Writ of Mandamus – Matching Grant to Bar Association – Policy Decision of State – Petitioner-Bar Association at Sub-Division level sought release of ₹50 lakhs for lawyers’ chambers and ₹20 lakhs for library under 2009 policy – State admitted entitlement but withheld grant citing non-submission of vetted estimate – Held: Objection technical in nature – State cannot deny benefit of policy when entitlement undisputed – Direction issued to verify estimates through PWD and release grant – Petition allowed [Paras 15-18].

Government Policy – Financial Assistance to Bar Associations – Notifications dated 11.11.2002 and 06.08.2009 provided for matching grant for construction of lawyers’ chambers and library – Grant for Sub-Division level Bar clarified as ₹50 lakhs for chambers and ₹2 lakhs for library – Court held petitioner entitled subject to compliance with policy conditions [Paras 4, 14, 16].

Technical Objection – Non-Vetting of Estimate – State pleaded estimate not prepared or vetted by PWD – Court observed Executive Engineer of PWD could have deputed officer for site visit and preparation/vetting of estimate – Administrative inaction cannot defeat substantive right under policy – Direction for spot inspection and cross-verification issued [Paras 14, 16-17].

Parity and Non-Discrimination – Similar Grants to Other Bars – Petitioner pleaded similar grants released to other Bar Associations – No denial by State of policy applicability – Withholding grant held unjustified once eligibility established [Paras 10, 15-16].

Directions: Respondent-State directed to release ₹50 lakhs as matching grant for construction of lawyers’ chambers and ₹2 lakhs for library fund – Prior to release, Executive Engineer, PWD (B&R), Amritsar to depute engineer to inspect site, verify estimates and expenditure and submit report by 15.01.2026 – Grant to be released by 10.02.2026 upon receipt of report – Bar Association directed to cooperate and furnish account details – Writ petition allowed [Paras 17-19].

Succession – Validity of Will – Suspicious Circumstances – Will executed by Satya Narayan Joshi (father) in favour of one son and his family excluding other legal heirs was challenged in a partition suit – Will was executed during pendency of suit but no pleading or statement filed by testator in court supporting it – Execution witnesses gave contradictory evidence regarding presence, registration, and awareness of contents by testator – Held: Execution of Will not proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act and Sections 68 & 69 of the Evidence Act – Concurrent finding that Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 17–20].

Succession – Disinheritance of Legal Heirs – Father’s Will excluded daughters and children of predeceased son – No justification or strained relations pleaded – No medical evidence regarding mental state of 89-year-old testator – Court held exclusion without reason raises strong suspicion – Execution not free from doubt – Held: Bequest to only one branch of family without clear reasoning renders Will invalid in law [Paras 17–20].

Civil Procedure – Second Appeal – Substantial Question of Law – High Court admitted second appeal framing four substantial questions regarding necessity of strained relationship in Will, satisfaction for bequest, proof through one attesting witness, and claim for reimbursement for house construction – Held: All questions intertwined with factual findings of validity of Will – Concurrent findings supported by law and evidence – No perversity or legal error – Appeal fails [Paras 11, 15, 20–21].

Evidence Law – Attesting Witness – Requirements – Only one attesting witness examined who failed to confirm joint presence and acknowledgment of signature by testator – Scribe did not identify attesting witnesses or confirm testator’s intent – Held: Legal requirements under Section 68 not satisfied – Mere registration of Will not sufficient – Will not proved [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of Trial Court and First Appellate Court upheld – Will dated 28.01.1993 (Ext.A) not proved – Plaintiffs entitled to 1/4th share in suit properties as legal heirs of deceased son of testator.

Professional Misconduct – Chartered Accountant – Disciplinary Proceedings – Reference to High Court – Reference made by Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India seeking action under Section 21(6) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949 – Allegations based on SEBI investigation relating to manipulation of public issue of Bharthari Financial Services Ltd. – Disciplinary Committee after detailed enquiry held respondent guilty of “other misconduct” – Council accepted findings and recommended removal of name – Held: Due process duly followed and findings well supported by evidence [Paras 1, 4, 11, 14–17].

Professional Misconduct – Other Misconduct – Ante-dated Stock-Invests – Irregular Allotment of Shares – Respondent, Chairman and Whole Time Director of BFSL, conspired with another Chartered Accountant in arranging finance and obtaining ante-dated stock-invests after closure of public issue – Despite withdrawal of applications, shares allotted and certificates issued without receipt of funds – Acts held detrimental to general investing public – Constitutes “other misconduct” under Section 22 read with Section 21 of the Act [Paras 5, 11, 18].

Professional Ethics – Role of Chartered Accountants – Integrity and Fiduciary Responsibility – Chartered Accountants expected to maintain highest standards of integrity as custodians of financial markets – Manipulation of public issues and connivance with promoters strikes at root of market probity – Conduct of respondent held unbecoming of a Chartered Accountant [Paras 18–19].

Disciplinary Jurisdiction – Effect of SEBI and SAT Findings – Findings of SEBI under Section 11B and affirmation by Securities Appellate Tribunal relied upon by Disciplinary Committee – Non-challenge to SAT order by respondent reinforces culpability – Parallel disciplinary proceedings under the Chartered Accountants Act sustainable [Paras 8, 11].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Non-Contest by Delinquent Member – Despite service of notice and opportunity, respondent failed to contest reference before High Court – Allegations remained unrebutted – Court entitled to proceed on basis of record and disciplinary findings [Paras 10, 14].

Penalty – Suspension from Membership – Costs – In exercise of powers under Section 21(6) of the Act, respondent directed to be suspended from membership of ICAI for one year – Restrained from rendering services as a Chartered Accountant during suspension – Costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on respondent payable to petitioner [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Reference accepted – Respondent suspended from membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India for a period of one year – Restrained from rendering services as a Chartered Accountant – Costs imposed – Reference disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Arms Act – Wildlife Offences – Grant of Bail in Multi-offence FIR – Prolonged Custody – Petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam arrested in connection with FIR alleging recovery of drug money, arms, wildlife articles, and narcotics – Petitioners in custody for over one year and two months – Charges framed, but trial yet to commence – 42 witnesses cited, no prior criminal record – Held: Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration, completion of investigation, and parity with co-accused [Paras 2, 6, 7, 11]

NDPS Act – Section 21(c) – Recovery Below Commercial Quantity – Effect on Bail Consideration – From petitioner Divyam, only 381 grams of charas recovered – Less than commercial quantity of 1 kg – Bail plea considered favourably due to lesser offence severity under NDPS Act [Para 10]

Arms and Wildlife Protection Act – Recovery From Co-accused – No Independent Recovery From Petitioner – Bail Not Barred – From petitioner Rinku Thapar, arms, wildlife articles, and cash recovered – However, no recovery of narcotics – Bail granted in absence of bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act and considering lack of past criminal record [Paras 6(viii), 10]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Trial – Bail Justified – 42 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined – Trial expected to be prolonged – Petitioners not involved in other cases – No purpose served by continued incarceration – Bail granted [Paras 7, 11]

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Co-Accused Already Granted Bail – Seven co-accused granted regular bail earlier by High Court – Petitioners’ case found on parity – Bail granted on equal footing [Para 6(vii)]

Decision: Regular bail granted to petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam – Ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court – Trial Court to proceed independently and expeditiously.

Taxation Law - Income-tax – Reassessment – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Notices issued under Section 148 after 01.04.2021 invoking TOLA – Validity – Petitioner challenged notice issued under Section 148 pursuant to reassessment proceedings initiated after introduction of Section 148A – Assessing Officer relied on extension of limitation under TOLA and judgment in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal – Held: For A.Y. 2015–2016, reassessment notices issued on or after 01.04.2021 are barred by limitation in view of amended Section 149 – Revenue conceded before Supreme Court that such notices cannot survive – Notices issued during extended period under TOLA declared invalid [Paras 2–5, 9, 17].

Income-tax – Reassessment Procedure – Section 148A(b) and 148A(d) – Effect of Ashish Agarwal decision – Notices originally issued under old regime between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 deemed to be notices under Section 148A(b) – Subsequent orders under Section 148A(d) and fresh notices under Section 148 issued in July 2022 – Held: Even after following procedure under Section 148A, reassessment is impermissible if limitation under Section 149 has expired – Procedural compliance cannot cure substantive bar of limitation [Paras 3, 5, 16].

Limitation – Section 149 – Interaction with TOLA – Assessment Year 2015–2016 – Three-year limitation expired on 31.03.2019 and six-year period expired on 31.03.2022 – TOLA cannot revive dead and time-barred proceedings – Supreme Court in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal conclusively held that reassessment for A.Y. 2015–2016 after 01.04.2021 is impermissible – Same principle reiterated in Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. – Applied and followed [Paras 8–10].

Judicial Precedent – Binding Nature of Supreme Court Concession – Revenue’s categorical concession before Supreme Court that all notices for A.Y. 2015–2016 issued on or after 01.04.2021 must be dropped – High Court bound to apply law declared and concession recorded by Apex Court – Impugned notice quashed accordingly [Paras 9–11, 17].

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2015–2016 quashed and set aside – Reassessment proceedings held to be invalid and time-barred – Petition disposed of.

Arbitration – Appeal under Section 37 – Maintainability – Ad-interim injunction – Appellants challenged an ad-interim order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 directing parties to maintain status quo ante – Office raised objection on maintainability under Section 37(1)(b) as petition was still pending – Held: Order amounts to granting an interim measure under Section 9 – Covered under Section 37(1)(b) – Appeal maintainable [Paras 5, 6, 11, 17–18, 25, 31–32].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1) – Scope of Appeal – Commercial Court's interim order under Section 9 of Arbitration Act can be appealed if it falls under Section 37(1)(b) or Order 43 CPC – Held: Section 13 does not create independent right of appeal but facilitates appeal where it lies under Section 37 or Order 43 – Ad-interim injunction appealable if extraordinary circumstance shown [Paras 15, 28–30].

Interim Injunction – Appeal against Ad-Interim Order – Principles – Court referred to Innovative Pharma Surgicals and A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu cases – Held: Appeal against ad-interim injunction maintainable in extraordinary circumstances such as delay or inaction in hearing vacation application – Interim order having serious consequences cannot be treated as non-appealable merely due to its interim nature [Paras 21–24].

Divergence from Other High Courts – Meghalaya High Court view in NTPC v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Ltd. that ad-interim orders are non-appealable under Section 37(1)(b) was not accepted – Andhra Pradesh High Court held ad-interim injunctions falling within the scope of Section 9 are appealable under Section 37 [Paras 26–28].

Civil Procedure – Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Ad-interim injunction granted under Order 39 is appealable – Same principle applies to ad-interim orders under Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Harmonious construction with Section 104 CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act warranted [Paras 20, 24].

Decision: Office objection overruled – Appeal held maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Matter directed to be numbered – Appeal to be posted for further hearing on 30/12/2025.

Intellectual Property – Trade Mark Infringement – Interim Injunction – Plaintiff sought interim injunction against Defendants for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'RACIRAFT' by use of 'EsiRaft' for identical medicinal product – Both products used for treatment of heartburn and indigestion and contain same active ingredients – Plaintiff relied on phonetic and visual similarity, prior adoption, and goodwill – Defendant opposed claim stating ‘RAFT’ is common to trade and 'ESI' has distinct meaning and origin – Held: On holistic comparison, marks not deceptively similar either visually or phonetically – Interim injunction refused [Paras 16–21, 30–36].

Trade Marks Act – Section 2(h) – Deceptive Similarity – Rival marks ‘RACIRAFT’ and ‘EsiRaft’ analyzed under the anti-dissection rule – Court held that ‘RAFT’ is generic and denotes foaming agent sodium alginate – Prefixes 'RACI' and 'ESI' structurally and phonetically distinct – First syllables are dominant and distinct – No likelihood of confusion or deception found – Held: Marks not deceptively similar within the meaning of Section 2(h) [Paras 20–21, 30].

Passing Off – Common Field of Activity – Claim of passing off based on visual and phonetic similarity and shared therapeutic use – Defendant’s product packaging, label, and trade dress found dissimilar – No attempt to misrepresent association with Plaintiff's product shown – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of passing off [Paras 34–35].

Trade Mark Law – Prior Use and Commonality in Trade – Plaintiff’s claim of exclusive rights in mark rejected as ‘RAFT’ held common in pharmaceutical trade for antacid products – Defendant produced physical evidence of third-party use of suffix ‘RAFT’ and two-color trade name formatting – Explanation for adoption of ‘ESI’ as Enhanced System Improvement or Esophageal Symptom Index accepted – Mere use of common manufacturer not indicative of dishonest adoption – Held: No prima facie mala fide adoption made out [Paras 19, 32–33].

Procedural Law – Order 39 Rule 4 CPC – Defendant’s oral prayer for vacation of ex parte ad-interim relief not independently considered as interim application was decided finally on merits – Ad-interim relief vacated on dismissal of interim application [Paras 15, 36].

Decision: Interim Application dismissed – Ad-interim relief vacated – However, continued for one week from date of order to enable Plaintiff to take appropriate steps [Paras 36, 39].

Criminal Law – Section 323 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt – Conviction Unsustainable in Absence of Medical Evidence – Appellants convicted under Section 323 IPC – No medical evidence or doctor's testimony produced – No proof of bodily pain, disease, or infirmity as defined under Section 319 IPC – Held: Failure to prove nature and extent of injuries renders prosecution case incomplete – Benefit of doubt must be extended to accused [Paras 6–10]

Witness Testimony – Uncorroborated and Uncross-Examined Injured Witnesses – P.W.1 and P.W.4 claimed to be injured but not cross-examined – Absence of corroboration through medical report and lack of specific attribution of role to each accused – Held: Mere oral allegations without supporting evidence insufficient to sustain conviction under Section 323 IPC [Paras 7–10]

Non-Examination of Investigating Officer – Effect on Prosecution – Investigating Officer not examined – No contradictions elicited from witnesses – Held: While not fatal per se, non-examination of IO when combined with other lapses (absence of medical proof, general allegations) cumulatively weakens prosecution case [Paras 4, 6, 8–10]

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to prove individual culpability of each accused – No clear evidence linking specific acts of assault to particular accused – Held: Prosecution evidence vague and non-specific – Conviction set aside and appellants acquitted giving benefit of doubt [Paras 10–11]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.07.2007 passed by Special Judge, Keonjhar in Special Case No. 19 of 1999 set aside – Accused-appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged – Criminal appeal disposed of.

Civil Law - Compromise Decree – Corporate authority – Alleged transfer of control under Share Purchase Agreement – Fraud on Court pleaded after decade-long delay – Prior execution findings negating fraud and collusion – Compromise lawful and binding – Recall rightly refused – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–50].

Company Law – Corporate Control – Share Purchase Agreement – Mere execution of SPA does not effect transfer of management or control – Statutory compliances under Companies Act and actual assumption of management essential – Absence of Form 32 filings, failure to convene meetings or take charge negates plea of transfer of control – “Alter ego” doctrine applied – Persons in de facto and de jure control bind the company [Paras 17–26].

Civil Procedure – Compromise Decree – Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Authority to compromise – Where statutory records and conduct show continuance of existing management, compromise entered by such management valid and binding – Subsequent claim of lack of authority by alleged transferee not accepted in absence of statutory recognition [Paras 25–29].

Fraud on Court – High threshold – Allegations of fraud must be clear, specific and supported by cogent evidence – Subsequent police report or speculative assertions regarding consideration insufficient to vitiate judicially recorded compromise – Earlier execution court findings rejecting plea of fraud and collusion carry significant weight [Paras 30–35, 43–44].

Execution Proceedings – Obstructionist claims – Failure to prove possession, mortgage or charge – Absence of books of account, balance sheets or statutory compliance under Companies Act and Transfer of Property Act – Obstructionist deriving claim from judgment debtor must “go with” judgment debtor – Compromise decree not undermined on such basis [Paras 35–42].

Delay and Acquiescence – Recall of compromise decree – Knowledge of decree and participation in execution proceedings through related entity – Recall application filed more than a decade later – Long acquiescence and repeated failed challenges undermine bona fides – Recall barred by limitation and conduct [Paras 45–49].

Appellate Interference – Scope – Where Single Judge has considered statutory records, prior adjudications and applied settled principles on fraud and corporate authority, no perversity or illegality warranting interference found [Paras 44–50].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 17.03.2025 upheld – Compromise decree dated 28.03.2003 held lawful and binding – All pending applications dismissed [Paras 49–50].