Renewable Energy – Generation Based Incentive (GBI) – Interpretation of Clause 8 of MNRE Guidelines (2010) – Power to Remove Difficulties – Committee’s Decision – Tariff Determination – Scheme provided that GBI shall be the difference between tariff determined by CERC and the Base Rate (Rs. 5.50/kWh escalated annually) – Committee under Clause 8 decided that tariff prevailing at project registration (as determined by State Commission, Rs. 15.84/kWh) alone would apply – Held: Committee exceeded its jurisdiction – Power to “remove difficulties” cannot rewrite or alter substantive provisions of the Guidelines or the MoU executed between IREDA and the Distribution Utility – Decision of Committee dated 15.03.2013 not tenable [Paras 38–43].

Administrative Law – Waiver – Acquiescence – Estoppel – Conduct of Party – CSPDCL, by its letter dated 28.06.2013, accepted applicability of Rs. 15.84/kWh as per MNRE Guidelines and failed to challenge the Committee’s decision – Further, it earlier pursued same issue before CSERC and APTEL where it was rejected – Filing writ petition in 2017 after two years of APTEL’s rejection shows acquiescence and waiver of right – Held: By its conduct, respondent abandoned its claim and was estopped from reopening issue [Paras 55–58].

Writ Jurisdiction – Monetary Claims – Delay and Laches – Limitation – Petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for payment of differential GBI amounts to a money recovery claim – Relief corresponding to civil suit remedy, which would be barred by limitation – Writ not maintainable – Reliance placed on Tilokchand & Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, (1969) 1 SCC 110 – Held: Learned Single Judge erred in entertaining time-barred monetary claim; petition ought to have been dismissed [Paras 51–53, 59–61].

Judicial Discipline – Non-consideration of Estoppel Plea – Error Apparent – Learned Single Judge failed to return finding on appellant’s plea of estoppel despite noting it – Omission held to vitiate impugned judgment [Para 60].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Single Judge dated 21.05.2025 set aside – Writ Petition (C) No. 4527/2017 dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 62].

Indirect Tax – Informer Reward Scheme – Maintainability of Writ – Informer’s Right – Petitioner claimed entitlement to reward under CBEC Notification dated 31.07.2015 for providing information against M/s Shakti Enterprises leading to tax demand and penalty – Order-in-original dated 06.12.2023 raised demand, later modified by order-in-appeal dated 15.07.2024 reducing liability – Petitioner challenged appellate order alleging wrongful computation of taxable value and reduction of demand – Held: Grant of reward to informer is a matter of discretion – No vested or enforceable right accrues to informer to seek writ of mandamus – Petitioner, being an informer, has no locus to assail adjudicatory order on merits – Reference made to Union of India v. C. Krishna Reddy (2003) 12 SCC 627 [Paras 7–9].

Procedure – Maintainability – Court directed presence of informer and directed parties to address question of maintainability on next date – Notarised affidavit of petitioner kept in sealed cover with Registry [Paras 10–12].

Decision: Petition adjourned – Issue of maintainability to be heard on 18.12.2025 – No interim relief granted [Para 13].

Income Tax – TDS Credit – Non-reflection in Form 26AS – Refund entitlement – Petitioner, a cooperative society exempt under Section 80P, sought refund of TDS deducted for A.Y. 2009–10 to 2015–16 – Department refused refund citing mismatch with Form 26AS – Held: Once assessee furnishes Form 16A evidencing deduction, Assessing Officer must verify and grant credit even if TDS is not reflected in Form 26AS – Assessee cannot be denied refund for fault of deductor [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Tax Administration – CBDT Circular No. 05/2013 – Compliance – CBDT directed that when assessee produces TDS certificate, Assessing Officer must verify payment with deductor and grant due credit – High Court reiterates that AOs are bound to follow the circular and cannot compel taxpayers to suffer delays caused by third parties [Paras 7–8].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Refund of wrongly withheld TDS – Court follows Delhi High Court’s Court on Its Motion v. CIT and Allahabad High Court’s Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. UOI – Mandamus issued directing AO to verify petitioner’s documents and pass refund order within four weeks – Assessee entitled to rely on cited precedents and CBDT circular before AO [Paras 4, 6, 9–11].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 to verify Form 16A certificates and issue refund in accordance with law within four weeks.

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum – Concealment of Income – Revision Dismissed – Revisionist-husband, a company director, challenged Family Court order directing payment of ₹20,000/- p.m. each to wife and daughter – He alleged that maintenance was excessive considering his income of ₹2.4 lakh p.a. – Wife alleged concealment of true income and production of manipulated ITRs – Documentary evidence showed deposits exceeding ₹67 lakh in company accounts and assets worth over ₹1 crore – Court found deliberate suppression of income – Held: Revisionist had sufficient means and moral/legal duty to maintain wife and daughter [Paras 15–27].

Wife Living Separately – Justifiable Cause – Evidence showed wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment – Husband failed to cross-examine her on key allegations – Trial court rightly held that she was living separately for sufficient reasons [Paras 10–11].

Wife’s Qualification – Capability to Earn – Effect – Wife, though qualified (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma), left employment at husband’s insistence – Presently unemployed and caring for minor child – Mere capability to work not ground to deny maintenance [Paras 12–14].

Standard of Living – Principle of Parity – Wife entitled to live in similar standard as husband – Husband’s attempt to evade liability by showing reduced income rejected – Maintenance to ensure dignity and prevent destitution – Court reiterated that sustenance implies living consistent with family status [Paras 18–22].

Determination of Quantum – Guiding Principles – Reaffirmed Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor meagre – Financial capacity, lifestyle, inflation, and dependent obligations to be considered [Para 23].

Presumption – Able-Bodied Husband – Following Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Del 174) – Able-bodied man presumed capable of earning sufficient to maintain wife and child; concealment of income invites adverse inference [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court order upheld – ₹20,000/- per month each to wife and minor daughter affirmed – No interference warranted [Para 30].

Customs Law – Import Clearance – Out of Charge – DRI Officer’s Post-Clearance Action – Petitioner’s goods (dry dates) cleared under Section 47 of Customs Act after full verification by Customs, FSSAI, and Ministry of Agriculture – Despite clearance and gate pass, goods forcibly brought back to CFS by DRI Officer based on unverified intelligence alleging Pakistani origin – Held: Action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) in securing return of cleared goods was arbitrary, not supported by law or legal procedure – No lawful revocation or show cause notice preceded such retrieval – Violation of natural justice and rule of law [Paras 1–7, 12–23, 33–34, 45, 54].

Customs Act – Section 47 – Legal Finality of Clearance Order – Goods once cleared for home consumption upon satisfaction by proper officer cannot be interfered with without following due process – No proceedings under Section 124 initiated – Held: Sixth Respondent’s telephonic “requests” to reverse clearance orders circumvented legal remedies available under Customs Act – Clearance once made under Section 47 cannot be undone without lawful proceedings [Paras 4, 19–23, 30–32, 37, 54].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice and Rule of Law – Highhanded action by government officer divesting goods already cleared without issuing notice or recording reasons – Held: Any civil consequence must be preceded by due process – Mere reliance on intelligence not enough – Absence of any file notings, written orders, or ‘reason to believe’ vitiates the action – Colour of office cannot replace colour of law [Paras 17, 23, 26–29, 31–33, 39, 54].

Powers of DRI – Section 106 Customs Act – Improper Invocation – DRI Officer relied on Section 106 to justify stopping and retrieval of goods – Held: Section 106 applies to smuggling suspicion before clearance – Goods in question already cleared after 6 days of examination – No lawful authority shown for recalling cleared goods post Out of Charge – Section 106 not attracted [Paras 24–26, 28, 32].

Disputed Origin – Pakistani Origin Allegation – Dry dates alleged to have originated in Karachi and routed through UAE – Clearance granted after specific examination instructions on Pakistani origin – Court refuses to adjudicate origin dispute under Article 226 – Directs Customs to issue show cause and follow due process [Paras 10–11, 38–42, 44–45, 54].

Remedy – Equitable Relief – Court refuses to order immediate release but imposes time-bound direction for issuance and adjudication of show cause notice – If not done, directs release of goods upon redemption fine/bank guarantee – Balances petitioner’s commercial interests with revenue’s concerns [Paras 47–50, 55].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Court holds action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of natural justice – However, in the interest of balancing equities, permits Customs Authorities to issue show cause notice within 4 weeks and dispose of it within 6 weeks of reply – If not complied, goods to be released upon furnishing bank guarantee for redemption fine – Rule made partly absolute – No costs [Paras 54–56].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Appeal Against Acquittal – Respondent accused of driving a tanker rashly and hitting a cyclist who died on the spot – Eyewitness accounts (PW5 and PW6) found inconsistent, contradictory, and uncorroborated by physical evidence – No mechanical inspection of the cycle conducted – Tanker inspection showed no fresh damage – No photographs or reliable scene reconstruction adduced – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified [Paras 2–6, 13–15, 20–21].

Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictions – PW6 claimed to witness the accident from both inside and outside a bus – PW5 admitted he did not see the driver – Statements made under Section 161 CrPC by PW6 contradicted his court deposition – No proof of witness presence at scene through memos or photographs – Held: Testimonies unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5, 13–14].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal by Trial Court reinforces presumption of innocence – Appellate court must be cautious in overturning acquittals unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable or perverse – Held: Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on evidence – No grounds for interference [Paras 17–19].

IPC Section 304A – Requirement of Proof – Essential ingredients include rash or negligent act directly causing death – High speed alone not sufficient to infer rashness – Mere occurrence of accident not proof of negligence – Held: In absence of evidence on speed, traffic conditions, or manner of driving, conviction under Section 304A cannot be sustained [Paras 10–12, 16].

Presumption of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Inapplicability – Held: Principle applies only when circumstances unmistakably point to negligence – Not attracted merely because an accident occurred – Criminal negligence must be established through specific evidence, not inference [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279 and 304A IPC upheld – Court finds prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment found reasonable, based on lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution case – Double presumption of innocence reinforced [Paras 20–21].

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum Awarded in Excess of Claim – Just Compensation – Tribunal awarded ₹1.3 Crores against claimed ₹82 Lakhs – Insurance Company objected to grant of compensation beyond claim – Held: Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, courts and tribunals are empowered to grant “just compensation” irrespective of claimed amount – Social welfare legislation permits award above claimed figure to meet ends of justice – No legal embargo on granting compensation more than what is claimed [Paras 42-52] –

Assessment of Income – Guesswork in Absence of Documentary Proof – Permissible – Claimant’s income assessed as ₹20,000/month though no tax returns or formal proof was filed – Tribunal relied on lease agreements, oral testimony, and surrounding circumstances – Held: In motor accident cases, adjudication of income can involve reasonable estimation or guesswork where evidence is credible – Income determined by tribunal based on broad-based judicial approach found justified [Paras 53-61] –

Permanent Disability – Evidence – Medical and Lay Witnesses – Compensation for Future Care – Claimant rendered 100% disabled due to spinal cord injury (C5-C6) – Evidence from 20 witnesses including treating doctors, physiotherapists, hospital administrators, and attendants established permanent incapacitation – Costs of long-term physiotherapy, personal assistants, and medical expenses proved – Tribunal’s award supported by extensive documentary and oral evidence [Paras 17-41] –

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court's Deference to Tribunal’s Factual Findings – Insurance Company challenged only two components: compensation exceeding claim and lack of income proof – Tribunal’s findings on all other heads of compensation remained unchallenged – Held: Where tribunal takes a possible view based on evidence, appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported by record [Paras 62-63] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award of ₹1.3 Crores upheld – Insurance Company and other respondents directed to deposit awarded amount within 2 months – Claimant permitted to withdraw full compensation without security – No costs [Paras 63-64].

Civil Procedure – Amendment of Written Statement – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Replication – Scope and Pleadings – Petitioners sought amendment of written statement to rebut new facts introduced in replication filed by plaintiffs – Trial court dismissed the application holding replication not part of pleadings – Held: Replication, when permitted by court, forms part of pleadings; defendants have right to counter new averments – Amendment necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and enable full adjudication [Paras 6–12].

Replication – Legal Status – Order VIII Rule 9 CPC – Supreme Court Clarification – Following K. Laxmanan v. Thekkayil Padmini (2009 (1) RAJ 78) and Sheikh Noorul Hassan v. Nahakpam Indrajjit Singh (2024 INSC 391) – Replication permissible with leave of court and may be treated as part of pleadings if allowed – Pleas introduced therein must be specifically controverted, failing which deemed admitted [Paras 8–11].

Amendment at Initial Stage – No Prejudice to Opposite Party – Suit still at preliminary stage and issues not framed – Amendment neither alters nature of defence nor prejudices plaintiffs – Liberal approach warranted to ensure complete justice [Paras 9, 12].

Precedents – Reliance – Salig Ram v. Shiv Shankar, 1971 AIR P&H 437 – Replication forms part of pleadings; uncontroverted averments deemed admitted – Hakam Singh v. Jagir Singh, 1991 (2) RRR 170 – Amendment permissible to clarify existing stand without changing nature of defence [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Civil Revision Allowed – Impugned order dated 24.03.2025 set aside – Application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement allowed – Trial Court directed to accept amended written statement and proceed with trial [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Power to Recall Witness – Investigating Officer – Application for recalling PW-12, Inspector Subhash Singh, rejected by trial court – Witness had investigated the case and received crucial electronic evidence (CD and pendrive) from deceased witness Sanjay (Ex-Sarpanch) – Held: Trial Court erred in dismissing application mechanically – In a murder trial, it is imperative that every material aspect of investigation be brought before the court – Recall of IO necessary to ensure complete and fair adjudication [Paras 1–3, 6–7].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – CCTV Footage – Pendrive and CD handed to IO by deceased Ex-Sarpanch contained CCTV footage showing co-accused Ravinder at another location (library in Delhi) at time of offence – Such material potentially exculpatory – Re-examination of IO essential to bring this on record [Paras 3, 6].

Fair Trial – Duty of Court – In serious offences like murder, trial court must ensure full disclosure of investigative facts – Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to be exercised to discover truth and render complete justice – Technical objections regarding “filling lacunae” cannot override requirement of fairness [Paras 6–7].

Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Relevance – Accused Ravinder, initially found innocent, was later summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Additional evidence from IO could aid determination of his true involvement – Court directed to permit recall of witness for complete evidence [Para 6].

Decision: Revision allowed – Order of trial court dated 11.09.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to recall PW-12, Inspector Subhash Singh, along with case records for re-examination regarding all investigative facts and electronic evidence – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 7–8].