Vehicle Requisition – Hire Charges – Non-payment by State – Petitioner’s Maruti Van requisitioned by police authorities for maintenance of law and order under Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968 – Hire charges payable as per Government Notification dated 06.02.2014 – Bills raised for multiple periods during 2022–2023 – Outstanding amount of Rs. 6,65,004/- claimed – Liability not disputed by respondents [Paras 2–5, 8].

State Liability – Admitted Dues – Once liability admitted, State cannot withhold payment on ground of non-receipt of sanction or allotment of funds – Administrative delay not a valid justification to deny legitimate dues of citizen – Held: Petitioner entitled to payment of outstanding hire charges [Paras 6–9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Direction for Release of Payment – Where facts are undisputed and claim is admitted, writ court justified in issuing direction to authorities to release payment within a stipulated time – Held: Mandamus issued directing Director General of Police to release admitted amount [Paras 9].

Adjustment and Deduction – Statutory Deduction – Amount already paid to be adjusted – Payment to be made after statutory deductions and set-off of sums already credited to petitioner’s account [Para 9].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Respondent No. 3 (Director General of Police, Assam) directed to take steps to release the amount lawfully entitled to the petitioner after statutory deductions within six months from receipt of certified copy of the order – Amount already paid to be adjusted at the time of final payment.

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].

Insurance – Theft Claim – Burden of Proof – Complainant claimed loss of ₹25,49,120 due to theft of watches and stock – Surveyor assessed loss at ₹34,723 based on available records – Complainant failed to maintain stock register or produce authenticated list of stolen items – Calculation sheet merely reflected book entries without independent verification – Held, claim not substantiated by cogent evidence – Repudiation justified [Paras 14-17].

Surveyor’s Report – Evidentiary Value – Independent licensed surveyor appointed by insurer examined claim – Report recorded absence of stock register, absence of detailed list of stolen items and inability to verify stock statements – In absence of contrary reliable evidence, surveyor’s findings accepted – No arbitrariness shown [Paras 14-16].

Deficiency in Service – Meaning under Section 2(1)(g) – Deficiency requires fault, imperfection or inadequacy in performance of contractual obligation – Insurer repudiated claim based on surveyor’s report and non-submission of requisite documents – No illegality or mala fide established – No deficiency made out [Paras 11-12, 18].

Exaggerated / Unsupported Claim – Mere reminders and correspondence with insurer insufficient to prove quantum of loss – Claim amount not supported by authenticated inventory or contemporaneous stock records – Consumer complaint dismissed [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Complaint dismissed – No deficiency in service on part of Opposite Party No. 1 – No order as to costs – Pending applications disposed of.

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.

Transfer of Matrimonial Proceedings – Section 24 CPC – Convenience of Wife – Paramount Consideration – Wife sought transfer of divorce petition filed by husband at Kurnool to Vijayawada where she was residing with a minor child and where multiple connected proceedings were pending – Distance between Vijayawada and Kurnool exceeding 300 kms causing hardship to wife – Held: In matrimonial disputes, convenience of the wife ordinarily deserves precedence over inconvenience to the husband, particularly when she is residing with a minor child and dependent on her parents [Paras 6, 8].

Multiplicity of Proceedings – Same Parties – Avoidance of Hardship and Conflicting Decisions – Wife had already instituted maintenance proceedings, domestic violence case, and criminal proceedings at Vijayawada – Husband attending proceedings at Vijayawada – Divorce petition filed by husband at Kurnool – Held: Transfer justified to consolidate proceedings at one place to avoid multiplicity and unnecessary hardship [Paras 6–8].

Section 24 CPC – Ends of Justice – Scope of Power – Power to transfer proceedings to be exercised where ends of justice so demand – Court to consider economic condition, social background, standard of living, and protective umbrella available to parties – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision in N.C.V. Aishwarya v. A.S. Saravana Karthik – Held: Present case squarely falls within parameters warranting transfer [Paras 7–8].

Matrimonial Disputes – Socio-Economic Realities – Judicial Approach – Wife residing separately with five-year-old child and dependent on parents – Lack of male assistance and financial constraints pleaded – Held: Socio-economic realities of Indian society mandate liberal approach in favour of wife while considering transfer petitions [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – F.C.O.P. No.78 of 2025 withdrawn from the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool and transferred to the Principal Family Court-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada – Directions issued for expeditious transmission of records – No order as to costs.

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].

Accident Claim - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 167 – Doctrine of Election – Claim under Motor Vehicles Act and Workmen’s Compensation Act – Bar of dual remedy – Claimants received compensation from employer under Workmen’s Compensation Act and also filed claim under Section 166 MV Act against owner, driver and insurer of offending vehicle – Held: Bar under Section 167 applies only when claim is made against same employer–tortfeasor – Where parties and liabilities are distinct, doctrine of election not attracted – Claim under MV Act maintainable [Paras 13, 25].

Motor Accident Compensation – Multiple Vehicles Involved – Distinct Liabilities – Deceased driver employed on one vehicle and accident caused by another offending vehicle – Compensation claimed from employer under Workmen’s Compensation Act and from tortfeasors under MV Act – Held: Statutory liability of employer and tortious liability of third-party tortfeasor operate in different spheres – No prohibition on claimants availing both remedies [Paras 13, 19–25].

Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 – Statutory Liability – Employer vis-à-vis Third Party – Compensation under WC Act does not absolve independent tortfeasor of liability under MV Act – Acceptance of compensation from employer does not bar claim against owner/insurer of offending vehicle [Paras 19–24].

Insurance Law – Validity of Driving Licence – Burden of Proof – Insurer alleged fake driving licence – Insurer examined legal officer and relied on investigation report – No examination of issuing authority or production of authentic records – Held: Mere oral evidence and unproved investigation report insufficient – Insurer failed to establish breach of policy conditions [Paras 26–28].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 149(2) – Breach of Policy – Fake Licence – Knowledge of Owner – Even assuming licence to be fake, insurer failed to prove that owner had knowledge of such fact or permitted driving despite knowledge – Fundamental breach not established – Insurer liable to satisfy award [Paras 28].

Appellate Interference – Motor Accident Claims – Findings of Tribunal – Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.12,12,400/- with 9% interest – No perversity or legal infirmity found – High Court declined interference under First Appeal jurisdiction [Paras 25–29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and award dated 12.10.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Navsari in MACP No.125 of 2013 upheld – Insurance company held liable – Tribunal directed to disburse compensation to claimants – Connected Civil Application disposed of – No order as to costs.

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.

Rape of Minor – Conviction Based on Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix – Reliability and Credibility – Victim aged 13 years gave a consistent and cogent account of forcible sexual assault and confinement by the accused – Minor discrepancies regarding school timings and routine held to be trivial – Evidence of prosecutrix found to inspire confidence – Held: Conviction can be sustained on sole testimony of prosecutrix without corroboration when evidence is of sterling quality – Sensitivity required in appreciation of evidence of child victims [Paras 31–38].

Sexual Offences Against Children – Consent Irrelevant – Prosecution proved victim was 13 years old at the time of incident – Question of consent wholly irrelevant – Act squarely falling within offence of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under IPC and POCSO Act [Paras 34, 38].

Medical Evidence – Corroborative Value – Medical examination revealed old hymenal tear, redness, tenderness and history of repeated sexual assault – Minor discrepancy in medical opinion not fatal – Held: Ocular testimony of victim prevails over medical evidence – Medical findings sufficiently corroborated prosecution case [Paras 40–44].

Delay in FIR – Effect – FIR lodged after victim returned home next morning – Delay satisfactorily explained considering age of victim and circumstances – No adverse inference drawn [Paras 39, 44].

Criminal Trial – Error in Framing of Charge – Deleted Statutory Provision – Charge framed under Section 376(2)(i) IPC which stood deleted prior to date of incident – Accused contended grave prejudice and failure of justice – Held: Mere error in charge is curable under Sections 215 & 464 CrPC unless prejudice or failure of justice is shown – Accused fully aware that prosecution case was rape of a girl below 16 years – No prejudice caused to defence [Paras 45–58].

Alteration of Conviction at Appellate Stage – Powers of Appellate Court – Conviction under deleted Section 376(2)(i) IPC altered to Section 376(3) IPC – Ingredients of both provisions identical and maximum punishment same – Accused not placed in a worse position – Appellate Court competent to correct error and alter conviction where no failure of justice is demonstrated [Paras 54–66].

Sentencing – Meaningful Hearing – Alleged Prejudice – Contention that hearing on sentence was defective rejected – Accused had opportunity to address sentencing both before Trial Court and High Court – Any defect cured at appellate stage – No violation of principles of fair trial [Paras 61–63].

POCSO Act – Section 42 – Higher Punishment to Prevail – Trial Court correctly applied Section 42 POCSO Act and imposed sentence under Section 376(3) IPC as providing higher punishment – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for remainder of natural life upheld [Paras 65–67].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Sections 342, 363, 376(2)(n) and 506 IPC maintained – Conviction under Section 376(2)(i) IPC altered to Section 376(3) IPC – Conviction and sentence under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 POCSO Act upheld – Sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life (remainder of natural life) with fine confirmed [Paras 67–68].