Income Tax – Reassessment – Bar of Limitation – Notice under Section 148 issued on 22.04.2024 to reopen A.Y. 2017–18 – Court held that under first proviso to amended Section 149, such notice is time-barred as six-year limitation expired on 31.03.2024 – Fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149 not applicable to extend limitation under first proviso – Held: Notice and reassessment proceedings are barred by law [Paras 9-16, 21]

Tax Procedure – Parallel Proceedings – Pending Rectification – Grounds of reopening (employee PF contribution, depreciation disallowance, unexplained credits) were already pending under Section 154 – Held: Initiating reassessment under Section 148 during subsistence of Section 154 rectification proceedings amounts to impermissible change of opinion – Reliance placed on S.M. Overseas (P) Ltd. [Paras 17-20]

Statutory Interpretation – Effect of Amendments – Court clarified that first proviso to amended Section 149 overrides the saving clauses in fifth and sixth provisos – Cited Delhi, Rajasthan, and Bombay High Court precedents rejecting retrospective application of extended limitation – Reiterated: Notices for pre-2021 assessment years cannot be saved by amended ten-year window unless old limitation was alive on 01.04.2021 [Paras 10-15]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 quashed – Reassessment for A.Y. 2017–18 held barred by limitation – No costs [Para 21]

Industrial Disputes – Reinstatement – Back Wages – Absence Without Leave – Reinstatement Without Back Wages Upheld – Petitioner, a temporary Chawkidar whose services were regularised, absented without sanctioned leave from 02.11.1993 to 27.01.1994 – Tribunal found non-acceptance of joining illegal and ordered reinstatement but denied back wages – Held: Absence without leave and failure to inform employer disentitles petitioner from back wages – Reinstatement does not automatically confer entitlement to wages for period of absence [Paras 2, 10-13]

Labour Law – Burden of Proof – Gainful Employment Not Pleaded – No Evidence of Unemployment – Petitioner failed to plead or establish that he remained unemployed during disputed period – Held: Burden lies on workman to assert and prove non-employment; in absence thereof, no back wages can be granted [Paras 12-13]

Back Wages – Principles and Precedents – Flexibility in Relief – No Straightjacket Rule – Citing U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Mithu Singh and Deepali Gundu Surwase, Court reiterated that award of back wages is not automatic – Various factors including nature of absence, length of service, and conduct must be considered – In present case, absence without communication justified denial of wages [Paras 6-9]

Medical Grounds – Mere Production of Medical Certificate Insufficient – No Leave Applied – Petitioner relied on medical certificate to justify absence – Held: Without any application for medical or casual leave or prior intimation to employer, plea of illness cannot be accepted as justification for unauthorised absence [Paras 10-11]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Award of Industrial Tribunal upheld – No entitlement to back wages – Petitioner found to be at fault for absence without intimation – No interference warranted.

Criminal Law – Dishonour of Cheque – Appeal Against Acquittal – Complainant filed appeal challenging acquittal of accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Accused issued cheque for ₹4,00,000 towards alleged discharge of liability – Trial court convicted accused – Appellate court (Sessions Court) acquitted her – High Court held: Acquittal justified – Accused rebutted presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act through probable defence – Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1, 5, 26]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 – Signature on cheque not disputed by accused – Held: Legal presumption arises in favour of complainant – However, presumption is rebuttable – Accused raised a probable defence supported by testimony and circumstantial evidence – Complainant failed to establish transaction details or source of funds – No documentary or corroborative evidence produced – Presumption rebutted successfully [Paras 8, 10-12, 15-21, 24]

Probable Defence – Entrustment of Cheque as Security – Accused’s husband (DW2) deposed that cheque was handed over to one Robert as security for a loan – Allegation that Robert misused cheque by filing false case through complainant – Complainant (PW1) failed to deny suggestion during cross-examination – Stated he had no knowledge of transaction between Robert and accused’s husband – Held: Defence version consistent and supported by circumstances – Burden shifted back to complainant, who failed to discharge it [Paras 9, 13-14, 23]

Acquaintance with Complainant – No Prior Relationship – Accused specifically denied having any prior transaction with complainant – Complainant admitted he saw accused only once ten years ago – No evidence of prior relationship or loan transaction – Held: Creates serious doubt about existence of legally enforceable debt – Supports defence case [Paras 13, 22]

Source of Funds – Not Proved – Complainant claimed to have given ₹4,00,000 as cash loan – Claimed funds sourced from advance sale consideration of land – No document or witness produced to support this – Produced passbook (Exhibit P6) showing withdrawal of ₹3,85,000 from Co-operative Society, but only after deposit on previous day – Inconsistency undermines version – Held: Financial capacity not proved – Contradicts core allegation [Paras 11-12, 17]

Standard of Proof – Rebuttal of Presumption – Held: Accused need not prove case beyond reasonable doubt – Only required to raise probable defence – Circumstantial inconsistencies in complainant’s version sufficient to discharge evidentiary burden – Cited: Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets [Paras 15-21, 24]

Appellate Review – Powers of Appellate Court – High Court reiterated principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka – Double presumption in favour of accused in case of acquittal – If two views possible, appellate court should not interfere – Held: Sessions Court’s view was plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – No interference warranted [Paras 25-26]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of accused under Section 138 NI Act confirmed – Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt – Accused successfully rebutted statutory presumption through probable defence – No interference called for with Sessions Court’s judgment [Para 26]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Vicarious Liability – Directors – Petitioners sought quashing of complaint filed in 1994 under IPC and Excise Act citing lack of specific allegations – Court held that in absence of averments indicating personal role or statutory vicarious liability, criminal prosecution against directors (Petitioners 3 to 9) is not sustainable – Complaint and proceedings quashed qua them [Paras 7.1, 8–10, 17(i)].

Taxation – Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 – Scope of Immunity – Petitioners argued that tax arrears settled under scheme granted full immunity from prosecution – Court held: Scheme does not apply retrospectively and cannot nullify criminal proceedings already instituted before 01.09.1998 – Petitioners not entitled to immunity for criminal complaint filed in 1994 [Paras 11–15].

Forgery – Prima Facie Case – False Declaration – Petitioners challenged maintainability of complaint under Section 468 IPC claiming discrepancy in glass thickness logs doesn't amount to forgery – Court rejected submission – Held: Misdeclaration before government authority to evade tax amounts to forged document under Section 464 IPC – Prima facie case made out against company and MD [Paras 4.9, 16, 17(ii)].

Criminal Law – Doctrine of Separate Legal Personality – Court reiterated that mere designation as director does not attract criminal liability – Active role or statutory provision required – Reaffirmed principle that vicarious liability in criminal law requires specific statutory mandate or evidence of involvement [Paras 7.1, 9–10].

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Complaint quashed and proceedings dropped against Petitioners 3 to 9 (Directors) – Petition dismissed against Petitioner No.1 (Company) and Petitioner No.2 (Managing Director).

Execution – Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Objector (mother of JD) asserting 1/3rd independent share in auctioned property – Plausible claim based on joint family nucleus – Executing court bound to adjudicate by framing issues and allowing evidence – Summary rejection improper – Matter remanded for full adjudication [Paras 27–36].

Execution of Decree – Obstruction Petition – Order XXI Rule 97 CPC – Scope – Executing court must adjudicate all questions including right, title, interest of obstructionist; separate suit barred – Findings operate as res judicata – Summary dismissal without framing issues impermissible where objector shows prima facie independent right – Matter must be tried as if a suit [Paras 18–25, 33].

Stranger to Decree – Independent Right – Mother of JD – Joint Family Property – Burden of Proof – Though no presumption that property is joint family property, presumption of joint family exists – Objector asserted purchase of property from joint family nucleus; averred father’s thriving business, inheritance of business and assets, JD being 27-year-old businessman at time of purchase – These circumstances sufficient to shift initial onus; objector must be allowed to adduce evidence – Summary rejection unjustified [Paras 28–33].

Order XXI Rule 97/101 CPC – Need for Evidence – Adjudication may be summary only when facts are admitted or obstruction frivolous – Where objection discloses a semblance of right, executing court must frame issues and conduct evidentiary trial – Failure amounts to jurisdictional error – High Court corrects error in second appeal [Paras 12–14, 21, 33].

Joint Family Nucleus – Hindu Law – No presumption that property is joint family merely because family is joint – But where circumstances show existence of a nucleus from which property could be acquired, onus shifts to person asserting self-acquisition – Principles reiterated from Angadi Chandranna v. Shankar (SC 2025), R. Deivanai Ammal, Annamalai Chetti (PC) – Objector’s pleadings justified a full inquiry [Paras 28–32].

Execution Sale – Challenge – Right of Third Party – Objector not challenging auction on grounds under Order XXI Rule 90; seeking only protection of her undivided 1/3rd share – Objection maintainable upon threat of dispossession – Delay in filing objection not fatal; cause arises when warrant of possession issued – Objector is not JD; cannot be penalized for not participating earlier [Paras 34–35].

Substantial Question of Law – Executing Court’s Duty – Whether executing court erred in law by not framing issues and not permitting evidence regarding joint family character of property – Held: Yes; error goes to root of adjudicatory obligation under Rules 97–101 – Substantial question answered in favour of appellant [Paras 7, 36].

Remand – Executing court directed to frame issues, permit evidence, and decide objection under Order XXI Rule 97 within six months – Rights of auction purchaser preserved pending adjudication [Para 37].

Workmen’s Compensation – Liability of Insurance Company – Compensation and Interest – Deceased driver died during employment-related accident – Commissioner held both employer and insurer jointly liable for ₹8,52,160/- with 9% simple interest till award and 7% compound interest thereafter – Held: Insurer liable to pay entire compensation along with 12% interest under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act – Joint liability modified accordingly [Paras 1–4, 6–8].

Insurance Law – Scope of Liability – Penalty Exclusion – Reiterated that interest on delayed compensation forms part of insurer’s liability but penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) is not – Penalty arises from employer’s personal fault and cannot be foisted on insurer – Commissioner’s award modified to clarify insurer’s exclusive liability for compensation and interest only [Paras 7, 7.1, 8].

Precedents – Apex Court Binding – Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Ved Prakash Garg v. Premi Devi (1997) 8 SCC 1, Kamla Chaturvedi v. National Insurance Co. (2009) 1 SCC 487, and New India Assurance Co. v. Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya (2006) 5 SCC 192 – Held: Legal position settled that insurer covers compensation and statutory interest but not penalty – Binding precedents followed to allow appeal in part [Paras 4, 7–8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Order modified – Insurance company held liable to pay ₹8,47,160/- compensation with 12% interest – Remaining portion of Commissioner’s order unaltered.

Service Law – Municipal Recruitment – Sanitation Workers – Daily wage CLR workers with long years of service permitted to participate in selection pursuant to interim court orders – Selection conducted on merits along with Employment Exchange candidates – Wider zone of consideration permissible – No illegality in appointing daily wagers who succeeded in selection – Employment Exchange-only restriction not absolute – Writs by daily wage workers allowed; writs by Employment Exchange candidates dismissed [Paras 19–27].

Regularisation – Daily Wage / CLR Workers – No automatic right to regularisation – However, when daily wage workers were allowed to participate in a full, competitive selection process and emerged successful, their appointment cannot be denied – Distinction drawn between “regularisation as of right” and “appointment after due selection” [Paras 19–21].

Employment Exchange – G.O. dated 22.04.1982 – Employment Exchange sponsorship mandatory in ordinary circumstances – However, following Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao principle, Employment Exchange cannot be sole channel – Fair selection requires wider notification or inclusion of eligible workers – Daily wage workers validly included in selection pursuant to Court order – No bar to considering them on merit [Paras 20–22].

Constitutional Law – Equality in Public Employment – Restricting selection exclusively to Employment Exchange candidates may deprive eligible persons of opportunity – Court relied on Visweshwara Rao to uphold broader zone of consideration – Selection found fair, merit-based, and uniform for both groups [Paras 21–23].

Recruitment Process – Validity – Municipality produced consolidated select list; no allegation of exclusion, bias or mala fides – All candidates (Employment Exchange nominees + CLR workers) evaluated under same criteria – Selection upheld as lawful [Para 23].

Relief – Petitioners (CLR workers) in WP(C) Nos. 15142 & 15146/2023 directed to be appointed as Substitute Sanitation Workers as per merit list – WP(C) 15500/2023 & 20483/2025 (Employment Exchange candidates) dismissed except to extent selected candidates among them will be appointed – WP(C) 37605/2024 partly allowed with direction to include CLR workers with >10 years’ service in future selection in Thrippunithura Municipality [Final Paras].

Employees Compensation – Territorial Jurisdiction – Dismissal of Claim – Appellants challenged dismissal of compensation claim by Commissioner, Thane, for want of territorial jurisdiction – Deceased claimant initially resided in Thane when application was filed but later shifted to Uttar Pradesh – Employer based in Gujarat and accident occurred in Gujarat – Insurance company had branch office at Thane – Held: Though the employer’s registered office was not at Thane, the claimant’s ordinary residence at the time of filing and the insurer’s business presence in Thane established territorial jurisdiction – Commissioner’s rejection on jurisdictional ground was incorrect – Hyper-technical approach must be avoided in beneficial legislation like EC Act [Paras 6, 14, 38-43].

Substantial Question of Law – Appeal under Section 30 EC Act – Whether dismissal on ground of territorial jurisdiction raised substantial question of law – Held: Interpretation of ‘ordinary residence’ and relevance of insurer’s business presence involve substantial legal issues – Commissioner failed to consider this appropriately – Findings liable to be set aside [Paras 8, 11-13].

Insurance Law – Coverage under Vehicle Package Policy – Risk of employment injury covered under Employees’ Compensation Act – Insurer’s liability contractual and enforceable – Presence of insurer’s branch office, though not specified under EC Act, relevant in light of CPC principles – Insurer entitled to support Commissioner’s findings despite not raising territorial objection earlier [Paras 22-28, 40-41].

Remand – Improper Dismissal – Commissioner’s findings on employment and accident not interfered with – Matter remanded to determine compensation and apportionment of liability between employer and insurer – Appeal partly allowed [Paras 43-44].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Dismissal of claim on territorial jurisdiction grounds set aside – Matter remanded to Commissioner for hearing on compensation and liability – Final disposal directed within three months from 23rd November 2025.

Telecom Law – Jurisdiction of TDSAT – Dispute Between Service Providers – Plaintiff (a Class 'A' ISP) and Defendant No.1 (a Category 'A' ITSP) entered into an Operational Merger Agreement (OMA) for resource and infrastructure integration – Allegations of breach of contract, disruption of services, and withholding of infrastructure affecting thousands of end consumers – Held: Dispute is between service providers and directly impacts users—Squarely falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Section 14(a)(ii) of TRAI Act—Civil suit not maintainable [Paras 3, 22–26, 38–39]

Civil Procedure – Bar of Jurisdiction – Section 15 of TRAI Act – Civil courts barred from entertaining disputes that TDSAT is competent to adjudicate – Inclusion of individual directors and foreign parent company (non-service providers) does not alter the core nature of the dispute – Allegations against Defendants 2–5 arise from their roles within service provider operations – No distinct cause of action independent of the primary dispute – Civil court lacks jurisdiction [Paras 30–35]

Consumer Impact – Scope of TRAI Act – Plaintiff admitted disruption of service to approx. 19,000 residential and commercial users including hospitals, schools, and government bodies – Held: Where dispute affects a large body of consumers, TDSAT as the expert tribunal must adjudicate – Object of TRAI Act is to ensure consumer protection and orderly growth of telecom sector [Paras 24–26]

Contractual Disputes – Private Agreement Between Telecom Operators – Plaintiff argued dispute arose from a private contractual arrangement unrelated to regulatory functions – Court rejected argument citing binding precedent that even private agreements between service providers fall within TDSAT’s domain if consumer interests are affected or sectoral regulation is implicated [Paras 27–29]

Distinction from Precedents – Cases relied upon by plaintiff (e.g., Amrit Aneja, Hathway Digital) held inapplicable – Those disputes involved non-service providers or employer-employee issues – In contrast, current dispute involves operational failures and service disruptions between two licensed service providers [Paras 36–37]

Decision:Suit held not maintainable – Dispute falls within exclusive jurisdiction of TDSAT under Sections 14 and 15 of the TRAI Act – Civil court barred from entertaining the matter – Plaint rejected – Pending applications disposed of accordingly.