Maintenance – Revision of Maintenance Order – Petitioner challenged the Family Court’s order to pay Rs. 30,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife – Contention included existing maintenance obligations totaling Rs. 22,000 per month and his deteriorating health and income capacity – High Court modified the maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month – Emphasized the need to consider all existing maintenance orders and petitioner’s age and health [Paras 1-17].

Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Maintenance – Assessment – Court noted the Family Court’s failure to consider existing maintenance orders from other proceedings – Highlighted guidelines from Rajnesh vs. Neha & Anr. 2021 (2) SCC 324 on maintenance assessment – Directed consolidation of all maintenance amounts to ensure fair evaluation of petitioner’s obligations [Paras 3, 16].

Age and Health Considerations – Maintenance – Court acknowledged the petitioner’s age (over 70 years) and health issues – Reduced maintenance amount in light of his diminished income capacity – Reinforced the need to balance the petitioner’s financial ability with the dependent’s needs [Paras 13-16].

Decision – Revision allowed in part – Family Court’s order modified to reduce maintenance to Rs. 15,000 per month – Directed adjustment of amounts already paid – Ensured compliance with principles of fair maintenance assessment [Paras 15-17].

Customs Law – Burden of Proof – Seizure of Gold and Currency – Voluntariness of Statements – Section 123 of Customs Act – Appeal by Revenue challenging CESTAT order which reversed confiscation of gold and Indian currency from respondent – Tribunal held the seized gold to be made from old jewellery and not smuggled – Tribunal accepted respondent’s retraction of statements made under Section 108 of Customs Act – Supreme Court’s principles on burden of proof and voluntariness of retracted statements examined – High Court reinstates adjudicating authority’s order, confirming confiscation and penalties, as respondent failed to prove lawful acquisition of seized gold and currency – Tribunal’s findings held to be perverse and contrary to Section 123. [Paras 1-27]

Statements under Section 108 of Customs Act – Retraction and Evidentiary Value – Analysis – Tribunal erred in dismissing respondent’s initial statements as involuntary without proper examination of retraction timing and consistency – Statements recorded in vernacular by respondent were voluntary – Reliance on Vinod Solanki’s case regarding the examination of retractions – Held, Tribunal’s acceptance of retraction without thorough scrutiny flawed. [Paras 17, 21-25]

Decision – Confiscation and Penalty – Upheld -  Restoration of Adjudicating Authority’s Order – High Court allows Revenue’s appeal – Sets aside Tribunal’s order – Restores the adjudicating authority’s order of confiscation and penalties – Confirms substantial questions of law in favor of Revenue – Respondent’s claim of gold sourced from old jewellery deemed unsubstantiated. [Para 27]

Income Tax Law – Appeal against ITAT order – Submission of Audit Report – High Court dismisses Revenue's appeal challenging ITAT's decision to allow assessee's exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act despite late filing of audit report in Form 10B – Tribunal's reliance on CBDT Circulars clarifying deadlines for returns accepted – No substantial question of law found.

Exemption Eligibility – Filing Deadline – CBDT Circulars F. No.173/193/2019-ITA-I and Circular No. 8 of 2021 provided extensions for filing belated and revised returns – Tribunal's application of Circulars upheld by High Court – Held: Assessee entitled to exemption despite late filing as Tribunal's decision aligned with CBDT guidelines .

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – Appeal by Revenue dismissed – Tribunal's decision to treat return as filed within time affirmed – Stay application also dismissed – High Court concurs with Tribunal's interpretation of CBDT Circulars and concludes no substantial question of law arises for consideration .

Eviction Notice – Validity and Service – Plaintiff issued an eviction notice dated 18.06.1994, which was returned with the postal endorsement “refused” on 07.07.1994. The court below held that the notice did not comply with the statutory requirement of one month’s notice expiring with the month of tenancy, as the notice period fell short by eight days. The High Court, however, emphasized that the landlord had taken all necessary steps to serve the notice, and it should be deemed valid under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act [Paras 23-28].

Reasonable Requirement – Bona Fide Need of the Landlord – The trial court’s finding that the landlord required the premises for starting a motor parts business for his son was overturned by the appellate court. The High Court reinstated the trial court’s decision, emphasizing that the landlord’s intention and absence of alternative suitable accommodation were adequately proved. The tenant’s contention regarding the availability of other properties was found baseless [Paras 29-31].

Effect of Subsequent Events – Applicability of WBPT Act, 1997 – The High Court noted that the death of the original tenant and the provisions of Section 2(g) of the WBPT Act, 1997 rendered the respondents trespassers after five years from the tenant’s death, making them liable for eviction. This was in line with judgments like Goutam Dey v. Jyotsna Chatterjee and M/S Mangalic Enterprise v. Swapan Kumar Das [Paras 32-33].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Midnapore, in Other Appeal no. 54 of 2000, dated 24.07.2002, were set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2000 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Contai, in T.S. No. 277 of 1994, were affirmed.
 

Criminal Procedure – Restoration of Complaint – Petitioners challenged restoration of complaint dismissed for non-appearance of the respondent – High Court ruled that once a complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution, the trial court becomes functus officio and cannot restore the complaint – No provision in Cr.P.C. allows such restoration – Reference made to Supreme Court’s decision in A.S. Gauraya v. S.N. Thakur – Orders of restoration and summoning set aside [Paras 1-19].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – High Court has inherent powers to prevent abuse of process and to ensure justice – Subordinate courts do not possess such inherent powers – Orders restoring dismissed complaints by trial courts without jurisdiction are nullities – Inherent powers do not extend to such restorations by trial courts [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Orders dated 13.08.2019 and 16.04.2022 set aside – Restoration and summoning deemed without jurisdiction – Liberty granted to respondent to seek appropriate remedy under law [Paras 19-20].

Income Tax – Assessment Order – Natural Justice – Petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 7th March 2024 and the demand notice issued under the Income Tax Act – Contended that the assessment was based on evidence from third parties without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine them – Court observed that the petitioner had responded to the notices and participated in proceedings but did not make a specific request for summoning the third party for cross-examination – Held that mere statement in response without formal application for cross-examination does not vitiate the order – Appeal before the appellate authority was considered an adequate remedy despite the delay caused by the writ petition – Directions issued to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and the request for cross-examination based on Supreme Court precedents [Paras 1-16].

Opportunity to Cross-Examine – Principles of Natural Justice – Petitioner claimed violation of natural justice as the authorities did not allow cross-examination of Amit Kumar Agarwal, whose statements were crucial for the assessment – Court noted that petitioner did not specifically request issuance of summons for cross-examination during the assessment proceedings – Held that failure to specifically request cross-examination cannot invalidate the assessment order, but the appellate authority should consider such request in light of Supreme Court guidelines [Paras 10-13].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal – Despite the availability of an appellate remedy, petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction citing denial of natural justice – Court permitted petitioner to approach the appellate authority within 15 days, condoning the delay due to pendency of writ petition – Appellate authority directed to consider the appeal on merits and decide on the cross-examination request [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Writ Petition Disposed of – Petitioner allowed to file appeal with appellate authority – Directions to appellate authority to consider appeal and request for cross-examination in accordance with law and precedents [Paras 14-16].
 

Property Law – Redemption of Mortgage – Appeal challenging the judgment reversing the trial court's decision on the respondents' suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding property mortgaged in 1946 – Respondents claimed the property and challenged its mutation as evacuee property – Trial Court dismissed the suit, ruling the property vested in the custodian after the mortgagee's migration – Appellate Court reversed, declaring respondents' ownership due to non-redemption within 30 years and no limitation on redemption – High Court upheld Appellate Court's decision, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation of usufructuary mortgage rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 1-11].

Mortgage Redemption – Limitation – Conflicting judicial views on redemption rights under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act – High Court affirmed no limitation period applies for redemption under usufructuary mortgages where possession remains with the mortgagee until mortgage money is recovered – Appellants' right to auction property as per Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act dismissed [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – First appellate court's decree upheld – Respondents declared owners in possession of the suit property – Mutations in favor of custodian department invalid [Para 11].
 

Criminal Law – Abetment to Suicide – Appeal against the acquittal – Respondents acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Jamnagar – Allegations of mental and physical torture leading to suicide of the victim by burning – Dying declaration and witness testimonies considered – High Court upheld the acquittal, finding no manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment – Emphasized the double presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in cases of acquittal [Paras 1-18].

Presumption under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act – Applicability discussed – Court held that the mere fact of suicide within two years of marriage and allegations of cruelty do not automatically lead to conviction without corroborative evidence – Dying declaration suggesting accidental cause of death considered significant [Paras 4, 17].

Appellate Court’s Scope – Reiterated principles for interference with acquittal – High Court reviewed evidence, confirming trial court’s findings as plausible and not suffering from perversity – Cited precedents emphasizing reluctance to overturn acquittal unless evidence overwhelmingly supports conviction [Paras 6-10, 13-14].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Acquittal judgment affirmed – No interference warranted as trial court’s decision was found just, legal, and proper [Para 18].

Administrative Law – Policy Decision – Relocation of Railway Stalls – Petitioner, an allottee of a catering stall at Dadar Railway Station, challenges multiple orders directing the relocation of her stall – Petitioner argues non-application of mind, adverse impact on livelihood, and violation of hygienic conditions – Court upholds the railway administration’s policy decision for decongesting platforms and facilitating free passenger movement, finding no merit in the petitioner’s objections [Paras 1-20].

Relocation of Stall – Considerations and Judicial Review – Decision to relocate based on congestion and passenger flow issues at one of Mumbai’s busiest railway stations – Feasibility report suggesting relocation near an escalator was overruled by a broader policy decision affecting multiple stalls – Court finds no arbitrariness or discrimination in the decision, highlighting the need to prioritize public interest over individual business preferences [Paras 3-18].

Public Interest and Individual Rights – Relocation aimed at decongesting platforms to ensure passenger safety and convenience – Court emphasizes that individual business interests must yield to larger public interest – Petitioner's argument regarding unhygienic conditions near the new location dismissed, as multiple stalls would be situated between the urinal and the petitioner's stall, ensuring hygienic conditions are maintained [Paras 14-19].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court finds the railway administration's decision to relocate the stall within its policy-making prerogative, ensuring passenger convenience and safety at a busy station like Dadar – Petition devoid of merit and hence dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 20].