Criminal Law - Successive Bail Petition – Maintainability Before High Court After Earlier Rejections – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, accused of grave offences including sexual assault, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite prior dismissal by Sessions Court, High Court, and Supreme Court – Held: Though Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, judicial discipline mandates initial approach to Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist – Petitioner failed to plead or prove compelling circumstances for bypassing trial court – Following established precedents, High Court refused to entertain petition without prior trial court recourse [Paras 3-23].

Judicial Discipline – Bypassing Sessions Court – Exceptional Circumstances Requirement – Affirmed – Citing authoritative judgments, the Court reiterated the principle that High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked directly when the trial court has previously declined relief unless there are fresh developments or special reasons justifying deviation – As no such factors were demonstrated, petition was relegated to trial court [Paras 10-22].

Roster Allocation and Judicial Consistency – Clarification Applied – In light of Supreme Court's direction on listing of bail applications under the same FIR before the same judge where possible, the Court clarified that due to roster changes and absence of prior judge, present bench could entertain the matter, but on merits, relief was declined [Paras 6-8].

Relief and Directions – Petitioner Relegated to Trial Court – Expeditious Consideration Ordered – Considering judicial custody since May 2024 and to avoid prolonged incarceration, High Court directed the trial court to decide the bail application within ten days if moved by petitioner – Liberty granted to approach High Court thereafter if necessary [Paras 23-24].

Company Law - Company Winding Up – Inability to Pay Debt – Section 433(e) of Companies Act – Winding Up Confirmed – Appeal dismissed - The appellant challenged the winding up order on grounds of disputed liability and acquittal under Section 138 NI Act – Held: Execution of demand promissory note admitting debt, absence of timely dispute, and decree passed in Summary Suit against appellant demonstrated liability and inability to pay – Belated disputes raised only in winding up reply were not bona fide – Court upheld winding up in public interest to prevent misuse of corporate status against creditors [Paras 14-39].

Criminal Acquittal vs Civil Liability – Distinct Standards of Proof – No Effect on Civil Proceedings – The Court held that acquittal in criminal proceedings based on proof beyond reasonable doubt does not absolve civil liability determined on preponderance of probability – Mere acquittal under Section 138 NI Act does not nullify acknowledged debt or decree obtained in civil court – Civil liability established through decree and demand promissory note prevails [Paras 30-31].

Late Raising of Disputes – Absence of Prior Denial of Liability – Conduct Indicative of Inability to Pay – The Court observed that disputes regarding debt quantum were raised for the first time after issuance of winding up notice, with no prior objection despite several communications – Such conduct was held to be an afterthought and an attempt to evade legitimate dues, justifying the winding up under Section 433(e) [Paras 22-24, 28].

Effect of Summary Decree – Conclusive Evidence of Liability – Appeal Dismissed – The Court noted that appellant did not challenge or satisfy the decree passed in Summary Suit based on same transactions – Existence of decree is decisive of indebtedness and inability to pay – Reiterated principle that companies unable to pay their debts should be wound up to protect future creditors [Paras 31-33].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Winding Up Confirmed – Court found no merit in appeal – Decreed debt remained unpaid, appellant had ceased business activities and had no assets – Winding up confirmed to prevent further creditor prejudice – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 39-40].

Civil Law – Partition and Possession – Second Appeal - No Substantial Question of Law – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant challenged the concurrent findings of both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court granting partition and separate possession of ½ share to the respondent/plaintiff – The Courts below based findings on admitted facts and evidence, including judicial admissions in pleadings and documents – Held: No substantial question of law arises where findings are based on proper appreciation of facts; second appeal liable to be dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13-15, 29-30].

Adverse Possession – No Proof of Ouster – Claim Denied – Appellant's plea of exclusive possession and adverse possession since father’s death was rejected – Mere long possession by one co-sharer does not constitute ouster in absence of clear hostile claim – Courts correctly held that possession by one co-owner is deemed on behalf of all co-owners – Adverse possession and ouster claims not proved by evidence [Paras 21-22, 25-27].

Judicial Admissions – Admissions in Pleadings and Legal Notices Binding – Defendant admitted in written statement and legal notice that suit properties were joint family properties – Admission being best evidence, the burden shifted to defendant to prove relinquishment by plaintiff, which was not discharged – Courts below rightly relied on judicial admissions to grant partition [Paras 17-19].

No Scope for Reappreciation of Facts in Second Appeal – Section 100 CPC – Law clarified that High Court does not re-examine findings of facts in second appeal unless findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or misapplication of law – No such perversity or legal error found in concurrent judgments of lower Courts – Appeal dismissed [Paras 13, 28-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the concurrent judgments and decrees granting the plaintiff ½ share in the property and dismissed the second appeal without costs [Para 30].

Tenancy Law - Tenancy Rights – Joint Tenancy and Devolution – Evidence of Co-Tenancy – Appeal Dismissed – Plaintiffs claimed exclusive tenancy through Noor Mohammed, suppressing prior co-tenancy of predecessors – Rent receipts and affidavits evidenced joint tenancy among heirs of original tenants Kopline and Maqbool – Held: Plaintiffs failed to establish exclusive tenancy; suppression of material facts and absence of surrender of co-tenancy proved fatal to the claim [Paras 2-30].

Documentary Evidence – Presumption under Section 109 of Evidence Act – Admissibility of Affidavits – Authenticity Established – Affidavits and documents executed before judicial authorities carry presumption of validity – Plaintiffs neither pleaded nor proved fraud or forgery – Held: Authenticity of affidavits affirming co-tenancy stands unchallenged; plaintiffs’ denial without substantiating evidence rejected [Paras 25-35].

Commissioner of Wakf’s Order – No Bar on Defence of Co-Tenancy – Limitation Does Not Extinguish Substantive Right – The order of Commissioner of Wakfs did not affect defendants' substantive right to claim joint tenancy – Held: Absence of civil suit by defendants post-Wakf Board’s order does not preclude defendants from asserting co-tenancy as defence [Paras 36-40].

Possession – No Obligation to File Eviction Suit Among Co-Tenants – Physical Possession of One Co-Tenant Represents All – Held: Defendant's failure to file eviction suit irrelevant as possession by one co-tenant is deemed on behalf of all co-tenants [Para 41].

Premises Definition – Applicability of Tenancy Acts – Non-Applicability of ‘Hotel’ Definition – The premises used as eating house and shops do not fall under ‘hotel’ exclusion of tenancy acts – Held: Suit governed by general tenancy law irrespective of specific Rent Control statutes [Paras 42-43].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Suit for Exclusive Tenancy Rejected – Plaintiffs failed to prove exclusive tenancy and concealed material facts; evidence confirmed joint tenancy – Held: No legal or factual error in trial court’s findings; appeal dismissed, trial court decree upheld [Paras 44-46].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reopening of Assessment – Applicability of Amended Provisions – Partial Reopening Permitted – The writ appeal arose from the quashing of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A, 148 of the Income Tax Act against the respondent-company for AY 2017-18 – The Court held that the amended provisions of Sections 148A and 149 apply even to past assessment years, and limitation has to be reckoned accordingly – Observing that the reassessment was initiated within six years of the end of the assessment year, the Court held the proceedings were not barred by limitation – However, only limited heads relating to processing charges and professional charges were validly backed by statutory 'information' under Section 148A – Reassessment permitted only to this limited extent [Paras 7-9, 20-22].

Reopening of Assessment – Scope of Judicial Review Post-Amendment – Restricted Interference Permissible – The Court distinguished the scope of judicial review under the new regime post-01.04.2021 – Held that unlike the earlier regime requiring ‘reason to believe’, the amended provisions rely on ‘information suggesting escapement’ and judicial review is limited to verifying the existence of such information – The Court clarified that earlier precedents like Kelvinator (change of opinion doctrine) do not directly apply after the amendments [Paras 11-18].

Audit Objection – Validity as Information – Limited Scope – The Court held that audit objection can qualify as 'information' under Section 148A only if it conclusively opines that the original assessment was not in accordance with the Act – In the present case, the audit objection justified reassessment only regarding disallowance of processing and professional charges – Reassessment confined to this head alone [Paras 16-19, 22].

Jurisdiction of Writ Court – Challenge at Notice Stage – Permissible Where Jurisdictional Error Exists – The Court reiterated that writ petitions are maintainable to challenge reopening notices where jurisdictional errors exist – The impugned reassessment was partly quashed since beyond the permissible heads no valid information existed to reopen the assessment [Paras 6, 22-23].

Decision – Reassessment Order Partly Quashed – Fresh Notice Permitted for Limited Issue – The impugned order and notice were quashed, and matter remitted to the Assessing Officer to issue fresh notice under Section 148A within four weeks limited to the disallowance of processing and professional charges – Writ appeal partly allowed with modification of the Single Judge's order [Paras 23].

Service Law – Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Discrimination in Employment – Violation of Sections 20 and 33 of RPwD Act – The petitioner, a bus driver, suffered a 40% locomotor disability during service and sought allocation of light duties – Despite repeated medical certifications and judicial orders, the respondent Corporation rejected his claim citing non-availability of light duties – Held: Denial of light duties violates Section 20 which prohibits discrimination against disabled employees and Section 33 which mandates identification of suitable posts – Impugned order set aside and directions issued to reinstate the petitioner with light duties and pay salary arrears [Paras 2-19, 22-23].

Equal Opportunity Policy – Mandatory Compliance Under Section 21 RPwD Act – Corporation’s Omission to Frame and Implement Equal Opportunity Policy – The Court held that non-identification of posts and failure to provide alternative duties is a direct violation of Section 21 of the RPwD Act which mandates equal opportunity measures in every establishment – Respondent’s omission resulted in denial of the petitioner’s lawful rights and perpetuated systemic discrimination [Paras 15, 18].

Inalienable Right of Disabled Employees – Allocation of Alternative Duties – Non-Compliance Cannot Justify Denial of Rights – The Court held that failure to implement mandatory statutory duties cannot be used to curtail the rights of disabled employees – The respondent Corporation’s defence of non-existence of light duty posts was rejected – Held: Employers cannot take advantage of their own default in failing to identify suitable posts for persons with disabilities [Paras 17, 21].

Reinstatement and Financial Relief – Directions for Payment of Salary Arrears with Interest – Institutional Reforms Mandated – The Court directed the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with light duties, pay full salary arrears from March 2022 with 7% interest, and issued further directions to sensitize officers and conduct regular audits to enforce compliance with RPwD Act – Additional penalty of ₹50,000 imposed for non-compliance [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Full Relief Granted to Petitioner – The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned rejection order, directed payment of salary arrears with interest, and ordered systemic reforms within six months to ensure compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the respondent Corporation [Paras 22-24].

Matrimonial Law  – Maintenance - Nullity of Marriage – No Entitlement to Interim Maintenance – Sections 12, 23 of Domestic Violence Act – Orders Set Aside – The revisionist challenged interim maintenance awarded to opposite party-2 under the Domestic Violence Act after the marriage was judicially declared null and void – The Court held that following the declaration of nullity, the opposite party-2 could not claim benefits under the Domestic Violence Act as no domestic relationship subsisted under Section 2(f) – Orders granting maintenance were held to be unsustainable [Paras 1, 24].

Effect of Declaration of Marriage as Void – Legal Consequences – The Court reiterated that a decree declaring marriage void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act relates back to the date of marriage – Consequently, there remains no legal relationship between the parties to attract provisions of the Domestic Violence Act – Therefore, maintenance cannot be awarded when the foundational domestic relationship is legally extinguished [Paras 24-25].

Presumption of Marriage – Withdrawal of Appeal Reinforces Nullity – The opposite party-2 had withdrawn her appeal against the nullity decree, making the decree final – The Court held this withdrawal reinforces the conclusion that no valid marriage existed, rendering the subsequent maintenance claim unsustainable [Paras 13, 24].

Illegal Continuation of Proceedings – Orders Passed Without Jurisdiction – The Court found that both the Trial Court and Appellate Court erred by ignoring the legal status of the relationship – Held: When the marriage is void ab-initio, no protection under the Domestic Violence Act survives, and proceedings under Section 12 or Section 23 could not be validly continued [Paras 14-16, 24].

Final Decision – Revision Allowed – Maintenance Order Quashed – The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the orders granting interim maintenance, and held that the opposite party-2 was not entitled to any maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act following the nullity of marriage [Paras 26-27].

Taxation Law - Minimum Alternate Tax – Provision for Doubtful Debts – Whether Addable Under Clause (b) or (c) – Addition Held Invalid – The Assessing Officer added ₹2,49,73,218/- to the book profits under clause (c) of Explanation to Section 115JA of Income Tax Act, treating it as provision for liability – CIT(A) upheld the addition under clause (b), holding it to be a ‘reserve’, and ITAT affirmed the same – Held: Provision for doubtful debts represents diminution in value of assets and not provision for liability – Such provision cannot be treated as ‘reserve’ under clause (b) – Clause (g) dealing with diminution in value of assets was inserted only from 01/04/1998 and was not applicable to A.Y. 1997–1998 – Hence, amount could not be added under clause (b) or (c) – Orders of AO, CIT(A) and ITAT set aside [Paras 8–23].

Accounting Interpretation – Distinction Between Provision and Reserve – Schedule VI of Companies Act – Relevance of Clause 7(2) – ITAT erred in applying clause 7(2) to justify treatment of provision as reserve – Legislative intent behind later insertion of clause (g) under Section 115JA confirms that such provisions were not originally covered under clause (b) – Provision for diminution in recoverable debt is asset-side adjustment, not reserve creation [Paras 19–22].

Decision – Addition to Book Profit Set Aside – Provision Not Covered by Clause (b) or (c) – Appeal Allowed – Substantial Question of Law Answered in Favour of Assessee – ITAT, CIT(A), and AO Orders Quashed [Paras 23–24].

Attachment Before Judgment – Existence of Prima Facie Claim and Threat of Alienation – Order 38 Rule 5 & 6 CPC – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, a landowner and developer, challenged the order of the Special Commercial Court making absolute an attachment before judgment of 2.5 acres of land – The plaintiff/respondent, a marketing agent, filed the suit claiming recovery of ₹3,19,75,543/- based on an MoU alleging payments made and wrongful conduct by the defendant in diverting project funds and violating marketing rights – The High Court upheld the Special Court’s finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case through substantial documentation and correlation statements and established a threat of alienation as the defendant had begun independent marketing and sale of the property in violation of the MoU – Held: Special Court correctly exercised discretion in attaching property to secure the suit claim and to prevent the decree from becoming infructuous – Appellate interference was unwarranted as no perversity or arbitrary exercise of discretion was shown [Paras 39-50].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Limited Power of Appellate Court under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC – Appeal Rejected – The High Court reiterated that appellate courts should not substitute their discretion unless the trial court’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or perverse – The Special Court's decision was found reasoned, based on material on record, and compliant with judicial principles, leaving no ground for interference under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC – Appeal dismissed with liberty to appellant to seek modification before the trial court if circumstances change [Paras 53-57].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed with liberty to appellant to apply before trial court for variation or modification of attachment if so advised – No order as to costs [Paras 59-60].