Civil Law - Partition Suit – Conditional Settlement Deed – Partition Claim Rejected – The plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit properties based on succession from the mother who executed settlement deeds in favour of defendants imposing obligation to pay amounts to the plaintiff – Held: The properties under the irrevocable conditional settlement deeds are not available for partition merely due to non-payment; plaintiff has no right of inheritance or partition, only a monetary charge exists [Paras 31-55].

Charge Over Property – Enforcement of Simple Mortgage Rights – Settlement Deeds created enforceable charge in favour of plaintiff – Failure of defendants to pay stipulated amounts within prescribed time makes properties liable for charge enforcement akin to simple mortgage under Sections 58(b) and 100 of Transfer of Property Act – Plaintiff entitled to enforce charge via sale of properties but not to claim partition rights [Paras 52-59].

Jewels – Movable Property Partition Allowed – 200 sovereigns of gold and diamond jewels were admitted to be in custody of third defendant – Court ordered appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inventory and partition jewels among plaintiff and defendants in equal 1/3rd shares – However, first charge of Mysore Silk Cloth Merchants Co-operative Bank Limited remains due to recovery proceedings, with plaintiff having a secondary charge [Paras 84-86].

Execution Proceedings – Right to Sale – Plaintiff allowed to proceed by filing execution application to recover dues through sale of properties charged under settlement deeds – Right of redemption preserved for defendants under Section 60 of Transfer of Property Act – Interest awarded at 12.5% per annum on delayed payments [Paras 59-83].

Court Fees – Direction for Differential Court Fee – Plaintiff directed to pay deficit court fee under appropriate valuation provisions within 60 days, failing which decree will not be drafted [Para 87].

Decision of the Judgment – Suit partly decreed, declaring plaintiff’s right to enforce monetary charge over immovable properties, right to partition movable assets (jewels), and liberty to enforce execution for recovery – Partition claim for immovable properties dismissed – No costs awarded [Para 88].

Domestic Violence Act – Penal Action under Section 31 – Breach of Monetary Relief – Conviction Set Aside – The petitioner challenged the appellate court’s order setting aside the respondent's conviction for non-payment of interim maintenance awarded under Section 23 of the D.V. Act – The High Court held that only breach of ‘protection orders’ under Section 18 is punishable under Section 31 – Non-payment of monetary relief or maintenance under Sections 20 or 23 does not amount to breach of protection order – Penal consequences under Section 31 are inapplicable for monetary defaults – Revision petition dismissed [Paras 1-3, 6-9, 14-16, 38-39].

Scope of Protection Order – Distinction Between Reliefs – Section 18 vs. Section 20 of D.V. Act – The Court emphasized the statutory distinction between protection orders (Section 18) and monetary relief (Section 20) – Clarified that the legislative intent was to penalize violation of personal protection orders and not defaults in monetary payments – Failure to pay maintenance should be enforced through recovery mechanisms, not criminal punishment under Section 31 [Paras 9-15, 25-27].

Literal Rule of Interpretation – Strict Construction of Penal Statutes – The Court applied strict interpretation principles, holding that Section 31 being a penal provision must be narrowly construed – Cited precedents that penal provisions cannot be stretched to include breaches not expressly covered by statute – Reiterated the rule of plain meaning for penal statutes [Paras 18-24, 26, 30-33].

Precedential Consensus – Affirmation of Majority View – The Court preferred the view taken by several High Courts (Kerala, Delhi, Telangana, Himachal Pradesh) holding that breach of monetary relief does not attract Section 31 of D.V. Act – Distinguished and declined to follow contrary view in Vincent Shanthakumar case – Observed legislative clarity in categorizing different orders under Sections 18 to 22 of the D.V. Act [Paras 15-16, 28-37].

Decision – No Penal Liability for Maintenance Default – Held: Non-payment of interim or final maintenance amounts to breach of monetary relief, not protection order, and cannot attract prosecution under Section 31 – Proper remedy is recovery proceedings under Cr.P.C. – Revision petition dismissed affirming the appellate court’s acquittal of respondent [Paras 38-39].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Cheque Dishonor – Proprietorship Concern – Liability under Section 138 – Acquittal Upheld – A cheque drawn on the account of M/s Udai Continentals was dishonored – Appellant failed to prove that Respondent No. 2 (D.P. Singh) was the proprietor of Udai Continentals – Evidence established that the actual proprietor was Ms. Sarika Singh Kuchhawaha, who was not arraigned as an accused – Held: For proprietorship concerns, only the proprietor can be held liable – No vicarious liability arises under Section 141 of NI Act for proprietorships – Complaint against Respondent No. 2 dismissed [Paras 28-38].

Proprietorship Concern – Distinction from Companies and Firms – Jurisprudence – A proprietorship firm has no separate legal entity from its proprietor – Cited Supreme Court judgment in Raghu Lakshminarayanan vs. Fine Tubes (2007) 5 SCC 103 and Delhi High Court in M.M. Lal vs. State NCT of Delhi 2012 (4) JCC 284 – Held: Only the sole proprietor can be held responsible under Section 138 of NI Act – Vicarious liability does not extend to non-proprietors even if they are related or involved in the business [Paras 30-34].

Cheque Dishonor – Demand Notice – Discrepancy in Amount – The court rejected the appellant’s contention that demand notice claiming Rs. 62,000 (including interest) for a dishonored cheque of Rs. 60,000 was valid – Observed that the cheque liability must match the amount demanded under Section 138 – However, the core reason for acquittal remained the appellant’s failure to establish that the respondent was the drawer or proprietor [Paras 21, 38].

Misrepresentation – Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – Allegation that Respondent No.2 misrepresented himself as proprietor – Trial Court rightly dismissed application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. – High Court affirmed that no material supported claim that Respondent No.2 was the proprietor – Observed that evidence from the bank clearly identified Ms. Sarika Singh Kuchhawaha as proprietor – Held: Appellant’s failure to implead the correct person was fatal [Paras 12, 35-37].

Decision – Criminal Appeal Dismissed – Acquittal of Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Appellant failed to establish the basic requirement of the drawer-proprietor relationship – Complaint suffered from fatal defects in impleadment of parties – No interference warranted in the trial court’s acquittal order dated 24.09.2011 [Paras 38-39].

Civil Writ - Removal of JJB Member – Validity of Removal – Applicability of Law – Writ Petition allowed – The petitioner, a senior advocate and lecturer, was appointed as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and 2007 Rules – After repeal of the 2000 Act, he was removed by order dated 22/25 September 2017 under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 but before the 2018 Rules came into force – Petitioner challenged the removal on grounds of procedural illegality, violation of natural justice and disproportionality – Held: Though the removal was not governed by the repealed 2000 Act and 2007 Rules, the action was taken by the competent authority under the 2015 Act – However, the charges were minor administrative lapses without any allegations of corruption, abuse of power or serious misconduct – The penalty of removal with stigma was held to be grossly disproportionate – Order of removal set aside – No reinstatement or financial relief sought by petitioner – Relief granted only to remove the stigma attached to the order of removal [Paras 1, 4-6, 17-24, 28-38].

Applicability of Law – Transition between Juvenile Justice Acts – Appointment under 2000 Act – Removal under 2015 Act – Held: 2000 Act and 2007 Rules repealed with effect from 15 January 2016 – Removal in 2017 rightly governed by 2015 Act – Procedure under 2000 Act no longer applicable – Validity of removal not affected merely because inquiry was not referred to the Selection Committee under 2007 Rules – State Government was competent authority under 2015 Act [Paras 17-24].

Natural Justice – Inquiry Process – Allegation of non-supply of witness statements and no opportunity of cross-examination – Held: Though statements of three persons were not furnished during the inquiry, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice – Inquiry process substantially complied with natural justice – No violation sufficient to invalidate the proceedings on this ground alone [Paras 25-27].

Misconduct – Nature of Charges – Allegations included preparation of private rubber stamp, allowing law students to visit Observation Home without prior permission, and sitting on Chairperson’s chair in absence – Held: Charges were trivial administrative lapses and temperamental issues – No allegation of corruption, harassment, or serious abuse of power – Findings did not justify removal [Paras 28-34].

Proportionality of Punishment – Penalty of Removal Held Grossly Disproportionate – On facts, minor counselling or warning would have sufficed – Extreme penalty of removal with stigma unwarranted – Petitioner being a senior citizen, practicing advocate, and lecturer suffered stigma and litigation for 7-8 years – Held: Removal order set aside solely to remove stigma – No back-wages or reinstatement sought – Petition allowed [Paras 35-39].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Order dated 22/25 September 2017 removing the petitioner from the Juvenile Justice Board set aside – Relief granted only to the extent of removing stigma – No costs [Para 39].

Employment Law - Reservation for Persons with Disabilities – Identification of Posts – RPWD Act Sections 33 & 34 – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioners challenged recruitment panels under CEN 01/2019 alleging wrongful exclusion of 100% visually impaired candidates from posts reserved under Section 34 – Held: Section 34 provides for reservation based on vacancies, while Section 33 empowers identification of posts suitable for specific disabilities – Distinction between reservation (vacancy-based) and identification (post-based) is legally valid – Exercise of identifying certain posts as suitable only for persons with low vision but not for total blindness is permissible under Section 33 – Decision based on public interest as posts excluded involve operational safety – No violation of petitioners’ rights as no less meritorious candidate was appointed against posts suitable for blindness – Tribunal’s decision upheld [Paras 26.1-26.4, 27].

Estoppel – Challenge to Selection Process – Not Maintainable – Petitioners participated in the recruitment process with full knowledge of post-wise identification under Annexure A to CEN 01/2019 – Having failed selection, they are estopped from challenging the process – No mala fides or illegality shown in identification of posts – Courts cannot relax eligibility criteria based on functional requirements and safety concerns in railway operations [Paras 28].

Railway Recruitment – Applicability of Later Circular – Circular dated 16.12.2024 regarding diversion of vacancies not examined on merits as Tribunal had no occasion to consider it – Liberty granted to petitioners to approach the Railways for consideration under said circular without being prejudiced by this judgment [Para 30.2].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Tribunal’s decision upheld – No order as to costs [Paras 31-33].

Suo Moto Appeal – Tenancy Law – Applicability of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 vs. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Eviction Decree Granted – The dispute centered around whether the respondent was a premises tenant under the 1997 Act or a lessee under the Transfer of Property Act – The key issue was whether AC charges, being an essential component for enjoyment of the premises, formed part of the “rent” to determine if the tenancy exceeded the Rs. 10,000/- ceiling under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – Held: AC charges are an integral part of rent based on undertakings before the Supreme Court, the consistent course of conduct, and the essential nature of AC to the tenancy – Consequently, the tenancy is governed by the Transfer of Property Act, not the 1997 Act – Trial court's dismissal of the eviction suit reversed – Decree of eviction granted – Respondent’s cross-objection on technical grounds also dismissed [Paras 1-86].

Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Bar on Second Suit – Not Applicable – The court held that the second eviction suit was not barred despite pendency and withdrawal of the earlier suit – The cause of action in the second suit was based on the rent exceeding the ceiling limit of the 1997 Act, triggering applicability of the Transfer of Property Act, which was distinct from the earlier suit based on the 1956 Tenancy Act – Hence, Order II Rule 2 and res judicata did not apply [Paras 27-39].

Order XXIX Rule 1 CPC – Company Representation – No Bar – The objection that the suit was not maintainable for lack of proper authorization of the person signing the plaint was rejected – The court held that any director able to depose to the facts could sign and verify pleadings – The absence of an authorization resolution was a curable defect that was not raised before the trial court and could not be entertained at the appellate stage [Paras 40-47].

Definition of Rent – Inclusion of AC Charges – Rent Determination under Section 3(f) of the 1997 Act – The court held that AC charges, being mandatory for the use and enjoyment of the tenanted premises and arising from a binding undertaking before the Supreme Court, were an essential part of rent – Since AC was centrally provided and inseparable from the premises' use, the charges were not ancillary but integral – As a result, the total rent exceeded Rs. 10,000/- per month, taking the tenancy outside the purview of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 [Paras 48-79].

Applicability of Transfer of Property Act – Eviction Valid – Once the tenancy was held to be outside the protection of the 1997 Act, it was governed by the Transfer of Property Act – The termination notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act was valid – Plaintiff entitled to eviction on this basis [Paras 78-80].

Decision – Appeals F.A. 156 of 2022 and F.A.T. 66 of 2017 allowed – Impugned judgment and decrees dated 06.01.2017 set aside – Plaintiff’s eviction suit decreed – Defendant’s declaratory suit dismissed – Cross-objection COT 33 of 2018 dismissed – No order as to costs – Separate decrees directed to be drawn accordingly – Limited assurance granted by the appellant to not execute eviction for one month – No formal stay granted [Paras 80-86].

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence – Interim Monetary Relief – Section 23 of PWDV Act – Interim Relief Enhanced – The petitioner, wife of the opposite party, challenged the order of the Appellate Court granting interim relief of Rs. 50,000/- per month to her and Rs. 80,000/- per month to her daughter – Considering the opposite party’s annual income of Rs. 7.19 crores (2020-21) and petitioner’s meagre income, the Court held that the interim maintenance awarded was inadequate – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 2,50,000/- for the minor daughter from the date of filing under Section 23 – Directed the Trial Court to expedite the final disposal of the main application [Paras 24-26].

Maintenance – Standard of Living – Interpretation of “Accustomed” – Section 20(2) of PWDV Act – Held – The term “accustomed” refers to the standard of living the aggrieved person enjoyed during the marriage, not to the current wealth of the husband – The wife is entitled to be maintained in a manner consistent with her marital standard, but not an equalization of wealth – The Court balanced between exaggerated claims of the petitioner and the attempts by the husband to evade fair maintenance [Paras 20-22].

Equalization of Wealth – Not the Objective of Maintenance – Reiterated – Citing Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda, the Court clarified that monetary relief under PWDV Act cannot be equated with equalization of wealth – Maintenance aims at preventing destitution and securing dignified living, not matching the wealth of the spouse [Para 21].

Independent Income of Wife – Whether Bar to Maintenance – Held – Even if the wife has some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance if the income is insufficient to sustain a lifestyle consistent with her status during marriage – The existence of modest earnings does not absolve the husband from his legal and moral obligation of maintenance [Para 22].

Allegation of Adultery – Prima Facie Irrelevant – No Bar to Maintenance – Held – Allegations of adultery based on media reports and public perception cannot be accepted without cogent legal proof – In absence of clear evidence, such allegations cannot be grounds to deny maintenance [Para 23].

Maintenance for Child – Child’s Education and Welfare – The Court held that Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the child is justified considering the child’s educational needs and standard of living, with liberty to the father to voluntarily contribute more towards educational or special expenses [Para 25].

Decision – Interim Monetary Relief Modified – Interim maintenance enhanced to Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the petitioner (wife) and Rs. 2,50,000/- per month for the minor daughter – Trial Court directed to dispose of the main application under Section 12 of PWDV Act expeditiously, preferably within 60 days – Petition disposed of [Paras 25-26].

Taxation Law - Reassessment – Change of Opinion – Section 147 of the Income Tax Act – Reopening Set Aside – The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 alleging escapement of income on issues of foreign exchange gains, capitalisation of lump sum technical know-how payments and deduction under Section 80HHC – The assessee challenged the reassessment stating all relevant facts had been fully disclosed during original assessment proceedings which concluded under Section 143(3) – Both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held the reopening invalid – Dismissing the Department's appeal, the High Court upheld these findings, ruling that the reassessment was based on a mere change of opinion without any fresh tangible material and therefore impermissible under law [Paras 1-11].

Reassessment – Query and Consideration in Original Assessment – Reopening Invalid – The High Court reiterated that where detailed queries were raised during scrutiny and assessee provided due replies, it amounts to proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer – The fact that certain matters are not discussed in the final assessment order does not negate their consideration – Held: Raising the same points in reassessment constitutes change of opinion, thus vitiating reassessment proceedings [Paras 6-10].

Limitation Period – Reassessment within Four Years – Invalid Despite Timeline Compliance – The Court clarified that reassessment within four years must still satisfy the threshold of ‘reason to believe’ – In this case, as facts were fully disclosed and already considered, reassessment was not sustainable even though it was within four years [Paras 5,9].

Binding Precedents – Application of Aroni Commercials Principle – Following the ruling in Aroni Commercials Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Bombay High Court), the High Court held that once a query is raised and replied to during original assessment, revisiting the same issue later without fresh material amounts to mere change of opinion, which cannot justify reassessment under Section 147 [Para 10].

Final Outcome – Appeal Dismissed – Upholding CIT(A) and ITAT orders, the Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal, answering both substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee – Reassessment proceedings quashed as invalid under law [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Bail Cancellation – Section 528 of BNSS - Cancellation of Bail Due to Non-Appearance – Order Set Aside – Petitioner failed to appear before the trial Court on 08.07.2024 due to noting the wrong date – Trial Court cancelled bail, forfeited bail/surety bonds, and issued non-bailable warrants – Held: Non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional – The explanation provided is justified – Extreme action of bail cancellation unjustified in absence of wilful default – Order cancelling bail quashed [Paras 1-7].

Criminal Procedure – Fairness and Liberty – Article 21 of Constitution – While maintaining law and order is essential, any curtailment of personal liberty must align with fair procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution – The issuance of non-bailable warrants is solely to secure presence, not punitive in nature – Once the accused comes forward voluntarily and undertakes to appear, liberty must be balanced with procedural fairness [Para 8].

Non-Bailable Warrants – Objective and Remedy – The purpose of issuing non-bailable warrants is to ensure the appearance of the accused – Where the accused voluntarily approaches the Court and offers a reasonable explanation with an undertaking to appear in future, the extreme remedy of warrant issuance and bail cancellation is unwarranted – Cancellation order set aside with direction to surrender within two weeks [Paras 9-10].

Relief – Bail Restored with Costs – Petition allowed – Impugned order dated 08.07.2024 cancelling bail, forfeiting bonds, and issuing warrants quashed – Petitioner directed to surrender within two weeks and furnish fresh bail/surety bonds – Costs of ₹10,000 imposed to be deposited with PGIMER Poor Patient Welfare Fund, Chandigarh – Bail to be granted only after submission of cost receipt [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Interim protection to continue subject to surrender within two weeks – Failure to surrender will result in vacation of protection [Paras 11-13].