Addition of Parties – Order I, Rule 10 CPC – Petitioners contested the order of Munsif, Barh, rejecting the application to add parties as defendants in a title suit – High Court upheld the trial court’s discretion, emphasizing that such decisions aim to facilitate effective adjudication without causing undue delay or complications – Found no error in the trial court’s refusal to add new parties as defendants [Paras 1-5].

Writ Jurisdiction – Distinction Under Articles 226 and 227 – Reference to Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath ruling that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, but Article 227 can be invoked for supervisory jurisdiction – Highlighted procedural compliance as per amended High Court Rules, converting writ petitions to civil miscellaneous petitions [Paras 2, 3, 4].

Judicial Discretion – Proper Parties in Suit – Court emphasized that adding parties under Order I, Rule 10 CPC is a matter of judicial discretion aimed at ensuring that all necessary parties are before the court for a comprehensive adjudication – Reiterated the necessity for substantial reason to interfere with trial court’s discretion [Paras 3-5].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Held – Writ petition converted to Civil Miscellaneous Petition as per procedural requirements – Directed registry to facilitate conversion and prioritize listing before appropriate bench [Paras 4-5].
 

Taxation Law - Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer – Assessee challenges jurisdiction of non-jurisdictional AO, who proceeded with assessment in the absence of a valid transfer order under Section 127 – Initial centralization of assessee's case was not properly decentralized or officially transferred as per mandated legal process – Held, actions of the AO without proper transfer under Section 127 are void ab initio due to jurisdictional error – Impugned orders quashed - [Paras 1-32]

Jurisdiction - Transfer of Case under Section 127 – Emphasizes need for valid transfer orders for shifting jurisdiction between AOs – Without such order, any assessment made by non-jurisdictional AO is legally untenable – High Court sets aside both the initial assessment order and subsequent orders up to ITAT due to jurisdictional flaws - [Paras 26, 28, 31]

Administrative Procedures – Assessment under Income Tax – High Court emphasizes the procedural necessity for following statutory requirements in transferring cases between different AOs – Any deviation without compliance with Section 127 leads to jurisdictional errors, making subsequent assessments void - [Paras 12, 27, 28]

Loan Agreement & Settlement – Appellants entered into a Loan Agreement on 19.05.2011 for ₹2,75,00,000 with an interest of 17.67% per annum (flat rate) which amounts to approximately 30.08% on a reducing balance method - Settlement Agreement mediated on 24.01.2014 acknowledged a debt of ₹2,03,00,000, agreeing to repay it with interest at 36% per annum on reducing balance method - Admissions of loan disbursement and document execution found credible by the court [Paras 7-9].

Defence of Misrepresentation and Duress – Appellants' defence claiming misrepresentation and duress in signing loan documents dismissed by the court as unsubstantiated, with documentary evidence contradicting claims - Settlement Agreement execution during mediation proceedings not disputed [Para 11-17].

Jurisdiction & Interest Rate – Contentions regarding jurisdiction under Debt Recovery Acts rejected, as plaintiff not a bank or financial institution eligible under said acts - Trial court reduced interest rate from 36% to 24% per annum without stated reason, accepted by plaintiff [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed; preliminary decree upheld based on admissions and documentary evidence showing binding nature of Settlement Agreement and Loan Agreement - Claims of being misled not substantiated by reliable evidence [Para 20].

Parole – Grant of Parole – Petitioner sought two weeks parole for daughter’s marriage – Prior similar petition withdrawn – Speaking order revealed parole jumping and subsequent arrest – Petition dismissed due to lack of merit and concealment of material facts [Paras 1-8].

Concealment of Facts – Petition dismissed for non-disclosure – Speaking order not presented to the court – Petitioner attempted to mislead court by changing date of marriage in fresh petition – Court condemned petitioner’s conduct [Paras 4-7].

Judicial Process – Maintenance of Judicial Integrity – Emphasis on transparency and full disclosure in petitions – Fresh petition on same cause of action deemed not maintainable – Conduct of petitioner deemed deprecable, avoiding exemplary costs due to incarceration [Paras 5-9].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No costs imposed considering petitioner’s imprisonment [Para 9].
 

Writ - Criminal Law – Offence under Section 304(A) IPC for Causing Death by Negligence – Petition for Return of Seized Driving License – The petitioner, K. Perumal, drove a bus involved in a fatal accident, resulting in the registration of a case under Section 304(A) IPC. The second respondent police seized the petitioner's driving license and handed it to the first respondent, the Regional Transport Officer. Despite approaching the first respondent for the return of his license, no action was taken, prompting the present writ petition [Paras 1-3].

Motor Vehicles Act – Licensing Authority’s Power to Revoke or Suspend License – Court’s Previous Ruling Referenced – The petitioner cited a previous order of the court in W.P(MD) No. 2111 of 2021, which addressed a similar issue. The court reviewed the provisions of Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which allow the licensing authority to disqualify or revoke a driving license, provided that the holder is given an opportunity to be heard, and reasons are recorded in writing. In the present case, the license was seized without following these statutory procedures [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The court directed the first respondent to return the driving license to the petitioner forthwith. The order emphasized the requirement for due process under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act and held that the seizure of the license without proper notice and opportunity to be heard was unlawful. The ruling aligns with the principles established in previous judgments, ensuring the protection of procedural rights of individuals involved in road traffic incidents [Para 7].

Income Tax – Cancellation of Registration under Section 12A – Power of Commissioner – Retrospective Application – The Commissioner’s order to cancel the registration of the assessee trusts under Section 12A was challenged. The court examined whether the Commissioner had the power to cancel such registration before the amendment of Section 12AA(3) in 2010, which explicitly provided for such power. The court held that prior to this amendment, the Commissioner did not have the express power to cancel registration, and thus, the cancellation orders dated 02.03.2010 and 26.03.2010 were without jurisdiction and authority [Paras 1-17].

Statutory Interpretation – Retrospective Amendment – Legal Principles – The court reaffirmed the principle that quasi-judicial orders cannot be modified or rescinded without express statutory authority. The retrospective application of amendments conferring such powers must be explicit and cannot be implied [Paras 17-18].

Educational Trusts – Charitable Activities – Surplus Income – It was argued by the Revenue that the trusts were engaged in profit-making under the guise of educational activities. The court referred to recent Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that surplus income does not necessarily negate the charitable nature of educational activities, provided such surplus is used for educational purposes [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – ITAT orders upheld – Registrations under Section 12A restored – Commissioner lacked the authority to cancel registrations prior to the 2010 amendment. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines and principles of fairness in administrative actions [Paras 24-26].

Non-delivery of Possession – Petitioner not provided possession of flat despite full payment – Respondent offered inadequate temporary solutions and refunds without interest – Court highlighted plight of petitioner who invested life savings and faced severe accommodation issues – Writ petition allowed with direction for full refund with interest and compensation for mental agony [Paras 1-23].

Contempt of Court – Alleged non-compliance with Court's earlier order for monthly compensation to petitioner – Respondent complied with orders by paying monthly sums and attempting to provide suitable alternate accommodations – Contempt petition dismissed due to respondent's compliance and efforts [CONT.CAS(C) 1294/2023 & CM APPL. 3311/2024, Paras 1-6].

Judicial Notice – Court noted exponential rise in property prices, deeming respondent's offer to refund only principal amount as inadequate – Emphasized duty of State-run enterprises to act fairly, granting additional compensation for mental agony [Para 18, 22].

Civil Law – Orders for delisting trucks by Ex-Servicemen Corporation – Challenge in Himachal Pradesh High Court against delisting orders due to concealment of re-employment – Common judgment passed for multiple writ petitions - Orders for delisting trucks – Chairman-cum-Managing Director of HP Ex-Servicemen Corporation delisted trucks owned by petitioners – Concealment of re-employment by petitioners at the time of truck attachment – Court upheld the orders based on compliance with Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh [Paras 2-5].

Re-employment and Truck Attachment – Division Bench ruling in Baldev Singh (supra) dictates non-attachment of trucks if ex-serviceman is re-employed – If re-employed after attachment, the truck must be surrendered – Apex Court upheld this ruling [Para 3].

Final Judgment – Dismissal of petitions – Held – Petitions dismissed based on adherence to previous court directions – Ex-Servicemen Corporation to allow petitioners to ply trucks until new names from waiting list are finalized – Petitioners have no right to ply trucks once new names are finalized [Paras 5-6].

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence – Monthly Allowance and Rented Accommodation – Petition under Article 227 challenging trial court and appellate court orders – Contention of insufficient monthly allowance and non-provision of rented accommodation – Execution proceedings initiated – Initial order directed payment of Rs. 5,000 per month for rent and provision of rented accommodation – Coordinate Bench set aside the Rs. 5,000 rent order – Petition for enhancement of rent dismissed [Paras 1-14].

Article 227 – Judicial Superintendence – High Court's supervisory role – Reaffirmed lower courts' findings – No illegality in trial and appellate court orders regarding compensation and maintenance – Emphasized on proper assessment of financial positions and circumstances [Paras 8-11].

Relief Sought – Petition Dismissed – Held – No ground for setting aside impugned orders or enhancing rent amount – Directed executing court to ensure provision of rented accommodation as per trial court’s order without delay [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Directed executing court to ensure rented accommodation for petitioner without further delay.