Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Not Applicable – Petitioner Alleged to Have Driven the Getaway Vehicle – The petitioner sought bail claiming parity with co-accused Sifarish Khan and Akhileshwar Kumar @ Sanjay, who had been granted bail earlier – Held: The petitioner was directly involved in the commission of the robbery, driving the motorcycle with a fake number plate and aiding the pillion rider who snatched the gold – The co-accused had distinct and less direct roles, thus no parity existed [Paras 4, 6].

Robbery – Daylight Crime with Police Impersonation – Bail Denied – The offence was committed in broad daylight in a busy locality, with the perpetrators dressed in khaki to impersonate police officers and using a pistol-shaped lighter – The court found the nature and execution of the crime to be daring and serious, justifying rejection of bail [Paras 3, 7].

Recovery of Property – Gold Not Yet Recovered – Accused's Claims Unfounded – Though the defence claimed the gold was fake, the prosecution clarified it had not been recovered yet – Court observed that the petitioner’s counsel was not correctly briefed, and such misrepresentations weakened the bail plea [Para 8].

Final Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Given the seriousness of the offence, involvement of the petitioner, and absconding co-accused, the court found it unfit to grant regular bail to the applicant [Para 9].
 

Civil Law -  Mutation - Inheritance – Succession of Issueless Hindu Male – Mother as Class-I Heir – Mutation in Favour of Class-II Heirs Invalid – Upon the death of Pritam Singh, who died issueless, his mother Smt. Santo was alive and the only Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act – Mutation of his share in land in favour of his siblings and sister Daro was illegal – Held: The entire remaining estate of 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved solely on his mother, and not on collateral heirs [Paras 3–5].

Transfer of Property – Applicability of Section 41 TPA – Bonafide Purchaser Protection Denied – No Ostensible Ownership – Sale deeds executed by Mehma Singh and Santo in excess of Santo's inherited share were wrongly protected by the First Appellate Court under Section 41 of the TPA – Supreme Court precedent in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 404, laid down mandatory conditions for invoking Section 41, including ostensible ownership and due diligence – None satisfied – Held: Section 41 not attracted and transfers to that extent invalid [Paras 6–7].

Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Sale by Stranger to Title – Invalid Transfer – Reiterated that no individual can transfer better title than he lawfully owns – Sale by Mehma Singh of property not inherited by him from Pritam Singh was void and ineffectual against rightful successors [Para 7].

Revenue Mutation – Erroneous Entry Caused Litigation – Revenue Authorities Directed to Rectify Records – Mutation wrongly included land already sold by Pritam Singh and did not limit inheritance to the mother – Court directed Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, to correct mutation, restrict Santo’s title to 3 kanals 3 marlas and disregard excess sales by others – Directed compliance report within two months [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Mutation to be Rectified – Directions to Revenue Authorities – Court allowed the appeal with direction to correct revenue entries – Only 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved upon Smt. Santo and sale by her upheld to that extent – Financial Commissioner to ensure implementation and submit compliance [Paras 9–11].

Income Tax Law - Business Loss and Commercial Expediency – Deduction for Expenditure on Group Company – Permitted – Appellant incurred Rs.200.47 lakh in deposits and interest and Rs.49.18 lakh as expenses in connection with its group company MMC – Court held that these were for commercial expediency to protect reputation and business continuity – Following earlier decision in assessee's own case for AY 1989-90, such deductions are allowable under Sections 28 and 37 of the Act [Paras 10–14].

Accounting Standards – Section 115J – Scope of Assessing Officer's Review – Limited – Held – Assessing Officer cannot question profit and loss account audited and certified under the Companies Act – Concept of ‘below the line’ has no statutory relevance – Following SC ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd., the AO’s jurisdiction is restricted to adjustments enumerated in Explanation to Section 115J only [Paras 15–17].

Precedent and Consistency – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Revenue Had Accepted Previous Judgment – Held – Since the revenue accepted earlier High Court ruling in assessee’s favour for the preceding AY and did not challenge it, Tribunal’s reliance on overruled precedent was erroneous – Appeal allowed accordingly [Paras 13–14, 18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – All substantial questions answered in favour of assessee – Tribunal’s order dated 25.02.2003 quashed – Expenses and write-offs allowed as business deductions [Para 19].
 

Criminal Law – Murder - Section 302, 34 IPC  - Accid Attack - Conviction Based on Sole Eyewitness – Acceptability of Single Witness Testimony – Upheld – The conviction was based substantially on the testimony of the deceased's brother, who was an eyewitness to the occurrence – Held: Statement of a single eyewitness is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence – Evidence of PW-10 Sanjay Rawat was detailed, corroborated by medical and forensic reports, and found to be credible [Paras 16–18].

Acid Attack – Chemical Burns Leading to Death – Sulphuric Acid Detected on Clothes and Vehicle – Cause of Death Established – Medical evidence confirmed death due to chemical burns – Forensic Science Laboratory found sulphuric acid traces on clothes of accused and seat cover of vehicle – Held: Recovery and expert reports corroborated ocular account and established guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 17, 20].

Motive – Employment Termination and Personal Grudge – Considered but Not Essential – Rajni’s removal from employment by victim's brother-in-law was cited as motive – Held: Even in absence of motive, clear and cogent direct evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction [Para 17].

Non-Conduct of Test Identification Parade – Not Fatal – Accused Known to Witness – No TIP conducted for Rajni – Held: TIP not required when accused is already known to witness and is named in FIR – Non-identification of other co-accused in FIR strengthens natural course of prosecution narrative [Paras 17, 19].

Delayed Appeal Hearing – No Prejudice Established – Appeal Dismissed on Merits – Appeal filed in 2004 remained pending for 23 years – Held: Delay in hearing did not result in miscarriage of justice – Conviction sustainable on strength of unshaken prosecution evidence [Para 2].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Under Section 302/34 IPC Upheld – Life Imprisonment Affirmed – The Division Bench found no merit in the appeal, upholding the trial court’s findings and sentence – Acid attack resulting in death proven through consistent eyewitness account and corroborative forensic evidence [Paras 21].

Civil Law – Tenancy Law - Summary Judgment – Admitted Tenancy and Arrears – Partial Decree Upheld – The appellant, a tenant under a registered lease, admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and rent arrears since 01.03.2018 – The Commercial Court granted partial decree for possession and rent recovery without trial, applying Order XIIIA CPC – Held: Summary judgment justified as there was no real prospect of the appellant defending the admitted claim [Paras 1-3, 6, 21-22].

Limitation – Refiling of Suit Under Commercial Courts Act – Section 14 Protection Granted – The respondent originally filed the suit in civil court in 2018, which was later returned due to jurisdictional transfer – The same plaint was refiled in 2023 under Commercial Courts Act – Held: Section 14 of Limitation Act applicable, suit not barred and claim from 01.03.2018 maintained [Paras 11-16].

Rent and Possession – Quantum and Apportionment – Rent Apportioned After Partial Possession Returned – The Court directed recovery at ₹84,000/month from 01.03.2018 till 19.10.2023 and ₹60,000/month thereafter for the remaining floors – Appellant's claims of reduced rent and oral arrangements with third parties found unsubstantiated and irrelevant to legal obligations under lease [Paras 17-22].

Security Deposit Adjustment – To Be Considered During Trial – Although the plea of ₹90,000/- security deposit adjustment was not accepted at summary stage, the Court clarified that this can be considered at the trial stage for damages and penalties [Para 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s orders, finding no merit in the appeal and confirming the validity of the partial summary judgment and directions for trial on damages [Para 26].
 

Electricity Law - Electricity Tariff – Excessive Delegation – Regulation 4.4 of WBERC Tariff Regulations Struck Down – Petition Allowed in Part – Petitioners challenged Regulation 4.4 that permitted licensees to impose “restricted drawal” limits and charge double rates for exceeding them – Held: Regulation confers uncanalised and arbitrary powers on licensees to unilaterally restrict contracted load without notice, guidelines or accountability – Violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Results in sub-delegation of tariff powers beyond scope of Sections 61 and 181 of the Electricity Act – Court struck down Regulation 4.4 prospectively and directed WBERC to issue new guidelines with safeguards, timelines, expert oversight and consumer rights [Paras 31–51, 53].

Natural Justice and Tariff Law – Arbitrary Penalty without Hearing – Procedural Safeguards Missing – Violation Found – Court noted that the regulation imposed financial penalty without giving consumers opportunity to respond or contest the imposition of drawal restrictions – Held: Levy of double charge without prior notice or hearing violates natural justice – No proportionality or scientific basis for penalty quantum – Directions issued for future regulatory framework to include hearings, expert damage assessment, and protection of contracted demand [Paras 36–45, 53].

Decision – Regulation 4.4 Quashed – Prospective Operation – DVC Billing Dispute Left to Redressal Authority – Calcutta High Court struck down Regulation 4.4 as unconstitutional and violative of the Electricity Act – Ruling applied prospectively – Disputes regarding past overdrawal charges to be resolved by appropriate grievance redressal forums – DVC and other licensees directed to cease enforcement of current drawal restrictions imposed under Regulation 4.4 [Paras 52–56].

Civil Law - Registration Act – Section 17(2)(vi) – Decree Based on Compromise or Admission – Registration Not Required – Trial court’s direction to register decrees from 1988 under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act was set aside – Held: As the decrees were either based on compromise or admission and related to the suit property itself, they fall under the exclusion clause of Section 17(2)(vi) – Registration is not mandatory [Paras 14–22, 29(i)].

Limitation – Section 23 of Registration Act – Application for Registration Filed After 35 Years – Barred by Limitation – The application to register the decrees was filed in 2023—35 years after decree became final – Held: Barred under Section 23, which requires registration within four months from the date the decree becomes final [Paras 23–24, 29(ii)].

Jurisdiction – Section 32 of Registration Act – Decree Holder Must Present for Registration – Court Cannot Direct Registration – Application was erroneously moved before Civil Judge (Senior Division) to direct District Magistrate to register the decree – Held: Only decree holder may initiate registration as per Section 32 – Court has no power to suo motu initiate registration [Paras 25–26, 29(iii)].

Procedure – Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Petition Defective – Legal heirs of deceased defendant Surjeet Singh were not impleaded in the application – Held: Fatal defect rendering the application non-maintainable [Para 28, 29(iv)].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Trial court order directing registration of decrees set aside as contrary to law and barred by limitation [Para 30–31].
 

Bail – Regular Bail – Sections 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 201, 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Disclosure Statement Based Nomination – Bail Granted – The petitioner was not named in the FIR and was nominated based solely on the disclosure of a co-accused – No specific role or injury attributed to him – Petitioner in custody for over 9 months, with trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Continued detention serves no purpose – Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail subject to conditions [Paras 1, 3–5].

Injury Nature – Simple Injuries on Non-Vital Parts – Weighed in Grant of Bail – The alleged injuries to the victim were found to be simple and on non-vital areas – Held: These factors, along with absence of prior naming, favor grant of bail as per settled criminal jurisprudence [Para 4].

Delay in Trial – Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Justified – With challan filed and charges framed but no prosecution witness examined out of 33, Court noted likely delay in conclusion of trial – Held: Continued incarceration unjustified and violates Article 21 rights – Referred to Dataram v. State of U.P. and Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed – Trial Court Directed to Accept Bail Bonds – No Opinion on Merits – The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted regular bail – Trial Court directed to accept bail/surety bonds – Observations not to prejudice the trial [Para 5].

Civil Law - Assigned Land – Applicability of A.P. Assigned Lands Act, 1977 – Distinction Based on Date of Assignment – Land assigned before 18.06.1954 not governed by the Act – Held: Land admeasuring Ac.2.48 cents assigned in 1946 falls outside the ambit of the Act, while Ac.0.29 cents assigned in 1955 is covered – Resumption by authorities held without jurisdiction for the 1946-assigned land [Paras 20-23].

Resumption – Conversion to Non-Agricultural Use – No Continuous Violation – Field Inspection Shows Mixed Usage – Court found that only one acre had been previously used for brick manufacturing and the land was under cultivation during inspection – Held: Conversion ground insufficient to justify resumption of entire land [Paras 13, 26-27].

Jurisdiction – High Court’s Power under Article 226 – Private Title Disputes – Land Ownership Claims by Third Parties – Disputes raised by respondents 4 to 10 regarding ancestral title were considered private civil matters – Held: Such issues to be adjudicated before competent civil forum, not under writ jurisdiction [Paras 11, 29].

Social Justice – Purpose of Land Assignment – Economic Upliftment Not a Disqualification – Court deprecated the view that landless poor must remain poor to retain assignment benefits – Held: Improvement in financial status does not invalidate land assignment or justify resumption [Para 28].

Final Decision – Writ Appeals Dismissed – High Court affirmed the Single Judge’s order holding resumption illegal for Ac.2.48 cents and valid for Ac.0.29 cents – Appeals by State and private parties dismissed with no costs [Paras 30-31].