Civil Law – Judgment on Admission – Order 12 Rule 6 CPC – Discretionary Power – Plaintiff claimed that opposite party was a licensee and defaulted in licence fee payment – Opposite party claimed tenancy at a lower rent and denied licensor-licensee relationship – Held: For invoking Order 12 Rule 6, there must be clear, unequivocal, and categorical admission – Mere production of rent collection book and payment of sums including maintenance and electricity charges cannot establish conclusive admission of rent amount or nature of relationship – Application rightly rejected by trial court [Paras 2, 8, 14, 19, 21–25, 33–36]

Tenancy Law – West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act – Applicability – Premises used for non-residential purpose with alleged rent exceeding ₹10,000 per month – Petitioner argued protection under the 1997 Act not available – Opposite party denied that rent exceeded ₹10,000 – Held: Disputed facts require trial – No conclusive admission on record to oust application of the Tenancy Act at this stage [Paras 6, 22–25]

Transfer of Property Act – Section 106 Notice – Requirement of Lessor-Lessee Relationship – Petitioner argued that notice to quit was served and admitted – Court held that such presumption under Section 106 TPA applies only when tenancy relationship is admitted – Here, licensor-licensee relationship claimed by petitioner and denied by opposite party – Hence, no ground to invoke Section 106 TPA or grant eviction under Order 12 Rule 6 [Paras 20, 27–29]

Precedents – Applicability – Petitioner relied on M/s. Signotron (India) Pvt. Ltd. where landlord-tenant relationship and notice under Section 106 TPA were admitted – Court held the present case was distinguishable since core facts were disputed – Discretion under Order 12 Rule 6 not improperly exercised [Paras 21, 35–36]

Decision: Civil revision dismissed – Trial court's rejection of Order 12 Rule 6 application upheld – No interference warranted under Article 227 – No costs.

Civil Law - Temple Property – Fraudulent Decree – Pujari’s Lack of Ownership – Decree dated 10.01.1997 obtained by suppression, forged will, and concealment of necessary parties – Fraud vitiates all judicial acts – Pujari only a manager, not owner – Deity is juristic person; property vests in deity with State as guardian – Res judicata not attracted – Trial Court justified in declaring earlier decree void ab initio – Appeal dismissed [Paras 35–45, 56–57].

Fraud on Court – Nullity of Decree – Principles – Held: Judgment and decree dated 10.01.1997 passed in Civil Suit No. 42-A/1996 obtained by deliberate suppression of necessary facts, non-disclosure of earlier litigation, concealment of rejection of forged will, and non-joinder of deity and Aukaf Committee – Applying S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, A.V. Papayya Sastry, Smriti Madan Kansagra, Vishnu Vardhan, decree is void ab initio – Fraud unravels everything [Paras 35–41].

Temple/Deity Property – Juristic Ownership – Guardianship – Held: Murti Shri Ram Mandir is a juristic person and perpetual minor; property vests in deity; State acts as guardian for protection of endowed property – Suit correctly instituted through SDO as guardian – Valid in law [Paras 49–51].

Pujari – Status and Rights – Managerial but not Proprietary Rights – Held: Pujari is only a manager/custodian, not an owner; cannot acquire Bhumiswami rights; cannot claim through guru-chela lineage; revenue entries of possession do not confer title – Reliance placed on State of M.P. v. Pujari Utthan Avam Kalyan Samiti (2021) 10 SCC 222, Mst. Kanchaniya, Kal Bhairav Trust [Paras 52–54].

Will of Guru Narayandas – Found Forged – Handwriting expert report (Ex. P/14), complaint (Ex. P/12), and admission of DW-1 establish fabrication – Gokuldas’ claim of succession rejected; his appointment as Pujari earlier set aside by Commissioner – His assertion of ownership illegal [Paras 40–41].

Res Judicata – Not Applicable – Held: Principle inapplicable where earlier decree obtained by fraud – Order dated 30.11.2006 already held suit maintainable; attained finality – Fraud is an exception to res judicata; decree can be challenged at any stage [Paras 42–44].

Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC – No Bar – Earlier decree not a compromise decree; deity was not a party to earlier suit; therefore, bar under Rule 3-A does not apply [Para 43].

Revenue Records – Presumptive Value Only – Held: Revenue entries (Ex. D/1–D/68) show possession for management; cannot prove title – Property recorded as “Murti Shri Ram Mandir Mafi Okaf” (Ex. P/10) confirms ownership of deity – Follows Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society (2014) 2 SCC 269 [Paras 45–47].

Pujari’s Eligibility – Customary Tradition – Gokuldas’ two marriages violated celibate Nihang tradition of math; disqualified from claiming spiritual succession – No personal or hereditary right to property [Para 55].

Maintainability – Suit by Deity – Valid – Learned Trial Court correctly held suit maintainable and not hit by technical bars – State rightly represented deity as guardian [Paras 49–51].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 14.03.2007 affirming that decree dated 10.01.1997 was void ab initio upheld – Earlier decree obtained by fraud, concealment of essential facts, forged will, and non-joinder of necessary parties – Deity is owner of property; Pujari only a manager – Suit validly instituted through State as guardian – No error in Trial Court findings – No order as to costs – Pending IAs closed [Paras 56–57].

Civil Law – Review Jurisdiction – Error Apparent on Face of Record – Non-consideration of Arguments – Context where the appellate court recorded submissions regarding the maintainability of a claim petition but failed to adjudicate them – Held: Non-consideration of arguments that are germane to the issue constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. If vital issues raised are not considered, it results in a miscarriage of justice, warranting review. [Paras 35, 37, 57].

Civil Procedure – Execution – Claim Petition – Wrong Provision of Law – Order 21 Rule 58 vs Rule 97/101 CPC – Context where the claim petition was dismissed for being filed under Rule 58 instead of Rule 97/101 – Held: The argument that quoting a wrong provision of law does not disentitle a party to relief if the court otherwise has jurisdiction was raised but not decided by the appellate court. This omission required correction via review. [Paras 45(vi), 49].

Civil Procedure – Scope of Review – "Any Other Sufficient Reason" – Held: The expression "any other sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court. Where the judgment under review suffers from non-consideration of material aspects raised to challenge the Executing Court's order, it falls within the scope of review. [Paras 30, 54].

Decision: Review Petition allowed. Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2022 in A.S. No. 59 of 2020 set aside. Appeal restored to original number for fresh decision on merits.

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Share Application Money – Section 68 – Evidentiary Value of Statements under Section 131 – ITAT erred in holding that authorities have no power to administer oath under Section 131 – High Court held that such statements are admissible and Section 131 explicitly empowers authorities to examine persons on oath – First question of law answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 4.10–4.12].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Addition based on vague statements – Statement of Mahendra Kumar Sethia found vague, lacking specific allegation that cash was received from assessee – No corroborative material to establish cash trail – ITAT’s reappreciation of evidence not perverse – Fourth question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 7.1–7.4].

Income Tax – Section 68 – Reliance on prior judgment – ITAT rightly relied on High Court decision in assessee’s own case for AY 2007–08 – Legal principles laid down in Lovely Exports and prior case applicable even after insertion of 2012 provisos – Identity, creditworthiness and genuineness remain primary tests – Third question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 6.1–6.12].

Income Tax – Section 56(2)(viib) – Fair Market Value of Shares – Valuation by assessee not specifically questioned by AO – ITAT held that AO must record judicially justifiable dissatisfaction before rejecting valuation – Addition not sustainable without proper analysis under Rule 11UA – Second question of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 8.1–8.5].

Income Tax – Lease Rent Paid to Director – Section 40A(2)(a) – ITAT remanded issue for fresh consideration regarding lease rent paid to Director – Assessment must consider prevailing market rates, amenities, and statutory provisions – Remand upheld – No substantial question of law arises – Fifth question in TCA No.14/2020 answered accordingly [Paras 9.1–9.5].

Income Tax – Disallowance under Sections 36(1)(iii) and 36(1)(va) – Lease advance and employee contributions – ITAT remanded issue without properly examining business necessity or timing of payment – High Court held remand order to be legally infirm – ITAT directed to reconsider in accordance with law – Fifth and sixth questions of law in TCA Nos.15 and 16 of 2020 answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 10.1–10.9].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – First question of law answered in favour of Revenue – Second, third and fourth questions of law answered in favour of Assessee – No question of law arises on fifth question in TCA No.14/2020 – Fifth and sixth questions in TCA Nos.15 and 16 of 2020 answered in favour of Revenue – Matter remanded to ITAT for re-examination on Sections 36(1)(iii) and 36(1)(va) [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Identification of Accused – Dock Identification vs. TIP – Held: Dock identification of an accused, who is a stranger to the witness, without a prior Test Identification Parade (TIP), is a weak piece of evidence. Where the complainant failed to identify the appellant in the TIP proceedings but identified him in Court after a gap of more than 3 years, such identification casts a shadow of doubt. The failure to identify in TIP and subsequent identification in Court renders the evidence unreliable. – [Paras 12-13]

Criminal Law – Section 397 IPC – Proof of Use of Weapon – Specific Context: Allegation of using a knife during robbery – Held: The complainant’s testimony regarding the role of the appellant was inconsistent. While the complainant attributed the use of a knife to the appellant in Court, he had failed to identify him earlier. Furthermore, no recovery of the weapon or robbed articles was effected from the appellant. In the absence of reliable identification and corroborative recovery, the conviction under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained. – [Paras 12-14]

Criminal Law – Benefit of Doubt – Inconsistent Testimony – Held: The complainant made improvements in his testimony regarding the role of co-accused, leading to the co-accused's acquittal. Similar inconsistencies and the failure of identification in TIP regarding the appellant entitle him to the benefit of doubt. – [Paras 13-14]

Decision: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted. [Para 15]

Religious Institution – Classification under Endowments Act – Notification – Appellants challenged inclusion of Yogananda Ashramam as a public religious institution under Section 6(c)(ii) of A.P. Endowments Act – Evidence showed that Ashramam was established and maintained by founders' family without any public endowment, offerings, or public access – Court found that management was always with the family and public participation was minimal and not as of right – Held: Ashramam not a public religious institution within meaning of Section 2(23) – Notification quashed [Paras 10–22, 26–28]

Natural Justice – Publication under Section 6(c)(ii) – Procedure – Court held that no notice was given to appellants before notification enlisting Ashramam as public religious institution – Violation of principles of natural justice – Held: Notification issued without following Sections 43, 44, and income assessment under Section 65 – Procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable – [Paras 23–25, 28]

Specific Endowment – No Dedication of Property – Settlement deed did not indicate any dedication of property or income for public religious or charitable use – No evidence of specific endowment as per Section 2(25) – Held: Absence of endowment defeats classification as religious institution or temple – [Paras 21–22]

Legal Precedents – Private Religious Institutions – Followed precedents in VVVRK Yechendra v. State of A.P. and Miryala Narayana v. State of A.P. – High Court reiterated that publication under Section 6 must follow registration and hearing of affected parties – Held: Classification made in violation of binding procedural requirements and liable to be struck down – [Paras 23–25]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Gazette Notification under Section 6(c)(ii) dated 13.07.2000 quashed – Order of Deputy Commissioner dated 25.08.2009 in O.A. No. 42 of 2001 set aside – Ashramam held to be a private institution – No order as to costs – Pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Advocates – Suspension from Practice – Ex Parte Order – Principles of Natural Justice Violated – Bar Council of U.P. passed an order suspending petitioner for 10 years from practicing law on the allegation of bigamy – Petitioner argued he was not served notice or given opportunity of hearing – Court found that notice dated 17.02.2025 fixed appearance on 10.03.2025, but the order was passed prematurely on 23.02.2025 – Held: Suspension order passed in violation of natural justice – Quashed with liberty to issue proper notice and pass a reasoned order [Paras 3, 17–19].

Moral Turpitude – Allegation of Bigamy – Absence of Conviction – Whether acts of bigamy constitute moral turpitude in absence of conviction considered – Petitioner relied on Raj Kishor Yadav case – Court held moral turpitude must be tested contextually and cannot be presumed without adjudication – Distinguished Madras High Court judgment in P. Mohanasudaram which involved a conviction – Held: Without conviction, bigamy allegation alone cannot justify professional suspension [Paras 4–6, 13–16].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ – Despite availability of appeal under the Advocates Act, writ petition entertained due to denial of natural justice – Held: Writ maintainable in exceptional circumstances where procedure is blatantly violated [Para 11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 23.02.2025 quashed – Bar Council directed to issue a fresh notice and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of judgment.

Civil Law – Remand of Case – Order 41 Rule 23A CPC – Failure to Appreciate Evidence Independently – Context of Trial Court decreeing a suit for possession solely based on a previous judgment (Ex. PX) without independent findings on title – Held: The Trial Court committed a material procedural error by failing to record independent findings on the core issue of title (Issue No. 1). Instead of discussing the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, the Trial Court relied exclusively on a previous judgment (Ex. PX) concerning the same land. Since Ex. PX was subsequently set aside by the Appellate Court, the entire foundation of the Trial Court's decree collapsed. The Lower Appellate Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the decree and remand the matter for a fresh decision, as the Trial Court had effectively failed to apply its judicial mind to the pleadings and evidence on record. A wholesale remand is permissible and necessary when the Trial Court has not decided material issues on their own merits. [Paras 14-15]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Case remanded to Trial Court. [Para 16]

Constitutional Law – Resignation by Legislator – Inaction by Chairman – Writ maintainable – Petitioner, a Member of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council, submitted resignation on 23.11.2024 – Chairman failed to act upon it for over nine months – Held: Under Article 190(3)(b) and Rule 190 of the Council Rules, the Chairman is duty-bound to verify only voluntariness and genuineness of resignation and render a decision within reasonable time – Inaction held arbitrary and violative of Article 14 [Paras 26, 56, 64, 68]

Discretionary Power – Limits on Constitutional Functionaries – No absolute discretion – Discretion under Article 190(3)(b) and Rule 190 must align with constitutional standards – Use of term “may” in Rule 190(2) interpreted as “must” in light of constitutional intent and Parliamentary debates – Chairman cannot indefinitely delay action on resignation – Time beyond a month unreasonable [Paras 24, 29-33, 60-63]

Judicial Review – Legislative Procedure – Limited scope of interference – Courts may not decide voluntariness/genuineness but may intervene against prolonged delay – Held: Chairman’s prolonged inaction offends Wednesbury reasonableness and constitutional morality – Judicial review available on grounds of arbitrariness [Paras 24, 39, 44, 64-66]

Legislative Practice – Timeline for inquiry into resignation – Based on debates during 33rd Constitutional Amendment, inquiry into voluntariness/genuineness must be completed preferably within a fortnight or, at most, a month – Chairman’s call for personal interaction after one year held unjustified – Court directed completion of process within four weeks [Paras 53, 55, 68]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Chairman directed to complete inquiry into petitioner’s resignation and render a decision within four weeks – Inaction held illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14.