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].

Civil Law – Retiral Benefits - Legal Heirship – Entitlement to Death Benefits – Declaration in SOP – Held Valid – The petitioner was declared as legal heir of the deceased teacher by a competent civil court, and such finding attained finality – The respondents’ failure to disburse benefits on grounds of memory-based data and lost service register was held arbitrary – Directed to reconstruct the register and pay dues – Family pension rightly denied as the petitioner did not fall within eligible category under Pension Rules [Paras 3, 6–9].

Reconstruction of Service Register – Decree in Civil Suit – Failure to Comply – Decree to reconstruct service register obtained by the petitioner in O.S. No. 327/2003 was not implemented by the authorities – Execution petition also allowed – Court held continued inaction unjustifiable and mandated compliance within one month [Paras 3, 6–9].

Family Pension – Rule 50(V) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 – Not Applicable to Siblings – The petitioner being the brother of the deceased was rightly denied family pension as he does not fall under Category-I – Claim for pension rejected while other monetary claims upheld [Paras 4, 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed in Part – Court directed respondent authorities to reconstruct the service register within one month and disburse death benefits within two months thereafter – Claim for family pension was rejected [Paras 9–10].

Bail – Cheating and Forgery Allegations – Regular Bail Granted – Applicants alleged to have induced complainants to lend and pay over ₹2.55 crores under false pretenses of loan repayment and property sale while properties were mortgaged – Allegations include forgery of title deeds and No Objection Certificates (NOCs) – FSL report confirmed NOC signatures were not genuine – Despite gravity of charges, petitioners had been in custody for 1 year and 4 months, investigation was complete, and evidence was primarily documentary – Held: Bail granted considering prolonged custody, completion of investigation, documentary nature of evidence, and parity with co-accused granted bail [Paras 1–4, 17–23].

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].

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].

Civil Suit – Permanent Injunction – Religious Use and Long-standing Possession – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiff sought injunction restraining interference in use of open site (Asharkhana) for annual religious practice on Milad-un-Nabi – Trial court partially granted relief; Appellate court decreed suit entirely – Held: Continuous performance of religious rituals and payment from Wakf Board established de jure possession – Use of property on specific days for decades sufficient to claim protection of possession in law – Defendant failed to prove lease or legal title to override claim [Paras 7–17, 23–26].

Possession of Open Land – Sacred Use – Principle of De Jure Possession Applied – Court invoked Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy, AIR 2008 SC 2033 – Held: In case of vacant land, possession follows title or long-standing user – Plaintiff’s long uninterrupted performance of religious duties and receipt of payment from Wakf Board signified lawful possession – Defendant’s unproven claim of lease and lack of business activity on date of suit weakened defence [Paras 18–22, 29–31].

Burden of Proof – Section 106 Evidence Act – Defendant Failed to Prove Lease or Legal Transfer – Court held: Plaintiff proved possession; burden shifted to defendant to establish lease and continuity of possession post brother’s death – Defendant failed to summon Wakf Board or produce supporting evidence – Defendant’s plea rightly rejected by Appellate Court – Trial Court had erred in this regard [Paras 24–30].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Injunction Decree Affirmed – Costs Awarded Throughout – High Court upheld the decree of permanent injunction granted by the First Appellate Court – Found no legal error or perversity warranting interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed with costs [Paras 32–34].
 

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint on grounds of vague and insufficient averments regarding the claimed freight charges and services rendered – Trial court rejected the application holding cause of action disclosed in plaint and documents – Held: While examining Order 7 Rule 11, courts may consider documents filed with plaint under Order 7 Rule 14 – If the plaint and accompanying documents disclose necessary facts to support a claim, rejection is unwarranted – Court reiterated that rejection of plaint is a drastic measure, to be used sparingly where no arguable case exists – Petition dismissed as the plaint, read with documents, disclosed sufficient cause of action [Paras 13–18].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Denied – Petition under Article 227 Dismissed – Delhi High Court upheld trial court’s finding that the plaint, supported by invoices and records, disclosed a valid cause of action – Reiterated narrow scope of Order 7 Rule 11 and cautioned against its liberal invocation where triable issues exist [Paras 17–18].

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Transponder Services – Definition of “Royalty” under DTAA and Domestic Law – Matter Remanded – The appellant sought to contest the withholding tax obligation on payments to Intelsat Corporation for transponder services, arguing the payments did not amount to "royalty" under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA – The Court noted that none of the lower authorities properly analysed the agreement or determined the nature of services – Held: Without factual findings on the nature of services, the question of law cannot be adjudicated; matter remanded to CIT(A) for factual determination and analysis of whether services fall under “secret process” or “royalty” under DTAA or the Act [Paras 20-35].

Withholding Tax – Retrospective Amendments – No Liability for Payments Made Before 2012 – The Finance Act, 2012 introduced Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) expanding the definition of “royalty” – Held: For assessment years where payments were made before the amendment, no withholding tax liability arises due to the retrospective effect being inapplicable to withholding obligations – Followed: Reliance Industries Ltd. [Paras 37-40].

Double Taxation Relief – Application of Section 90(2) – Most Beneficial Provision to Apply – The Court reaffirmed that in treaty cases, as per Section 90(2), the taxpayer is entitled to rely on whichever law (domestic or DTAA) is more beneficial – Remanded for CIT(A) to determine applicability of treaty protection and PE status of Intelsat Corporation in India – If Intelsat is not taxable in India, no TDS liability can arise on Viacom 18 [Paras 21-22, 35-36].

Remand – Lack of Factual Determination – Non-Speaking Orders Set Aside – The Court held that the authorities failed to discharge their duty to examine and record findings on the technical agreement and the definition of “process” under the DTAA – Such absence of foundational facts renders the orders unsustainable – Appeals remanded for fresh decision on merits [Paras 27-34].
 

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Dispute and Digital Harassment – Bail Granted – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 119/2025 involving serious allegations by complainant-wife including physical assault, snatching of mobile phone, coercion, and unauthorized financial transactions – Court held that, despite nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of limited duration would suffice for investigation – Bail granted with conditions including cooperation, surrender of electronic devices, and periodic attendance [Paras 3–12].

Investigative Cooperation – Conditional Bail – Electronic Evidence to be Surrendered – Petitioners directed to appear before investigating officer, undergo custodial interrogation, and then be released on bail – Conditions included surrendering electronic devices (phones, laptops), regular attendance before IO, and restriction on tampering with evidence or leaving jurisdiction – Violation to invite cancellation of bail [Para 12].

Decision – Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition, permitted limited custodial interrogation, and imposed strict conditions including bail bond of ₹50,000 each, cooperation with investigation, and weekly police attendance – Clarified that violation of conditions may result in bail cancellation [Para 12].