Taxation Law - Section 32AB Deduction – Profits to be Determined as per Audited Accounts under Companies Act – Additional Sugarcane Price Paid After Year-End Not to be Deducted – The assessee claimed 20% deduction under Section 32AB based on profits shown in the audited Profit & Loss Account as per the Companies Act, without reducing the additional sugarcane price paid after closing of accounts – The Assessing Officer reduced the said amount from the profit for Section 32AB, but the Court held that Section 32AB(3) specifically mandates that profits must be taken as per audited accounts under Parts II & III of Schedule VI, Companies Act, and not as per computation under the Income Tax Act – Held: The assessee’s method of claiming deduction is correct, and the additional sugarcane price paid after year-end cannot be reduced from profits for Section 32AB computation [Paras 1-3, 16-28, 31-32].

Consistency in Accounting – No Revenue Loss from Consistent Practice – The Court observed that the assessee’s consistent practice of deducting additional cane price in the subsequent year’s profits led to no revenue loss, as the deduction evened out over time – The Revenue’s objection for only one year was found unsustainable [Paras 16, 31].

Interpretation of Section 32AB – Reliance on Judicial Precedent – The judgment relied on precedents including Jindal Aluminium Ltd. (Karnataka HC), Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., and Apollo Tyres Ltd. (Supreme Court) to reiterate that profits as per audited accounts under the Companies Act alone must be considered for Section 32AB deduction – Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to alter profits except as permitted under the statute [Paras 20-28].

Distinction from Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd. and Parry Agro Industries Ltd. – Inapplicability of Cited Cases – The cases cited by the Revenue addressed different issues and did not apply to the methodology for computation under Section 32AB [Paras 29-30].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of Assessing Officer, CIT(A), and ITAT Set Aside – Question of Law Answered in Favour of Assessee – The Court held that deduction under Section 32AB must be based on profits as per audited accounts, without adjustment for additional sugarcane price paid after year-end – Appeal allowed, impugned orders set aside [Paras 31-33].

Civil Law - Representative Suit – Conversion After 21 Years – Writ Petition Allowed – Association of retired employees filed suit in 2004 seeking multiple pensionary benefits under Vysya Bank Employees’ Pension Regulations, 1995 for members retired under VRS 2002—In 2024, plaintiffs applied under Order I Rule 8 CPC to convert into representative suit—Trial court allowed, terming lack of initial compliance a curable procedural defect—High Court quashed order, holding that (i) no public notice issued to all interested as mandated, (ii) application filed after conclusion of arguments and reservation of judgment constituted inordinate, prejudicial delay, and (iii) members’ grievances were diverse, defeating requirement of common interest—Directed trial court to conclude long-pending suit within 4 weeks [Paras 10-14].

Order I Rule 8 CPC – Mandatory Preconditions – Court emphasised statutory requirement of prior permission and notice to all interested persons—Violation renders representative character invalid; cannot be cured post-reservation of judgment when diverse claims exist [Paras 10-12].

Delay and Prejudice – Filing application after two decades and at stage of judgment reservation shows indolence; allowing would cause grave prejudice and indefinite prolongation [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Writ petition allowed; trial court’s order dated 15.02.2025 in I.A. No. 1/2024 quashed; application under Order I Rule 8 CPC dismissed; trial court directed to deliver judgment in O.S. No. 8105/2004 within 4 weeks [Para 14].

Criminal Law - Bail – Second Regular Bail Application – No Change in Circumstance – Dismissed – Applicant filed second bail application citing prolonged custody exceeding three and a half years – No substantial change in circumstances since first application – Court held that seriousness of offence and role played by applicant in the sexual assault of minor boys ruled out any relief at this stage – Bail denied [Paras 1, 5, 17].

Sexual Offences Against Minors – Strong Prima Facie Case – Active Participation by Applicant – The applicant forcibly brought one of the minor victims and participated in the commission of aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Presence of applicant throughout, threats issued, and restraining acts established active complicity – Medical reports, FSL, and video footage supported the prosecution case – Bail denied in view of gravity [Paras 10–14].

Applicability of Section 436A CrPC – Not Applicable – Though applicant remained in custody for over 3.5 years, Court noted that minimum punishment under Section 6 of POCSO Act is 20 years – Threshold for release under Section 436A not yet satisfied – Continued custody justified in light of serious charges and risk of influencing victims or tampering with evidence [Paras 18–21].

Judicial Intervention – Time-Bound Trial Directed – Despite general judicial reluctance to issue directions for speedy trials, Court deemed this case exceptional due to serious nature of offences – Directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within one year – Directed the State to ensure regular production of accused and expeditious witness examination [Paras 24–28].

Final Order – Bail Application Rejected – High Court held that prolonged incarceration did not outweigh the gravity of allegations, especially considering the applicant’s role in the offence, availability of direct evidence, and threat perception to victims – Matter to be monitored for expeditious trial completion – Application dismissed [Para 29].

Civil Law - Permanent Injunction – Suit Between Co-sharers – Claim for Exclusive Possession Not Established – Dismissal Upheld – The plaintiff-appellant, a co-sharer, filed a suit for permanent injunction against another co-sharer alleging interference in possession – Both Trial Court and First Appellate Court found no evidence of exclusive possession or partition – Held: Co-sharer cannot seek injunction without proving exclusive possession or ouster – Findings of fact by lower courts are supported by law – No interference warranted in second appeal [Paras 3, 8, 11].

Co-ownership – Right to Use Common Property – Suit Not Maintainable Without Proof of Ouster – The lower courts relied on binding precedents to hold that co-owners have joint rights over entire property – Mere use or construction by one co-sharer does not amount to ouster – Held: In absence of evidence showing ouster, hostile possession, or exclusive title, injunction against a co-sharer not in possession cannot be granted – Remedy lies in partition, not injunction [Paras 9-10].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court reiterated that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal unless substantial question of law is raised – Held: No legal or factual error shown to justify interference – Appeal devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 11-12].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Trial Court and Appellate Court Judgments Affirmed – No evidence to support exclusive possession or ouster – No substantial question of law raised – Appeal dismissed with no relief granted to appellant [Para 12].

Civil Law - Land Revenue Act – Delay Condonation – Appeal Filed After 24 Years – Quashing Sought – Delay Condonation Upheld – Petitioner challenged condonation of 24-year delay in appeal against mutation order – Court found that petitioner had actively participated in appeal proceedings post-revisional order – Once petitioner accepted revisional direction and appeared before appellate authority, he could not later challenge the same order without disclosing participation – Held: Petition dismissed due to suppression of material facts and conduct unbecoming of a litigant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction [Paras 24–26, 31].

Writ Jurisdiction – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner Approached Court with Unclean Hands – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner failed to disclose that he had participated in proceedings before Appellate Court from 18.08.2022 to 04.11.2023 – Held: Writ remedy being equitable, discretionary relief cannot be granted to a litigant who deliberately misleads the Court – Court dismissed the writ petition and imposed exemplary costs [Paras 25–30, 34–35].

Parallel Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Invoking Article 226 While Participating in Lower Court Proceedings – Impermissible – Petitioner challenged revisional and appellate orders in writ jurisdiction while simultaneously pursuing proceedings before the appellate forum – This amounted to forum shopping and abuse of judicial process – Held: Dual remedies on same cause of action not maintainable when material facts are suppressed [Paras 24, 34].

Exemplary Costs – Misuse of Constitutional Remedy – ₹20,000 Imposed for Abuse of Process – In view of calculated concealment and misuse of Court’s process, the Court imposed ₹20,000 costs on the petitioner to be deposited in the Advocate’s Welfare Fund – Intended to deter dishonest litigants and uphold sanctity of writ jurisdiction [Para 34].

Final Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Costs Imposed – No Relief Granted – Court found that petitioner suppressed critical information and tried to mislead the Court – Petition dismissed with ₹20,000 costs – Observed that petitioner was not entitled to any discretionary relief under Article 226 [Para 35].

Matrimonial Law - Partition of Matrimonial Property – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – Judgment on Admissions – Appeal Dismissed – Husband’s application for preliminary decree allowed by Family Court on basis of admission in wife’s written statement that suit property was jointly purchased – Sale deed reflected joint ownership without specified shares – Held: Admission was categorical; vague claims of higher contribution unsupported by evidence cannot override statutory presumption of equal shares under Section 45 TPA – No trial necessary on ownership issue [Paras 16-18].

PWDV Act – Right to Reside in Shared Household – Scope – Wife’s plea to resist partition citing Section 17 PWDV Act rejected – Court held right of residence is not absolute and does not bar lawful partition by co-owner – Statutory protection intended to prevent unlawful eviction, not to confer greater proprietary rights than ownership share – Financially independent spouse cannot indefinitely block partition on “shared household” claim [Paras 19-22].

Equitable Considerations – Court noted husband’s bona fide offer to pay wife ₹4 crore or provide alternative residence – Wife’s insistence on exclusive possession unjustified in law and equity – Purpose of partition suit is to secure each co-owner’s enjoyment of their share [Para 27].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Preliminary decree of equal ownership upheld – Observations confined to present appeal and not to affect merits of other pending proceedings [Paras 28-30].

NDPS Bail – Sections 21, 25, 29 of the NDPS - Recovery of Intermediate Quantity of Heroine – Section 37 Not Attracted – Bail Granted – Petitioner was arrested for alleged possession of 100 grams of heroin, an intermediate quantity – Co-accused implicated her through disclosure statement – Held: Section 37 NDPS not applicable to intermediate quantity – Bail granted considering long custody, parity with co-accused, and absence of need for further investigation [Paras 2, 14, 24-26].

Disclosure Statement – Limited Evidentiary Value – Arrest Based on Co-accused’s Statement – The applicant’s arrest was based on a disclosure statement of co-accused without independent corroboration – Held: Sole reliance on disclosure without further investigation cannot justify prolonged incarceration – Custodial interrogation no longer required [Paras 13-14, 24-25].

Procedural Safeguards – Violation of Sections 42, 50 and 57 NDPS Act Alleged – Petitioner alleged multiple procedural lapses, including improper communication of grounds of arrest and non-compliance with Section 50 NDPS – Held: These contentions merit consideration at trial – Not decisive for rejecting bail at this stage [Paras 4-10].

Parity and Discrimination – Co-accused Already Released – Petitioner Entitled to Bail – Co-accused with similar or lesser recovery granted bail – Held: Applicant cannot be treated differently in absence of compelling distinguishing factors – Parity principle applicable [Para 24].

Prolonged Custody – No Need for Further Investigation – Chargesheet Filed – Bail Justified – Petitioner in custody since 26.04.2024 – No fresh recovery required and investigation substantially completed – Held: Further incarceration unnecessary and would amount to pre-trial punishment [Paras 2, 11, 24-26].

Final Order – Bail Granted – Subject to Conditions – Court granted bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 35,000/- with surety and imposed conditions including attendance in Court, no tampering with evidence, and residence verification [Para 26].

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Conviction – Robbery, Use of Deadly Weapon, and Recovery – Section 394/397/411/34 IPC & Section 25 Arms Act – Conviction Upheld – The appellant challenged his conviction for robbery and allied offences, arguing improper recovery, lack of proof of mobile phone ownership, and misapplication of Section 397 IPC in conjunction with Section 34 – The Court found that consistent and credible ocular testimony of the complainant (PW-5) and the injured witness (PW-7), supported by medical evidence and recovery of weapon and property, established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The specific role of inflicting stab injury was attributed to the appellant, and evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination – Held: Conviction and sentence upheld [Paras 2-10, 11, 13].

Section 397 IPC – Applicability and Use of Deadly Weapon – Legal Principles Restated – The Court reaffirmed that use of a deadly weapon, even during escape with stolen property, attracts Section 397 IPC, as per established precedent in Asif v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 270 – The sequence of events, including the stabbing during the course of robbery and escape, squarely attracted Section 397 – Section 397 can operate even if co-accused actually snatched the property, where the appellant used the weapon to facilitate the offence [Para 10].

Reduction of Sentence – No Leniency Warranted in Light of Past Convictions and Gravity – The appellant’s plea for reduction of sentence to the statutory minimum was rejected – The Court noted the appellant’s previous convictions and involvement in other pending cases – Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, and the absence of mitigating factors, no interference with sentence was warranted – Prayer for reduction of sentence rejected [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – The appeal was dismissed; conviction and order on sentence were upheld – Directions issued for compliance by jail authorities and trial court [Paras 13-14].

Civil Writ - Panchayat Election – Sole Nomination – Election Process Frustrated – Petition Dismissed – Election to President of Nalluru Gram Panchayat was scheduled for 21.07.2025—Only petitioner submitted nomination, but Prescribed Election Officer failed to attend and no scrutiny or further process occurred—Some members could not submit nominations due to officer’s absence—State issued fresh calendar for 06.08.2025—High Court held that election process never commenced and stood frustrated due to Prescribed Officer’s conduct; declaration of petitioner as elected untenable; fresh poll justified [Paras 1-6].

Nomination Procedure – Mandatory Compliance – Nomination must be filed with Prescribed Election Officer—Submission to unauthorised officer invalid; absence of scrutiny and withdrawal stages vitiated process [Paras 2, 5].

Right to Contest – Fresh Election – Court clarified that all eligible candidates, including petitioner, may file nominations for rescheduled poll [Para 7].

Decision – Writ petition dismissed; State’s decision to hold fresh election upheld [Paras 6-7].