Defamation – Comments in Transcripts – False and Defamatory – [Para 37 to 39, 52 to 61] – Suit for defamation filed by plaintiff against Defendants No. 1 to 4 alleging false and defamatory comments inserted by Defendant No. 3 in the transcript of the interview titled “Operation West End” – Plaintiff holding the position of Major General in the Army – Allegations of corruption and bribery – Defamatory comments causing harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and character – Held, comments were indeed defamatory to the plaintiff and caused injury to his reputation.

Defamation – Permissible Defenses – Truth, Fair Comment, and Privilege – [Para 95 to 108] – Defendants failed to establish truthfulness of comments or good faith in making them – Defense of good faith rejected due to lack of evidence supporting authenticity of comments – Defendants unable to justify comments in the public domain – Held, no valid defense of defamation established.

Defamation – Telecasting of Program – Defendants No. 5 to 7 – [Para 122 to 126] – Suit against Defendants No. 5 to 7 (Zee Telefilm and others) for defamation – Defendants No. 5 to 7 merely telecasted program without inserting defamatory comments – Plaintiff failed to prove any act of defamation by Defendants No. 5 to 7 – Suit against Defendants No. 5 to 7 dismissed.

Damages – Award of – Compensation for Injury to Reputation – [Para 133] – Defamatory comments causing serious harm to plaintiff’s reputation – Plaintiff awarded damages of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to be paid by Defendants No. 1 to 4 – Apology deemed inadequate and meaningless – Plaintiff suffered ill fame for over 23 years – Damages awarded to compensate for injury to plaintiff’s reputation and honor.

Maintainability of Second Revision Petition – Section 115 of CPC – The Court held that the second revision petition under Section 115 of CPC is maintainable against the revisional order of the District Court. (Para 12)

Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act – Evaluation of Evidence by Courts – The Court ruled that both the Trial Court and revisional Court properly considered the admission made by the Respondent in cross-examination, establishing the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Revision Court cannot re-assess evidence if there is no misinterpretation or misapplication of law. (Para 15-17)

Direction to Dispose of the Matter – The Court directed the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within three months, as the HRC petition had been pending for over a decade. (Para 18-19)

Purpose of granting interlocutory injunction – To protect the appellant against any injury by violation of his/her rights for which he/she could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in action if the uncertainty were resolved in his/her favor at the trial – Court must weigh the needs of the parties and determine the “balance of convenience” – Interlocutory remedy intended to preserve the status quo, based on a prima facie case. (Para 11, Para 12, Para 13)

Suit barred by law – Injunction sought in respect of actions taken or to be taken under the SARFAESI Act – Suit not maintainable as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Remedy lies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for any aggrieved person. (Para 25, Para 26, Para 28)

Equitable Relief – Equitable relief to be denied to a party who approaches the court with unclean hands – One who seeks equitable relief must do equity and demonstrate bonafides – A person guilty of suppression of material facts is not entitled to relief under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. (Para 27)

Court’s Discretion in Granting Temporary Injunction – The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion by the court – Tests for granting interlocutory injunction: (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is disallowed – Court must decide at a time when the legal right and its alleged violation are uncertain – Relief granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during this period. (Para 14)

Bar on granting injunction in respect of actions taken under the SARFAESI Act – Section 34 creates a bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits or proceedings in respect of matters falling under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act – Remedy for any aggrieved person against actions under Section 13(4) is to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or the Appellate Tribunal, not the civil court. (Para 28)

Question of Law – The Court re-framed the issue as to whether the ITAT was justified in finding the assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bad, when no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of initiation under Section 153A. [Para 2]

Factual Background – The original assessment of the respondent for the year 2002-03 was completed under Section 143(3) and subsequently set aside by the 1st Appellate Authority under Section 263. A search under Section 132 led to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. [Para 3-4]

Legal Framework – The Tribunal relied on the High Court of Delhi's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla, summarized the legal position on assessment and re-assessment under Section 153A, stressing the significance of 'pending assessments' and 'completed assessments'. [Para 6]

Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction – The Assessing Officer is empowered to proceed with assessments under Section 153A only when some incriminating material is disclosed during the search or when an assessment is pending. [Para 7]

Decision – Affirming the Tribunal's findings, the Court held that the assessment for the year 2002-03 had been completed prior to the search and Section 153A proceedings. The Court answered the re-framed question in favor of the assessee and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. [Para 8]

Civil Appeal – Cheque Bounce – Acquittal of the accused – Appellant challenges the judgment of acquittal – Complainant alleges the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and issued a cheque, which was returned unpaid with remarks 'Account Closed' – Lack of clear evidence regarding the loan and issuance of the cheque – Presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque rebuttable – No conclusive evidence to establish the offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Burden of proof on the complainant – Trial court's findings upheld. [Para 1-10]

Constitution of India, Article 14, 16, 19, 21 - Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) - National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) - MBBS Course Admission - General Category - NRI Quota - Petitioner, an OCI card holder, seeks admission in MBBS Course under General Category - Petitioner denied the opportunity to register in General Category and confined to NRI Quota - Petitioner files writ petition challenging the legality of Clause 17 (vi) of impugned notification dated 10.03.2023 - Petitioner relies on Supreme Court judgment in Anushka Rengunthwar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. - Issue of eligibility for OCI candidates under General Category and NRI Quota examined - Authorities directed to consider and decide the matter on the day of the order - Merits of the case left open - Relief granted to petitioner

Criminal Procedure - Benefit of Probation - Appellants convicted under Sections 323 IPC and Section 323/34 IPC - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Appellants do not press appeal against conviction - Prayer for granting the benefit of probation under Sections 360 and 361 Cr.P.C. - Court's consideration of the plea of probation. (Para 3)

Sections 360 and 361 of Cr.P.C. - Applicability - Court's duty to consider the plea of probation - Recording of special reasons when not granting the benefit of probation - Obligatory requirement. (Para 7)

Precedents - Eliamma and Another vs. State of Karnataka - Court must record specific reasons for not granting probation when applicable - Mandatory duty of the Court - Conviction upheld, but matter remitted to trial court for considering probation plea. (Para 7)

Daljit Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab through Secretary Home Affairs - Court obligated to consider plea of probation - Failure to do so held erroneous. (Para 8)

Balbir Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab - Court required to give special reasons for not granting the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, when the case could be dealt with under Section 360 Cr.P.C. - Similar view upheld in other cases. (Para 9)

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 436, Section 437(5), Section 439(2) - Cancellation of Bail - Jurisdiction of Magistrate - Bail granted under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. - Sub-section (5) of Section 437 empowers the Magistrate to order arrest and custody if bail was granted under Section 437(1) or (2) - Bail under Section 436 not covered - Jurisdiction to cancel bail granted under Section 436 vests with the High Court or Court of Session under Section 439(2) - Impugned order of cancellation by Magistrate held to be without jurisdiction.

Principles of Natural Justice - Right to Hearing - Accused's right to be heard before bail cancellation - Referral to the maxim 'audi alteram partem' - Courts must accord opportunity of hearing to accused before cancelling bail - Violation of natural justice in the instant case acknowledged.

Precedents - Relevant Provisions - Reference to Madhab Chandra Jena v. State of Orissa and Kalia v. State of Orissa - Consistent view taken in prior cases that bail granted under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. can only be cancelled under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by High Court or Court of Session.

Criminal Procedure - Regular Bail Application - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 439 Cr.P.C - Petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 NDPS Act added later) - Alleged recovery of contraband from co-accused (petitioner's husband) - Petitioner's custody for 7 months and 8 days - Petitioner's contention of false implication - No recovery from the petitioner - No criminal antecedents - Charges framed but no witnesses examined - Trial likely to take time. [Para 1-3]

Court's Observations - Considering the facts and circumstances - No recovery from petitioner - Not involved in any other case - Trial at an early stage - Petitioner's further incarceration serves no useful purpose. [Para 6]

Court's Decision - Petitioner granted regular bail - Conditions imposed: (i) No tampering with evidence, (ii) No pressurizing/intimidating witnesses, (iii) Mandatory appearance before the trial court, (iv) Not to commit a similar offense, (v) No coercion or tampering with evidence, (vi) No misuse of liberty, (vii) Furnishing address and mobile number to the trial court, (viii) No leaving the country without permission, (ix) Trial court may impose additional conditions. [Para 7]