Income Tax – Reassessment – Second Reopening – Change of Opinion – Invalidity – Assessment for AY 2009–10 earlier reopened and completed under Sections 147/143(3) – Specific issue of interest-free loan received by assessee from closely held company examined – No addition made – Subsequent notice under Section 148 issued for same AY on same foundational facts – Held: Reopening based on mere change of opinion impermissible – Proceedings without jurisdiction [Paras 23–35].

Reassessment – Scope of Sections 147/148 – Abuse of Power – Once reassessment undertaken and concluded after conscious application of mind, Revenue cannot reopen assessment again for same transaction on different legal interpretation – Power of reassessment is an exception and cannot be exercised casually or repeatedly – Second reopening amounts to harassment and uncertainty in tax administration [Paras 31–33, 45].

Interest-Free Loan – Deemed Income – Sections 2(22)(e) and 2(24)(iv) – During first reassessment, AO examined interest-free loan under Section 2(22)(e) and dropped proposed addition – Subsequent attempt to tax notional interest as income under Section 2(24)(iv) based on same facts impermissible – Both provisions held to be “two sides of the same coin” – AO ought to have examined all possible legal consequences in first reassessment itself [Paras 34–35].

Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Extended Limitation – Section 149 – Revenue invoked extended limitation alleging failure to disclose fully and truly material facts – Held: Assessee disclosed primary facts including audited balance sheet, books of accounts and loan transactions – No obligation to disclose secondary facts or inferences – Invocation of extended period held baseless and contrary to law [Paras 36–41].

Primary vs Secondary Facts – Duty of Assessee – Assessee required only to disclose primary facts necessary for assessment – Drawing of inferences and legal conclusions is duty of Assessing Officer – Reopening cannot be justified on ground that AO failed to draw correct inference earlier [Paras 41–42].

Judicial Review – Maintainability of Writ Against Section 148 Notice – Despite availability of alternative remedy, High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 where proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights – Particularly justified where proceedings stayed for years and relate to stale assessment year [Paras 21–22, 43].

Constitutional Law – Arbitrary Reassessment – Violation of Fundamental Rights – Repeated reopening for same issue held violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of Constitution – Tax administration must adhere to certainty, fairness and rule of law [Paras 45–46].

Costs – Arbitrary Exercise of Power – Court deprecated conduct of Revenue in initiating second reassessment without jurisdiction – Token costs imposed to compensate petitioners and mark disapproval of arbitrary action [Para 47].

Decision – Writ petitions allowed – Notices dated 31.03.2016 under Section 148 and all consequential proceedings quashed – Costs of ₹1,00,000/- per case awarded to each petitioner – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 46–48].

Patent Law – Deemed Abandonment – Section 21(1), Patents Act – Service of First Examination Report (FER) – Patent application rejected as abandoned due to non-filing of response to FER within prescribed and extended timelines – Petitioner contended that FER was not lawfully served as it was communicated only by e-mail and not by registered post under Section 149 – Held: Section 149 is permissive and not mandatory – Service by e-mail constitutes valid and lawful service under the Patents Act and Rules [Paras 7–10].

Statutory Interpretation – Use of Word ‘May’ – Service of Notices – Section 149 employs the word “may”, denoting discretion and not compulsion – No statutory mandate that service must only be by registered post – Legislative intent does not exclude electronic modes of service – Held: Postal service is not indispensable for triggering statutory timelines [Paras 7–8].

Patents Rules, 2003 – Validity of E-Service – Harmonious Construction – Rule-making power under Section 159(2)(vi) authorises prescription of modes of service – Rules 5 and 6 expressly recognise service by e-mail as lawful – Rules supplement and do not override the Act – Held: Act and Rules operate in harmony permitting exclusive service by e-mail [Paras 8–9].

Digitalisation of Patent Administration – Office Orders – Legal Effect – Patent Office Office Order No.23 of 2016 mandates issuance of FERs exclusively through e-mail – Applicants required to keep e-mail details updated – Consistent administrative practice reinforces validity of electronic service – Supported by Information Technology Act, 2000 [Paras 9–10].

Time-Bound Scheme under the Patents Act – Mandatory Compliance – Fixed timelines under Section 21(1) read with Rule 24-B are mandatory – Failure to respond to FER within statutory or extended period results in deemed abandonment – Courts cannot relax statutory deadlines in writ jurisdiction [Paras 11–12].

Belated Compliance – Effect – Attempt to file Form-4 long after expiry of prescribed period held impermissible – Once application deemed abandoned, it ceases to exist in law [Para 11].

Distinguishing Prior Precedents – Mandatory Manner Doctrine – Decisions cited on requirement of strict statutory compliance held inapplicable – No statutory prescription mandating postal service alone – Doctrine that an act must be done only in the prescribed manner does not apply where statute confers discretion [Para 13].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Rejection of patent application on ground of abandonment upheld – Service of FER by e-mail held valid – No relief granted.

Land Acquisition – National Highways Act, 1956 – Successive Declarations under Section 3D – Validity – Challenge to second notification dated 10.07.2024 issued under Section 3D(1) without issuing a fresh Section 3A notification – Allegation of change in alignment and arbitrary inclusion of petitioner’s land – Court held that no change in alignment was established – Issuance of two Section 3D notifications necessitated due to obstruction by landowners preventing survey – Both notifications part of same acquisition proceedings and issued within one year of Section 3A notification – Act, 1956 does not prohibit successive Section 3D declarations – Second notification held valid [Paras 6.2.1–6.2.13].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3C – Right of Objection – Limited Scope – Petitioner alleged denial of opportunity to file objections before issuance of second Section 3D notification – Section 3A notification duly published in Gazette and newspapers – Petitioner failed to file objections within statutory period – Right under Section 3C confined only to objection regarding use of land and not acquisition per se – Failure to object within time disentitles petitioner from raising grievance later – No violation of principles of natural justice found [Paras 6.3.1–6.3.9].

Land Acquisition – Vesting of Land – Bar of Judicial Challenge – Upon publication of declaration under Section 3D(1), land vests absolutely in Central Government under Section 3D(2) – Section 3D(4) bars challenge to such declaration before any court – Once vesting takes place, acquisition cannot be interdicted in writ jurisdiction [Paras 6.4.4–6.4.5, 7.1].

Compensation – Section 3G(3) – Alleged Procedural Lapse – Remedy under Section 3G(5) – Petitioner contended non-compliance with mandatory requirement of public notice before determination of compensation – Court held that even assuming procedural irregularity, it would not vitiate acquisition – Dispute relates to quantum and classification of land – Statutory remedy of arbitration under Section 3G(5) held to be efficacious – Writ petition not maintainable on this ground [Paras 6.4.1–6.4.6].

Judicial Review – Highway Projects – Limited Interference – Decisions regarding alignment, feasibility and extent of land acquisition lie within domain of technical experts – Courts not equipped to evaluate technical and policy considerations – Interference warranted only in cases of patent illegality or mala fides – No mala fides or statutory violation established in present case [Paras 6.5.1–6.5.4].

Public Interest vs. Private Interest – Infrastructure Projects – Widening and four-laning of NH-334D held to be project of national importance – Individual hardship cannot override larger public interest – Appropriate relief lies in fair compensation rather than quashing acquisition – Balance struck in favour of public interest while safeguarding right to seek enhanced compensation [Paras 6.6.1–6.6.5, 7.3–7.4].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Acquisition proceedings upheld – Liberty granted to petitioner to seek enhancement of compensation through arbitration under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956 – Court clarified that it expressed no opinion on merits of compensation or classification of land [Paras 8–8.1].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder of his wife on allegation of assault with sickle – Conviction based on motive, recovery of weapon and clothes, FSL report and judicial confession under Section 164 Cr.P.C. – High Court held that prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to guilt of accused – Missing links and serious infirmities in prosecution case – Conviction set aside [Paras 19, 38–41].

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Governing – Chain of Circumstances – Prosecution required to prove circumstances conclusively and consistent only with guilt of accused – Reliance placed on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Held: Evidence adduced fell short of mandatory standards required for conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence [Paras 19–20].

Motive – Proof of – Failure to Establish – Alleged motive of suspicion regarding wife’s alleged illicit relationship not proved – Testimony of PW-4 (labour contractor) found unreliable and based on hearsay – Witness admitted lack of personal knowledge of alleged quarrels or relationship – Failure to prove motive weighed in favour of accused [Paras 23–26].

Judicial Confession – Section 164 Cr.P.C. – Evidentiary Value – Confession not Substantive Evidence – Confession can only be used for corroboration and not as sole basis of conviction – Accused denied guilt and alleged coercion – Trial Court erred in treating confession as substantive proof of motive and guilt – Reliance on Vijaya Singh v. State of Uttarakhand reiterated [Paras 27–29].

Section 313 Cr.P.C. – Examination of Accused – Non-Confrontation of Inculpatory Material – Confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. not put to accused during Section 313 examination – Held: Failure amounts to serious irregularity causing prejudice – Trial vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice – Reliance on Samsul Haque v. State of Assam and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [Paras 30–32].

Recovery Evidence – Memorandum and Spot Panchanama – Inconsistencies – Recovery of clothes from open and accessible place – Discrepancies in timing of panchnamas – Held: Recovery evidence not trustworthy and insufficient to corroborate prosecution case [Paras 20–21].

Forensic Evidence – FSL Report – Chain of Custody – Blood Group Evidence – Failure to examine carrier and prove safe custody and transmission of samples – No blood detected on weapon – Blood on accused’s clothes alone insufficient to sustain conviction – Non-compliance with prescribed procedure fatal in circumstantial evidence cases – Reliance on Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra and Putai v. State of U.P. [Paras 34–37].

Medical Evidence – Homicidal Death – Limited Role – Post-mortem report proved homicidal death and possible use of sickle – Held: Medical evidence alone cannot connect accused with crime in absence of reliable corroborative evidence [Para 33].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, subject to execution of P.R. Bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. [Paras 41–42].

Civil Law - Trade Marks – Opposition to Registration – Deceptive Similarity – Appellant, a well-known milk producers’ federation, challenged registration of the mark “nandini” for agarbattis and dhoops – Deputy Registrar rejected opposition holding “nandini” to be a personal/generic name and products to be dissimilar – Appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Paras 1–3, 6].

Trade Mark “NANDINI” – Prior Use and Reputation – Appellant using the mark “NANDINI” since 1983 for milk and dairy products – Mark held to have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation, particularly in Karnataka and neighbouring States – Registration in favour of appellant undisputed [Paras 3(i), 5].

Generic Word – Scope of Protection – Reliance placed on Supreme Court judgment in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. – Held: Though “NANDINI” is a generic word, protection depends on overall similarity, manner of use, and likelihood of deception – Generic nature alone not decisive [Paras 7–10].

Deceptive Similarity – Phonetic and Visual Test – Impugned mark “nandini” adopted by first respondent without prefix or suffix and written in the same style and font as appellant’s mark – Phonetically identical and visually similar – Likelihood of confusion and deception among consumers established, despite difference in goods [Paras 11–14].

Distinguishing Supreme Court Precedent – In Nandhini Deluxe, offending mark contained suffix “DELUXE” and distinct logo – In present case, absence of distinguishing suffix and identical style of writing made the marks deceptively similar – Matter held factually distinguishable [Paras 9–11, 14].

Error by Trade Marks Registry – Failure to Consider Crucial Aspects – Deputy Registrar failed to consider phonetic identity, visual similarity, and reputation of appellant’s mark – Rejection of opposition held to be erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order dated 05.04.2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks set aside – Opposition of appellant upheld – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Promotion – Vigilance Case – Select List – Exclusion – Government servant included in select list for promotion as Commercial Tax Officer – Subsequently suspended and subjected to vigilance enquiry – FIR registered by Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau after preliminary enquiry – Held: Registration of FIR in vigilance case after preliminary enquiry disentitles officer from inclusion in select list for promotion [Paras 14–19].

Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules – Rule 28(b)(i)(7) Note (i) – Interpretation – Officers against whom vigilance proceedings are initiated after prima facie establishment of charges in preliminary enquiry shall not be included in select list – Distinction between ordinary criminal cases and vigilance cases reiterated – Tribunal erred in overlooking statutory mandate [Paras 16–19].

Vigilance Case – Prosecution Sanction – Relevance – Sanction for prosecution and filing of final report are not decisive for determining eligibility for promotion – Once FIR is registered pursuant to preliminary enquiry with Government approval, officer becomes ineligible for inclusion in select list – Tribunal’s reliance on date of filing final report held misconceived [Paras 6–7, 19].

Departmental Promotion Committee – Sealed Cover Procedure – In cases of pending vigilance proceedings, DPC is bound to assess suitability and adopt sealed cover procedure – Failure to follow sealed cover procedure contrary to law laid down in K.V. Jankiraman and Babu Prasad [Paras 20–22].

Declaration of Probation – Pendency of Vigilance Case – Officer promoted during pendency of vigilance case not entitled to declaration of probation till conclusion of proceedings – Tribunal erred in directing consideration of probation ignoring pending vigilance case [Paras 22–23].

Article 227 – Scope of Interference – Though supervisory jurisdiction is limited, interference justified where Tribunal’s order is contrary to statutory rules and binding precedent – Impugned order found legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside [Paras 8–13, 23].

Decision – Original Petition allowed – Order dated 26.09.2022 of Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1919 of 2019 set aside – Original Application dismissed – Tribunal’s directions for retrospective promotion and declaration of probation quashed [Paras 23–24].

Family Pension – Recovery of Excess Payment – Bank Error – Widow Pensioner – Demand Notice Challenged – Excess family pension paid for more than a decade due to mistake of pension disbursing bank – No misrepresentation, fraud or concealment by petitioner – Recovery sought from widow solely dependent on family pension – Held: Recovery impermissible as being harsh, inequitable and arbitrary – Demand notice set aside to extent of outstanding recovery [Paras 1–3, 18–23].

Pension Law – Recovery of Excess Amount – Principles of Equity – Applicability of Rafiq Masih – Recovery from retired employee/family pensioner after long period – Excess payment continued for over 10 years – Court held recovery would cause grave hardship outweighing employer’s right to recover [Paras 12–14, 20–21].

Undertaking for Recovery – Effect – Consent on Dotted Lines – Exploitation – Undertaking furnished by widow authorising recovery from pension – Such undertaking obtained as a matter of routine held insufficient to justify recovery – Reliance placed on Division Bench judgment holding such undertakings exploitative and unenforceable in equity [Paras 22–23].

Pension Payment Order (PPO) – Binding Nature – Correction of Pension – While recovery barred on equitable grounds, petitioner held entitled only to family pension strictly as per PPO prospectively – No right to continue receiving excess pension [Paras 18, 23].

Employer–Employee Relationship – Bank as Disbursing Authority – SBI merely a pension disbursing agent – Excess payment due to clerical error of bank – Recovery from vulnerable pensioner deprecated despite absence of misrepresentation [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned demand notice quashed to extent of remaining recovery – Adjustments already made not interfered with – Family pension payable strictly as per PPO henceforth.

Tenancy Law  – Amendment of Pleadings – Subsequent Events – Article 227 – Interference Declined – Tenant challenged order permitting landlord to amend eviction petition after commencement of trial – Amendment sought to bring on record fact that tenant acquired another shop room in same locality suitable for business – Held: No illegality or perversity in order permitting amendment [Paras 1–4, 8–10].

Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Applicability to Rent Control Proceedings – Landlord sought amendment on ground of subsequent development which came to her knowledge only later – Amendment not claimed as matter of right but on showing due diligence – Rent Control Court justified in exercising discretion to allow amendment [Paras 2–3, 8–9].

Subsequent Events – Relevance in Rent Control Cases – Subsequent acquisition of another shop room by tenant in same municipality has direct bearing on eviction under Section 11(3) of the Act – Such events can be brought on record at any stage to enable court to mould relief and avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Paras 6, 9–10].

Due Diligence – Assessment – Objection of tenant that landlord had prior knowledge of subsequent event rejected – License issued by Municipality dated 01.09.2025 supported landlord’s plea that knowledge was acquired only recently – Plea of lack of due diligence not substantiated [Para 9].

Scope of Article 227 – Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction – High Court will not interfere with interlocutory orders of Rent Control Court unless there is patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity – Order permitting amendment found to be reasoned and bona fide [Paras 8–10].

Precedents – Subsequent Events – Reliance placed on Korah Abraham v. Varughis and Benjeena v. Pappachan – Subsequent events may be considered if they have fundamental impact on main issue and do not result in abuse of process – Principles applied to facts of present case [Paras 6, 9–10].

Decision – Original Petition dismissed – Order dated 26.11.2025 permitting amendment upheld – No merit found for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 [Paras 9–10].

Maintenance – Interim Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Sufficient Means – Physical Incapacity of Husband – Revisionist-wife sought interim maintenance claiming opposite party to be a practicing doctor having sufficient means – Trial Court rejected interim maintenance holding that husband had become incapable of earning due to grievous firearm injury – High Court examined scope and object of Section 125 Cr.P.C. as a measure of social justice for wives unable to maintain themselves – Held: One of the essential ingredients for grant of maintenance is that the husband must have sufficient means – Where earning capacity of husband is completely destroyed due to physical incapacity, requirement of “sufficient means” not satisfied [Paras 2, 8, 10].

Maintenance Law – Earning Capacity – Distinction between Unemployment and Physical Incapacity – Ordinarily, a husband is expected to earn according to his capacity and cannot evade maintenance by pleading unemployment – However, present case stands on a different footing where husband suffered grievous spinal injury with pellet lodged in spinal cord, rendering him incapable of sitting or practicing his profession – Held: Law does not compel a physically incapacitated person to earn when medical evidence shows inability to do so [Paras 12, 14A].

Conduct of Wife – Impact on Claim for Maintenance – Material on record showed that injury to husband was caused in a firing incident involving revisionist’s brother and father – Prima facie conduct of wife’s side contributed to incapacity of husband – Held: A wife who, by her own acts or by acts of her family members, causes or contributes to the husband’s incapacity to earn cannot be permitted to take advantage of such situation and claim maintenance – Grant of maintenance in such circumstances would result in grave injustice [Paras 12, 12A, 14A].

Judicial Discretion – Interference in Criminal Revision – Trial Court considered pleadings, medical condition, and earning incapacity of husband while rejecting interim maintenance – No manifest illegality, perversity, or material irregularity found – High Court held that Trial Court neither exceeded nor failed to exercise jurisdiction – Revisional interference unwarranted [Paras 15–16].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Order dated 07.05.2025 rejecting application for interim maintenance upheld.