim – Alleged embezzlement of ₹500 proved in enquiry – Court held it is not within its scope under Article 226 to reassess sufficiency of evidence – Only “no evidence” can invite interference – Labour Court’s conclusion upheld [Paras 1-8].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Court Refused to Reassess Merits – Following Supreme Court rulings, the Court reiterated that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not grounds for interference – Interference under Article 226 only permissible where findings are perverse or based on no evidence – None found in present case [Paras 6-7].

Punishment – Proportionality – Embezzlement Proven – Dismissal Held Justified – Petitioner argued that returning the embezzled sum negated need for harsh punishment – Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that refund does not nullify misconduct – Dismissal not shockingly disproportionate to the proven charge [Paras 9-12].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Labour Court Award Affirmed – Writ petition dismissed – No perversity or legal infirmity found in Labour Court’s evaluation or award [Paras 13-14].

Civil Writ - Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Direction for Termination on Medical Grounds – Appeal Allowed in Part – Appellants sought permission for termination of pregnancy beyond 24 weeks due to serious foetal abnormalities including Down Syndrome and cardiac defects – Medical Board reports supported substantial abnormalities – Single Judge allowed termination but directed full postnatal care if the foetus was born alive – Held: Such a condition was inconsistent with applicable medical protocols and Government of India guidelines – High Court modified the order to allow assessment by Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences and termination by scientific methods if substantial abnormalities were confirmed – Writ appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 1–4, 8–10].

Medical Protocol – Role of Advanced Foetal Assessment – Amrita Institute Permitted – Single Bench had directed Medical College, Kalamassery to conduct termination but it lacked facility for iatrogenic foetal demise – Held: In view of Government of India notification dated 06.08.2018, only expert institutions like Amrita Institute could ensure ultrasound-guided foetal demise through potassium chloride injection – Appeal allowed to ensure adherence to scientific and humane procedure [Paras 5–6, 8–10].

Foetal Abnormality – Interpretation of Section 3(2-B), MTP Act – Permissibility Beyond 24 Weeks – Held: Where Medical Board confirms substantial foetal abnormalities, restriction on gestational period under Section 3(2) does not apply – Reliance placed on prior Division Bench rulings and statutory amendment – Direction issued for fresh Medical Board assessment and conditional liberty granted for termination upon confirmation [Para 6, 10].

Right to Health and Dignity – Judicial Approach in Medical Termination Cases – Held: Courts must ensure procedural compliance without imposing unrealistic postnatal obligations on mothers opting for medically justified terminations – Care must be taken to ensure institutional capability for humane termination – Modified directions reflect this balance [Paras 4, 10].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Single Judge’s order modified – Petitioners permitted to approach Amrita Institute for assessment under Section 3(2-B) – On confirmation of abnormalities, liberty granted to proceed with termination by scientific methods as per guidelines – Writ appeal disposed [Para 10].

Civil Writ - Municipal Licence – Dispute over Prayer Hall Construction – Zoning Regulations – Civil Court Injunction – Licence Cancellation Set Aside – Two writ petitions filed: one by a local councillor seeking cancellation of building licence granted to a Trust for constructing a Community Hall/Prayer Hall in a residential area; the other by the Trust challenging the cancellation of its building licence – The High Court held that once a valid building licence is granted, it can only be revoked under Section 188 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act for misrepresentation or fraud – The construction was as per sanction plan and zoning regulations permitting places of worship in residential areas – Objections from residents and direction from Udupi Urban Development Authority lacked statutory authority – Civil Court had already granted injunction protecting the Trust’s rights, and the order had attained finality – Held: Communication declining to act on complaint upheld; cancellation order quashed; writ petition of complainant dismissed and Trust’s petition allowed [Paras 1–4, 17–42].

Zoning Regulations – Community/Prayer Hall Permissible in Residential Area – Licence Valid – Cancellation Illegal – Trust obtained building licence for a Community Hall in a residential area – Objection raised by local resident citing communal concerns – Licence later cancelled by City Municipality on instructions of Urban Development Authority – Held: Zoning Regulations expressly permit 'places of worship' in residential zones; use of Community Hall for prayer is not impermissible – Cancellation order based on erroneous opinion without statutory backing quashed [Paras 26–28, 34, 40].

Building Licence – No Misrepresentation – Section 188 of Karnataka Municipality Act – Licence Cannot Be Revoked – High Court held that once a building licence is granted, it can only be revoked for misrepresentation or fraud under Section 188 – No such grounds existed – Trust acted in accordance with sanctioned plan – Cancellation held without jurisdiction [Paras 29–31, 35].

Civil Court Injunction – Finality of Interim Relief – Objections Deemed Considered – In O.S. No. 328/2023, Civil Court granted injunction protecting Trust’s possession and upheld permissibility of use under zoning – Appeal withdrawn, making order final – City Municipality’s reversal of stance despite that order was unwarranted – Communication refusing further action rightly upheld [Paras 11, 21–23, 34].

No Power to Cancel Under Section 187 – Circular of 2009 Set Aside – Mere Objections Cannot Override Statute – The City Municipality relied on Section 187(9) and a 2009 Circular for cancellation – Court held that Section 187(9) does not authorize licence cancellation, and the Circular was invalidated in prior case Udupi Youth Ministry v. Commissioner, Urban Development Authority – Executive instructions cannot override statutory limitations [Paras 36–40].

Objections from Public – No Legal Basis to Revoke Lawful Use – Construction at Advanced Stage – Mere apprehensions about communal disharmony or absence of local community not valid legal grounds to revoke sanctioned construction – High Court emphasized that use consistent with law cannot be negated by objections from public [Paras 6, 8–9, 31, 34].

Commercial Law - Trademark and Copyright Dispute – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Suit Barred – The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants alleging infringement of trademark and copyright, and passing off, in respect of the mark ‘PADAN’ – The Court held that the plaintiff, Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd., had no locus standi to institute the suit since all alleged use and proprietary rights were with Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd. (CAPL), a distinct corporate entity under insolvency – Held: The plaintiff was not a licensee or owner of the mark or artistic work and could not claim the benefit of CAPL’s rights – The plaint failed to disclose a cause of action and was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 11–13, 18, 34, 37–38].

Corporate Personality – Group Company Cannot Espouse Cause – No Legal Standing – The Court reaffirmed that a company cannot represent group entities or subsidiaries in legal proceedings – Each corporate entity is distinct and must assert its own claims – Merely being the parent of CAPL did not entitle the plaintiff to sue on its behalf, especially when CAPL was under insolvency and only its Resolution Professional could sue – Held: The plaintiff’s suit was legally unsustainable on this ground alone [Paras 11–13].

Non-Disclosure of Documents – Deliberate Suppression – Cause of Action Found Illusory – The plaintiff failed to file key documents relied upon in the plaint, including the Distribution and Trademark Agreements, which clearly showed that the rights were vested in CAPL – Held: The plaintiff suppressed material documents to fabricate a false cause of action – Rejection of plaint warranted [Paras 19–25, 37].

Copyright Claim – Assignment Expired – No Right in Plaintiff – The plaintiff claimed copyright ownership in packaging artwork via assignment to CAPL – The Court held that the assignment was in favour of CAPL, and in absence of a defined term, deemed to have expired after five years under Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act – Held: Plaintiff had no subsisting right or claim under copyright law [Paras 26–27].

Passing Off – Use by Licensee Inures to Licensor – No Goodwill Established – The plaintiff failed to show any use of the mark PADAN on its own behalf – All evidence related to use by CAPL – The Court held that as CAPL was a licensee of the defendant, any goodwill accrued to the defendant – The plaintiff’s passing off claim was rejected [Paras 28–34].

Fabricated Evidence – Agreement Claiming Ownership Unsupported – The plaintiff’s reliance on an agreement claiming it was a registered proprietor of PADAN was found false – The Court noted that the defendant was the registered owner, and no proof of registration in plaintiff’s name existed – Held: The document appeared fabricated and could not support the suit [Paras 35–36].

Final Decision – Suit Held to be Vexatious – Plaint Rejected – The Court found that the plaint was based on false assumptions, misleading representations, and failed to disclose any real cause of action – The suit was declared vexatious and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 37–38].

Cheque Dishonour – 138 of the NI Act - Presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act – Rebuttal of Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The complainant alleged loan transaction and issuance of cheque in discharge of debt – Accused produced evidence (Ex.D4) obtained under RTI showing operation of unregistered finance business by complainant, which was denied by complainant – Trial Court disbelieved complainant’s version and acquitted accused – Held: In appeal against acquittal, unless findings are perverse, interference unwarranted – In this case, complainant’s suppression of material facts and failure to produce promissory note weakened prosecution – Acquittal upheld as trial Court’s reasoning found just and based on evidence [Paras 4, 8-10].

Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Rebutted by Preponderance of Probability – The presumption of debt under Section 139 stands rebutted where the accused demonstrates, through credible defence, that cheque was issued as security and not in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Total denial of finance business by complainant, despite contrary evidence, erodes the credibility of prosecution – No perverse approach by trial Court in accepting defence version [Paras 8-9].

Promissory Note Non-Production – Adverse Inference – Complainant claimed execution of promissory note for loan with interest but failed to produce the same during trial – Held: Non-production of primary documentary evidence critical to the loan claim further weakens prosecution case – Trial Court rightly considered this lapse in assessing complainant’s credibility [Paras 9].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference Principles Reiterated – The High Court reiterated well-settled principle that appellate Court should not interfere with acquittal unless findings are unreasonable, illegal, or perverse – Findings based on appreciation of evidence, cross-examination, and defence material – No grounds for reversal of acquittal [Paras 8-10].

Decision of the Judgment – Appeal dismissed, acquittal confirmed – Trial Court’s order acquitting accused in cheque bounce case upheld – Appeal devoid of merit [Para 10].

Tenancy Law - Eviction Suit – Bona-fide Requirement – Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act – Eviction Allowed – The petitioners, NRIs residing abroad since the 1970s, sought eviction of tenants from properties in Delhi Cantonment to start a food-related business in India – The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petitions holding that the premises were too small for a restaurant and the petitioners being well-settled abroad did not require the premises for subsistence – Held: The Rent Controller’s view was erroneous – It is settled law that the landlord is the best judge of how to use the premises – A food take-away or delivery outlet qualifies as legitimate use – Requirement cannot be discounted merely because the petitioners are NRIs or financially well-off – Eviction petitions allowed [Paras 6-9, 28-32].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Challenge to Ownership – Not a Bar to Eviction – The respondents contended that the petitioners were not owners due to disputes over a family settlement – Held: Once landlord-tenant relationship is admitted and rent was paid to the landlord or their predecessor, challenge to ownership is immaterial in eviction proceedings – The landlord needs only better title than the tenant – Objection dismissed [Paras 38-40].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 25B(8) DRC Act – Misapplication of Law by Rent Controller Correctable – While revisional jurisdiction is limited, interference is justified when findings are based on misapplication of legal principles or misreading of evidence – High Court rightly interfered where the ARC imposed irrelevant standards regarding the viability of the landlord’s proposed business and the NRI status of the landlord [Paras 25-27].

Alternate Accommodation – No Evidence by Tenant – The Rent Controller failed to examine the aspect of alternative accommodation – Held: In absence of any specific plea or proof from tenants about the existence of alternative accommodation with the landlord, the petition cannot fail on this ground – This is not a fatal defect [Paras 34-37].

Final Decision – Eviction Allowed – Impugned judgments dated 25.07.2013 set aside – Eviction petitions allowed – Petitioners entitled to obtain vacant physical possession of the subject premises from the respondents in accordance with law [Para 42].