Civil Law - Title and Ownership – Failure to Prove Execution of Power of Attorney – Claim Dismissed – Plaintiff's claim of ownership through a 1993 sale deed allegedly executed via a power of attorney failed due to non-production of the power of attorney – The courts held that without proof of authority, the sale deed could not confer title – Further, the original owner had died in 1986, undermining the validity of the alleged transfer – The courts also noted the lack of mutation in plaintiff's name and absence of possession – Held: Plaintiff failed to establish ownership or right over the property [Paras 9-13, 17, 20-24, 26-27].

Challenge to Defendants' Title – No Pleadings or Relief Sought – Plaintiff Barred – Plaintiff did not challenge the registered sale deeds produced by the defendants in their written statement – An amendment application to do so was rejected and not pursued effectively – Held: Plaintiff is estopped from disputing defendants’ title without seeking appropriate relief [Paras 15-17, 24-27].

Documentary Evidence – Burden to Produce Foundational Documents – Plaintiff Failed – The sale deed relied on by the plaintiff lacked support from a valid, proven power of attorney – Courts emphasized that the burden lies on the party asserting title to prove foundational documents – Held: Sale deed could not be relied upon without proof of authority [Paras 22-24, 26].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court reiterated that concurrent factual findings cannot be interfered with unless there's perversity or a substantial legal question – Held: The case was devoid of any substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC [Paras 28-32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The Second Appeal was dismissed for want of substantial legal question and failure of the plaintiff to prove his case either on title or possession – A four-week stay of the order was granted to enable the appellant to challenge it further [Paras 32-34].
 

Civil Procedure – Order 11 Rule 1 of the CPC - Interrogatories – Permissible Even at Advanced Trial Stage – No Prejudice Found – Plaintiff sought to deliver interrogatories in a partition suit—Earlier application was dismissed as not pressed—Trial Court later allowed a second application—Held: Leave for interrogatories may be granted even at advanced stage if no prejudice caused—Plaintiff's queries relevant to title and partition rights—Order upheld [Paras 6–8, 24–25].

Discovery – Interrogatories Cannot Be Fishing Expeditions – Must Relate to Matters in Question – High Court held that interrogatories must support the applicant’s own case and relate to key facts in dispute—Questions related to gift deed, title, and possession were deemed material and not speculative or irrelevant—Scope of interrogatories clarified with reference to precedents [Paras 13–17, 20–22].

Earlier Application Not Pressed – Not a Bar to Subsequent Application – First application under Order XI Rule 1 CPC was dismissed as not pressed—Second application filed on new factual developments—Court held: No legal bar exists against second application in such scenario—No implied concession or waiver by plaintiff [Paras 18, 26–27].

Partition Suit – Lost Decree Records – Right to Interrogatories Reinforced – Final decree records from 1971 were reported missing—Plaintiff entitled to interrogate defendant who claimed exclusive possession—Held: In absence of records, interrogatories are a legitimate method to clarify disputed title and possession [Paras 3–5, 22–23].

Decision – Original Petition dismissed – Impugned order allowing interrogatories affirmed – No evidence of prejudice or legal bar – Trial to proceed with interrogatories as ordered [Final Para].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Concealment of Medical Condition – Grounds for Divorce – Held: Valid – The appellant-wife had pre-existing cyst and infertility issues, which she failed to disclose prior to marriage – Medical records and testimony established concealment – The Family Court correctly concluded that the deliberate non-disclosure of such crucial facts amounted to mental cruelty against the husband [Paras 23-24].

Cruelty – Physical and Mental Abuse – Divorce Justified – Respondent established instances of physical assault and mental harassment including threats and violent behavior by appellant – The evidence of cruelty was not rebutted effectively in cross-examination – Cumulative acts and continued abusive conduct caused mental agony – Divorce decree sustained [Paras 16, 24, 26].

Irretrievable Breakdown – Not Independent Ground – Still Relevant – Though not a standalone statutory ground, long separation of over ten years with no conjugal relations was rightly considered as supporting the cruelty claim – Courts rightly recognized prolonged separation as reflective of irreparable marital discord [Paras 27, 34].

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – In Matrimonial Disputes – No strict evidence rule – Oral testimony coupled with uncontroverted material sufficient – Family Court's approach consistent with settled legal principles on burden of proof in matrimonial cruelty cases [Paras 28-29].

Appellate Interference – Scope Limited – No Perverse Finding – High Court affirms Family Court findings as based on cogent reasoning and supported by record – Appeal dismissed [Paras 34-35].

Criminal Law – Bail – Cheating and Forgery - Delay in Lodging FIR – Allegation of Counterblast – Bail Granted - FIR lodged after six years of alleged incident involving demand and acceptance of ₹15,00,000 for teaching job, and later denial of employment – Applicant contended FIR was retaliatory, following applicant’s FIR against informant’s relatives for kidnapping – Held: Inordinate delay in filing complaint and absence of conviction in criminal history relevant factors favouring bail [Paras 3–4, 18].

Criminal Procedure – Pre-Trial Incarceration – Article 21 – Right to Speedy Trial - The Court noted that continued detention without trial amounts to violation of fundamental rights under Article 21 – Held: Keeping the accused in jail indefinitely when trial is not progressing violates the right to personal liberty [Paras 5, 12–13].

Bail Jurisprudence – Bail is Rule, Jail Exception – Heavy Monetary Conditions Discouraged – Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Court held that bail cannot be made contingent on unreasonable monetary deposits and should not be used to secure civil recovery – Held: Bail granted without financial conditions [Paras 7–8, 16–17].

Criminal History – Bail Not Denied Solely Due to Past Cases – Accused Not Convicted – The applicant had 34 pending cases, including 11 under Section 138 of the NI Act – Held: No conviction recorded till date, and such cases by themselves not sufficient ground to deny bail [Paras 6, 15, 18].

*Decision – Bail Granted – Conditions Imposed – The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on execution of personal bond and two sureties – Conditions included non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, regular court appearance, and no contact with complainant – Violation to result in cancellation of bail [Paras 19–21].

Taxation Law - Capital Gains – Timing of Transfer under JDA – Section 2(47)(v) – Substantive Assessment from A.Y. 2007–08 – Not Taxable in A.Y. 2006–07 - Held: The transaction under the unregistered Joint Development Agreement dated 23.11.2005 did not amount to “transfer” under Section 2(47)(v) read with Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in A.Y. 2006–07 as there was no development activity in that year – Capital gains to be computed in subsequent assessment years based on actual transfer of constructed property [Paras 1–4, 50–53, 104–105].

Section 80IB(10) Deduction – Applicability of Section 80AC – Deduction Allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 Only - Held: Benefit of deduction under Section 80IB(10) could not be denied for A.Y. 2006–07 as Section 80AC was not yet in force – However, for A.Ys. 2007–08 onwards, deduction not allowable as no claim was made in returns filed under Section 139(1) as mandated by Section 80AC – Remedy left open for collateral challenge to Section 80AC in separate proceedings [Paras 12, 90–104, 118–120].

Bogus Expenditure – Cost of Improvement – Remanded for Fresh Verification – Held: Assessee failed to substantiate Rs. 4.52 crore cost claimed via M/s. Takshil Trading Pvt. Ltd., a suspected hawala operator – Tribunal rightly remanded issue to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, noting procedural lapses and non-disclosure of documents to assessee [Paras 25, 64–65, 71–72].

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) – Justified Reduction – Tribunal's Discretion Upheld - Penalty for concealment of income reduced from 300% to 100% by CIT(A) and upheld by ITAT – High Court found no perversity in exercise of discretion by lower authorities [Paras 28, 39–41].

Suppression of Income – Re-routing via Related Party – Assessee Found Liable - Managing Director’s son introduced as partner in Developer Firm received Rs. 25 crore consideration – Held: This was diversion of company’s capital gains, not substantiated in returns – Tribunal correctly upheld substantive assessments in A.Y. 2007–08 onwards [Paras 16–20, 62–63, 73–74].

Decision – Partial Relief to Assessee – Deduction allowed for A.Y. 2006–07 – Dismissal of appeals for A.Ys. 2007–08 to 2011–12 – Appeals of Department allowed for statistical purposes – Assessee given liberty to challenge Section 80AC separately under Article 226 [Paras 120–124].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action – Illusory Pleading – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – The plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share in ancestral property and challenged sale deeds of 1972 and 1975, relying on the dismissal of a prior unrelated civil suit in 2021 as cause of action – Held: The Court found that the alleged cause of action was fictitious and a result of clever drafting – The pendency or dismissal of prior litigation was irrelevant and did not prevent the plaintiff from asserting his rights earlier [Paras 1-4, 10, 15-16].

Limitation – Declaration of Ownership and Partition – Article 58 & 110 of Limitation Act – Suit Time-Barred – The plaintiff attained majority in 1978 and was aware of the disputed transactions – Held: Suit for declaration and partition should have been filed within 3 or 12 years respectively – The present suit filed in 2022 was clearly barred by limitation – The trial court erred in treating limitation as a mixed question of fact and law despite clear averments in plaint [Paras 12-14, 18-19].

Jurisdiction of Trial Court – Failure to Exercise Judicial Discretion – Misapplication of Order VII Rule 11 – The trial court rejected the application without thoroughly evaluating whether the plaint disclosed a real cause of action or was barred by limitation – Held: The trial court failed to act as per binding precedents requiring courts to reject plaints lacking a meaningful cause of action or filed beyond limitation [Paras 17-18, 22].

Decision – Plaint Rejected – Revision Allowed – The High Court quashed the trial court’s order and allowed the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held that the plaint disclosed no genuine cause of action and was hopelessly barred by limitation – Pending applications were also disposed of accordingly [Paras 22-23].

Election Law – Challenge to Electoral Roll – Maintainability of Election Petition – Not Barred – Petition Alleges Illegal Inclusion of 587 Ineligible Voters Influenced by Candidate – Court held that objections to electoral roll alleging illegality and undue influence, if they materially affect the result of election, can be tried in an election petition – No absolute bar under Representation of People Acts to challenge electoral roll when no alternate remedy is available [Paras 5-6, 11, 14, 18-20].

Cause of Action – Material Particulars Pleaded – Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Not Justified – Election petition alleged material facts including influence over institutions and registration of ineligible pre-primary and primary school teachers as voters – Narrow margin of 208 votes between petitioner and returned candidate substantiated cause for trial – Pleadings sufficient to proceed with trial – Rejection at threshold stage refused [Paras 5, 20-21].

Interpretation – Election Includes Entire Process – Reiterated that 'Election' encompasses stages having bearing on result – Irregularities in voter inclusion, if proven to affect outcome, are within scope of challenge under election petition – Referenced apex court jurisprudence on scope of Article 329(b) and interpretation of election process [Paras 7-10, 13].

Decision – Application for Rejection of Election Petition Dismissed – Court found petition discloses sufficient cause of action – Allegations of illegal influence and improper voter registration warrant full trial – Application dismissed with liberty to parties to contest on merits [Para 21].

Service Law – Voluntary Resignation – Acceptance by Commandant – Held Valid – Petitioner submitted resignation from post of Constable on 11 July 2018 citing domestic problems—Resignation supported by affidavit and accepted the same day—High Court held: Resignation voluntary and acceptance lawful—Claim of coercion by militants raised only later; unsupported by any prior record—Petitioner’s plea dismissed [Paras 3–8].

Police Act – Section 10 – Notice Period Not Mandatory When Leave Granted – Petitioner argued that resignation should be deemed “intention to resign” requiring two months' notice—Court clarified: Rule prohibits resignation without prior notice unless leave is granted—Here, Commandant accepted resignation immediately, rendering notice period inapplicable [Paras 9–11].

Conduct of Petitioner – Pattern of Disinterest in Service – Petitioner had previously absented twice during training and was censured—After training, served only two months before resigning—Court found pattern indicative of lack of interest in police service—Rejected suggestion of compelled resignation [Paras 3–4, 8].

Tribunal Decision – Found to Be Just and Legal – No Grounds for Interference – Tribunal had rejected petitioner’s challenge in OA No. 693/2022—High Court concurred with reasoning based on Supreme Court’s precedent in Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy—Held: No interference warranted under Article 226 [Paras 5–7].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Resignation found voluntary and valid – No coercion or procedural illegality proved – No costs awarded [Para 12].

Taxation Law - Export Supply – Compensation Cess – Exemption Denied – Levy Deferred – Petitioners challenged the levy of Compensation Cess at 160% on supply of branded tobacco to merchant exporters for export, which was otherwise taxed at a concessional GST rate of 0.1% under Notification Nos. 40/2017 and 41/2017 – Held: Though no separate exemption notification was issued under the Compensation Cess Act, such supply qualifies as “export of goods” and is zero-rated under Section 16 of the IGST Act – The levy is revenue-neutral as merchant exporters are entitled to refunds – Government directed to refer the issue to GST Council – Operation of impugned order kept in abeyance [Paras 94-118].

Interpretation of Export Supply – Supplies to Merchant Exporters Considered Exports – Court held that the movement of goods from factory to port for direct export by merchant exporters, without diversion, constituted a continuous chain of export – Cited Apex Court decisions in Amritsar Sugar Mills and Lord Krishna Sugar Mills to support the principle that more than one leg in a transaction may qualify as “export” – Such supplies are entitled to zero-rated benefits [Paras 97-99, 111].

Revenue Neutrality – Refund Mechanism – Levy Held Unjustified – Petitioners contended that any Compensation Cess paid would ultimately be refunded to merchant exporters, making the levy redundant and burdensome – Court agreed and held that levy causing working capital blockage undermines the policy of tax-free exports – Refused to apply exemption narrowly to exclude Compensation Cess while applying it to GST [Paras 100-107].

Judicial Direction – GST Council to Reconsider Compensation Cess Exemption – Although no exemption notification was issued under the Compensation Cess Act, Court invoked Section 11 of the Act, which applies GST and IGST provisions mutatis mutandis – Strongly urged GST Council to recommend exemption for Compensation Cess in line with existing exemptions under Notifications 40/2017 and 41/2017 – No coercive recovery till decision by Council [Paras 114-119].

Decision – Impugned Orders Kept in Abeyance – Petitions Disposed – The Court held that supply of goods by petitioners to merchant exporters constitutes zero-rated export supply – Impugned demand for Compensation Cess at 160% stayed and referred to GST Council for policy recommendation – Respondents restrained from initiating recovery if petitioners comply with exemption notification conditions and submit undertaking to deposit cess if the Council decides otherwise – Rule made absolute to this extent [Paras 116-120].