Writ Petition - Challenge to constitutional validity of master directions on 'Fraud - Classification and Reporting' - Allegation of manifest arbitrariness and violation of natural justice principles - No show cause notice or hearing provided to the petitioner - Violation of fundamental rights under Article 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. [Para 1-3]

Reference to High Court of Telangana judgment - Principles of audi alteram partem to be applied - Opportunity of hearing and representation to be provided before classifying an account as 'fraudulent' - Violation of natural justice principles - Apex Court judgment in State Bank of India &Ors. vs. Rajesh Agrawal &Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1, upholds the need for a hearing before classifying an account as 'fraud'. [Para 4-6]

Identification of identical issue to State Bank of India case - Application of conclusions from State Bank of India judgment to the present case - Directions and conclusions from State Bank of India case applied mutatis mutandis to the current case. [Para 7-9]

Disposition of the petition in line with State Bank of India judgment - Quashing of any actions taken against the petitioner, including FIR registration and fraud declaration - Impugned circular to remain in existence - Respondents authorized to proceed in accordance with law and State Bank of India directions. [Para 10-12]

Education Policy - Challenge to eligibility criteria for National Means cum Merit Scholarship Scheme - Petitioner, a recognized unaided private school, challenges the eligibility criteria excluding private school students from the scholarship examination - Petitioner argues the exclusion is arbitrary and unreasonable - Government's policy aims to provide scholarships to economically weaker students to prevent dropouts at Class VIII - The petitioner contends that students in private schools can also be from financially weaker backgrounds - Court's role is limited in reviewing government policies - Court upholds the eligibility criteria and dismisses the petition. [Para 2-33]

Criminal Appeal – Conviction under Sections 120B, 302, 397, and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Reliance on "last seen together" theory – Evidence of the witnesses regarding the accused being last seen with the victim is unreliable – Lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime – Benefit of doubt to be extended to the accused – Conviction set aside. [Para 19-20]

Identification of Dead Body – Failure to establish the identity of the dead body – Relatives identified the deceased based on photographs and belongings – Lack of convincing scientific evidence to establish identity – Doubts regarding the identity of the deceased persist. [Para 29-30]

Motive for Brutal Act – Failure to investigate the motive behind a brutal act – Victim's penis and scrotum found cut off during autopsy – Lack of explanation for such a brutal act – Doubts regarding the genuineness of the prosecution's case regarding motive. [Para 31]

Benefit of Doubt – Accumulation of doubts in the case – Lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the crime – Accused entitled to the benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Acquittal of the accused. [Para 32-33]

Criminal Law - Default Bail - Limitation Period for Filing Charge-Sheet – Criminal Miscellaneous Petition against the rejection of default bail application – Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. for default bail and the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision petition – Emphasis on the offence mentioned in the FIR and not the role of the individual accused – Held, the period for completing investigation for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment is ninety days irrespective of the individual roles of the accused – Application for default bail was without merit and rightly dismissed. [Paras 1-10]

Role of Offence in Determining Limitation Period – Analysis – Held, Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. emphasizes the offence for which the FIR is registered rather than the individual roles of the accused – The prescribed period for investigation is determined by the nature of the offence (ninety days for offences punishable with death or life imprisonment) – The investigating agency filed the charge-sheet within this prescribed period – The petitioner’s claim for default bail on the basis of a sixty-day period was unfounded. [Para 7]

Decision – Dismissal of Petition for Default Bail – Court dismissed the petition for default bail, confirming the ninety-day period for offences under Section 302 IPC – The petition lacked merit and the orders of the lower courts were upheld. [Para 10]

Income Tax Appeal – Double Taxation – Unaccounted income admitted by the flagship company (Surya Food &Agro Ltd.) and disclosed before the Settlement Commission – Investment of the same undisclosed income as share capital in respondent companies forming part of the Priya Gold Group – Whether the same undisclosed income can be subjected to taxation again in the hands of the respondent companies (Surya Agrotech Infrastructure Limited, Surya Processed Food Pvt. Ltd.) – Legal principles regarding double taxation – Judicial precedents supporting the principle that once income is disclosed and taxed in the hands of one entity, it cannot be taxed again when applied as share capital in other companies – Appeal answered in favor of the respondent/assessee, affirming that the undisclosed income, once subjected to tax, cannot be taxed twice. [Para 8-21]

Counter-Claim Compliance: Omissions in the counter-claim – Whether minor omissions in fulfilling the requirements while filing the counter-claim are grounds to non-suit the counter-claim plaintiff at the first or second appellate stage? – Legal requirements for filing a counter-claim as mandated under Order VIII Rule 6A and 6B of CPC clarified – Omissions in the form and content of the counter-claim not a ground for dismissal in the interest of justice. [Para 13-20]

Title Dispute: Plaintiff claiming title over certain properties – Defendant asserting title based on documents – Plaintiff fails to substantiate claims, and defendant’s evidence supports property ownership – Trial court and appellate court rightly confirmed defendant’s title and possession – Concurrent verdicts upheld. [Para 21-23]

Possession: Plaintiff seeking additional time to vacate property – Defendant opposing, citing financial difficulties – Two months’ time granted to plaintiff for vacating the property, conditioned on filing an affidavit within three weeks confirming the same – Failure to file affidavit within the specified time will void the extension. [Para 26-28]

Obscenity and Privacy – Watching obscene content in private time – Whether it amounts to an offence under Section 292 IPC – Court's role in determining the same – The accused was charged with watching obscene videos in his mobile phone in public – No allegation of distribution or exhibition – Section 292 IPC requires evidence of sale, distribution, or public exhibition – Accused's act of watching in private does not constitute an offence under Section 292 IPC. [Para 6]

Accused acquitted – No offence under Section 292 IPC established – Proceedings quashed - Parental Responsibility – Caution to parents regarding minor children and pornography – The easy accessibility of pornographic content on mobile phones – The need for parents to supervise and guide their children's internet use to protect their well-being and moral values. Petition Allowed.  [Para 9]

Civil Appeal – Partition Suit – Misinterpretation of evidence regarding alleged relinquishment of daughters' share by mother – Appellants are daughters of the defendant, seeking partition and separate possession – Dispute regarding payment of Rs.30,000/- to mother and alleged relinquishment of daughters' share – Amendment to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, granting equal rights to daughters in ancestral property – No registered relinquishment deed produced – Mother cannot relinquish minor daughters' share without their consent – Misreading of evidence by lower courts – Second appeal allowed, appellants entitled to 1/3rd share in the properties of the defendant. [Para 14-21]

Criminal Revision Petition – Appeal against judgment of acquittal – State aggrieved by acquittal of the respondent/accused for offences under Sections 504, 324, 498A, and 506 of IPC – Grounds for challenging the acquittal presented – Jurisdictional issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal discussed – State’s appeal under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. held to be not maintainable, as it should have been filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. – Appellate Court’s consideration of the appeal without jurisdiction declared non-est – Criminal Revision Petition dismissed. [Para 1-16]