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].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Direct Approach to High Court – Permissibility in Special Circumstances – Application Allowed – Applicant directly approached the High Court bypassing Sessions Court citing rejection of interim protection to co-accused and risk of similar denial – Court held that special circumstances were made out, particularly due to applicant’s young age and academic commitments – Preliminary objection overruled [Paras 2–9].

Dowry Death Allegation – Discrepancy Between FIR and Medical Evidence – Bail Granted – FIR alleged strangulation by co-accused (mother), implicating the applicant and family – However, postmortem showed ligature mark with cause of death as hanging, and no injury elsewhere – No direct allegations against applicant – Bail granted considering lack of prima facie material and academic background of applicant [Paras 10–16].

Anticipatory Bail – Bail Not Barred by Prior Writ Dismissal – Distinct Remedies – Held – Withdrawal of earlier writ petition for FIR quashing did not preclude filing anticipatory bail – Anticipatory bail considered independently on its own merits [Para 15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and sureties in event of arrest or appearance, subject to conditions including cooperation, non-interference with investigation, and presence before trial court [Paras 16–17].
 

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].
 

Criminal Law - Corruption Allegation – Demand and Acceptance – Sole Witness Not Wholly Reliable – Conviction Set Aside - Prosecution case hinged on solitary testimony of complainant (PW1), who had a chequered criminal history and inconsistencies in his account of bribe demands – Held: His evidence lacked corroboration, was not wholly reliable, and recovery of tainted money not from A1 – Conviction reversed [Paras 17-29].

Recovery of Tainted Money – Mere Possession by A2 Insufficient – Knowledge and Intent Not Proven - A2, a petition writer, was found with tainted notes but gave plausible explanation that money was handed over without his knowledge of its purpose – No evidence linking A2 to A1’s alleged demand – Held: No case made out under Section 12 of the Act – Acquittal justified [Paras 30-31].

Prosecution Case – Inconsistencies and Lack of Credibility – Entire Narrative Collapsed - Alleged bribe demands on festival or improbable dates contradicted by official duty registers – PW1’s inconsistent statements and prior disputes with A1 suggested motive for false implication – Court found prosecution story not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 25-29].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Acquittal Ordered - Trial court’s conviction of both appellants under the Prevention of Corruption Act held unsustainable – Convictions and sentences set aside – Appellants acquitted and fine amounts directed to be refunded [Para 32].
 

Limitation Law - Second Appeal – Delay in Refiling – Vague Justification – Condonation Rejected – An application under Section 151 CPC seeking condonation of 800 days delay in refiling the appeal was dismissed – Held: The explanation given was vague, generic, and did not constitute sufficient cause – Delay of each day must be explained in law [Paras 1–4].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Ownership – Karewa Marriage Dispute – Appeal Dismissed – The plaintiff challenged mutation of inheritance by alleging that the defendant was not the widow of deceased Ram Bhagat – Held: Rajwanti sufficiently proved karewa marriage and cohabitation with Ram Bhagat through admissions and witness statements – Concurrent findings of fact were rightly returned by the courts below [Paras 2–12].

Customary Marriage – Admission by Witnesses – Sufficient Proof – No Need for Documentary Evidence – The plaintiff’s own witnesses admitted the cohabitation and relationship of Rajwanti with Ram Bhagat – Held: Such admission constitutes best evidence – Plea of lack of documentary proof of karewa marriage not sustainable [Paras 11–12].

Declaration Suit – Possession Not Proved – Maintainability Fails – It was admitted that the defendant was in possession of the suit property and the plaintiff had not sought possession – Held: Simplicitor declaration suit without claim for possession is not maintainable under Specific Relief Act [Para 13].

Concurrent Findings – No Interference in Second Appeal – Findings of fact based on evidence and admission – Held: No scope for interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed both on merit and due to delay [Paras 15–18].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal dismissed on merits and also on account of delay—Concurrent findings upheld—Pending applications also disposed of—No costs awarded.

Service Law – Abandonment of Service vs Termination – Reinstatement Order Set Aside – Bank employee overstayed ex-India leave and thereafter absented without explanation – Labour Court ordered reinstatement citing lack of enquiry – High Court held: conduct established abandonment of service, not termination – No enquiry required – Reinstatement order contrary to law, set aside [Paras 4–7, 13–21]. 

Disciplinary Enquiry – Not Mandatory for Abandonment – Settled Law – Bank not obligated to conduct enquiry for prolonged absence – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Vijay S. Sathaye v. Indian Airlines Ltd. and State of M.P. v. B.S. Bhadoriya – Absence for extended periods deemed voluntary abandonment – Labour Court’s contrary finding held perverse [Paras 15–20]. 

Back Wages – No Relief When Reinstatement Invalid – Workman’s writ for back wages dismissed – High Court held that since reinstatement itself was unsustainable, claim for consequential benefits like back wages also fails [Paras 11, 22]. 

Intention to Abandon – Evident from Conduct – Notices Ignored – Workman received multiple notices to rejoin but failed to respond – Court concluded there was no intention to resume service – Going abroad without approval also indicative of disinterest in duties [Paras 4–6, 13–14, 20]. 

Decision – Writ by Bank Allowed – Writ by Workman Dismissed – Labour Court’s award dated 03.02.1999 set aside – Reinstatement quashed – No back wages granted – Petitioner Bank’s writ allowed; Workman’s writ dismissed [Paras 21–22]. 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Appeal Against Acquittal – Cheque Dishonour for Stopped Payment – Appeal Dismissed – The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ₹10 lakhs and issued a cheque that was dishonoured due to “Payment Stopped by Drawer” – Trial Court acquitted the accused due to contradictions in complainant's evidence, lack of proof of financial capacity, and established part repayment by accused – Held: Appellate court must not interfere with acquittal unless findings are perverse – Complainant’s inconsistencies, failure to disclose loan particulars, and lack of explanation for ₹1.5 lakhs repayment undermine credibility – Judgment of acquittal upheld; appeal dismissed [Paras 5–25].*

NDPS Act – Bail under Section 483 BNSS – Disclosure Statement – Bail Denied – Petitioner not named in FIR, implication based on disclosure statement of co-accused – No recovery effected from petitioner – Petitioner allegedly managed drug money laundering firm – Allegations of concealment of heroin in tomato ketchup and juice bottles – Evidence includes call records, financial transactions and involvement in trade-based money laundering – Held: Despite lack of recovery, material prima facie indicates managerial role in a transnational drug syndicate – Gravity of offence and risk of absconding outweigh plea for bail – Bail denied [Paras 2-23].

NDPS Act – Speedy Trial – Direction for Expedited Proceedings – Twice Weekly Hearing Ordered – Considering voluminous evidence (8596 pages, 142 witnesses), trial to proceed twice a week – Both prosecution and defence directed to cooperate – Aim is to balance right to speedy trial with national security concerns [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law - Family Settlement – Coparcenary Rights – Exclusion of Major Coparcener – Injunction Justified - Plaintiff, a major coparcener in the Biswanath Ganeriwala HUF (BHUF), was excluded from the 2008 Deed of Partition and 2009 Deed of Declaration, purportedly on false representation of minority – Court held prima facie case of fraud and misrepresentation made out – Injunction restraining reliance on disputed deeds upheld [Paras 7, 22, 47, 60-61].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Suit to Invalidate Deeds – Section 20 CPC Applicable – Trial Court Empowered - Relief claimed centered on declaration and cancellation of deeds, not property rights directly – Most defendants resided within trial court’s jurisdiction – Held: Suit maintainable under Section 20 CPC; trial court had territorial jurisdiction [Paras 19-21, 30-34, 40].

Limitation – Date of Knowledge of Deed – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Suit Not Time-Barred - Plaintiff asserted knowledge of impugned deeds in December 2023 – Court found this plausible; earlier letter misidentifying himself as signatory showed lack of actual knowledge – Suit filed in 2024 held within limitation [Paras 41-44].

Suppression – Material Fact – No Fraud or Concealment Proved – No Estoppel - Non-disclosure of prior letter immaterial – No evidence that deeds were acted upon or suppression influenced court – Held: No suppression of material facts [Paras 45-47].

Title to Property – Sale Certificate in Court Auction – Deed of Indenture Post Sale Invalid - Mumbai property was purchased by BHUF in court auction – Sale certificate conclusive of BHUF’s title – Later Indenture by Sanchaita to appellant ineffective, as transferor no longer held title – Subsequent deeds and declarations excluding plaintiff were prima facie invalid [Paras 49-57, 63-64].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Temporary Injunction Affirmed - Appellate court found no error in trial court’s decision – Injunction rightly granted based on strong prima facie case and balance of convenience – Appeal and connected application dismissed [Paras 65-69].