Service Law – Regularization – Seniority – Discriminatory denial of parity with juniors – Committee’s earlier favourable recommendation ignored without reason – Second meeting convened without justification – State’s contradictory stand regarding appointment of private respondents – Condition denying seniority struck down earlier – Held: Action arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 & 16; petitioner entitled to regularization benefits at par with juniors [Paras 6–11].

Administrative Law – Committee Proceedings – Once a committee resolves an issue by majority, recall of meeting without reason impermissible – Subsequent minutes authored individually but shown as collective decision – Such colourable exercise of power vitiated – Impugned order quashed [Paras 8–9].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 – Equality before law – State action must be reasonable, non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory – Reliance placed on Amita v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 721 – State’s inconsistent justification and selective denial of benefits held unconstitutional [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Order dated 30.09.2015 quashed – Authorities directed to grant regularization and consequential benefits to the petitioner at par with respondent Nos. 4 and 5 [Para 11–12].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Non-supply of Audit Report & Accounts – Absence of Personal Hearing – Rule 16(ii) of Helpers Service Rules – Opportunity of Hearing Must be Read Into the Statute – Disciplinary Orders Unsustainable – Writ Appeal Dismissed [Paras 7–8].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Even if Statute Does Not Mandate Hearing, Fairness Requires It – Personal hearing mandatory to ensure fair enquiry – Failure to grant hearing before Ext.P5 vitiates proceedings [Para 7].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Supply of Relied-on Documents – Non‐furnishing of audit report and statements of accounts causes serious prejudice – Delinquent deprived of meaningful defence – Violation of natural justice – Orders rightly quashed by Single Judge [Para 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Reading Principles of Natural Justice Into Rules – Following Abdulla T.A. v. Supplyco (2020 (1) KHC 236), Court holds that even in absence of express provision, opportunity of hearing must be read in – Rule 16(ii) does not override natural justice requirements [Para 7].

Decision – No merit in appeal – Single Judge’s findings upheld – Writ Appeal dismissed [Final Para].

Compassionate Appointment – Delay of nine years – SBI scheme withdrawn w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Death in 2003 but application filed in 2012 – Financial crisis long tided over – No vested right to appointment – Prayer rejected – Bank directed to process ex-gratia claim on submission of documents and to release family pension arrears without life certificate [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Delay and Laches – Father died in harness in 2003; petitioner attained majority in 2011 and applied in 2012; scheme for compassionate appointment withdrawn by SBI w.e.f. 04.08.2005 – Held: application filed nearly nine years after death defeats the very object of compassionate appointment which is to alleviate immediate financial crisis – Petitioner’s family having survived the crisis, no right to appointment survives; rejection of request upheld [Paras 10–13].

Compassionate Appointment – Applicability of Scheme – Petitioner argued that scheme prevalent at time of death (2003) should apply – Court: even under earlier scheme, application filed after inordinate delay cannot be entertained in view of principles laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 – Purpose is not employment by succession but immediate relief; delayed claim not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Ex-Gratia Compensation – SBI Scheme – Petitioner alternatively sought ex-gratia lump sum payment – SBI required certain additional documents (letter dated 15.12.2018) – Held: petitioner to furnish required documents within six weeks; SBI to decide claim within three months and either release admissible amount or communicate a reasoned order [Para 14].

Family Pension – Arrears – Petitioner entitled to arrears of family pension from February 2018 to July 2018 – Since matter remained pending before Court, arrears to be paid without insisting on a life certificate for that period; direction issued to release payment within three months [Para 15].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Claim for compassionate appointment rejected – Directions issued for processing ex-gratia claim and release of family pension arrears [Para 16].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Mandatory Service of Notice – Jurisdictional Error – Notices under Sections 148 and 142(1) issued on obsolete e-mail despite assessee updating communication details – Held: Service of notice under Section 148 is a condition precedent and must be effected strictly as per Section 282 read with Rule 127 – Absence of valid service renders entire reassessment void – Subsequent ex parte assessment and penalty orders also vitiated [Paras 18–23, 27–28].

Electronic Service – E-Portal Upload Not Equivalent to Service – Revenue’s contention that placing notice on e-portal amounts to deemed service rejected – Assessee cannot be expected to keep portal open continuously – Section 144B(6) introduced later cannot cure defective service – Principles of natural justice violated [Paras 24–25].

Change of Address/E-Mail – Duty of Assessing Officer – Once assessee updated profile (transaction ID 8705745824) and Department acknowledged the change, Revenue obligated to communicate only on updated e-mail – Failure to check latest communication details invalidates proceedings – Legitimate expectation applies [Paras 12–13, 19–20].

Burden of Proof – Service of Notice – Onus on Revenue to prove valid service under Section 148 – Revenue failed to show service on registered/updated address – Participation or later knowledge does not amount to waiver – Section 292BB not applicable once objection raised [Paras 21–23].

Reassessment Proceedings – Void Ab Initio – Invalid service under Section 148 vitiates entire chain of proceedings including reassessment under Section 147/144/144B and penalty orders under Sections 271(1)(b) & 271(1)(c) – Cases remanded for fresh proceedings after due opportunity [Paras 28–29].

Decision: Notices under Sections 148 and 142(1), reassessment order dated 29.03.2022, demand notice, and penalty orders set aside – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer to pass fresh order after hearing the assessee – Parties directed to appear on 28.11.2025.

Execution of Decree – Rejection Of Objections Under Section 47 CPC - Joint Decree Holders – Order XXI Rule 15 CPC – Maintainability of Execution Application – Judgment-debtors objected to execution of joint decree filed by only one decree-holder without express statement of acting for others – Held: Rule 15 is enabling – Express recital is not mandatory if it appears execution is for benefit of all decree-holders – Absence of such recital does not invalidate execution – Judgment-debtors cannot raise objections if other decree-holders have not objected – Distinction drawn between money decrees and decrees for possession [Paras 6–18]

Execution of Decree – Identifiability of Suit Property – Judgment-debtors contended that execution was not possible as Ameen Map (part of decree) did not show disputed points स and द – Held: Decree and judgment clearly describe the disputed portions – Executing court can ascertain location based on pleadings and judgment – Relief not defeated by accidental omission in map [Paras 19–23]

Scope of Executing Court – Interpretation of Decree – Court has duty to interpret the decree in light of pleadings and proceedings – Executing court can go beyond face of decree to ascertain intent and property description – Reference to Pratibha Singh and Bhavan Vaja – Decree not inexecutable for lack of map markings [Paras 21–22]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of executing court and revisional court upheld – Objections under Section 47 CPC found to be meritless – Directions issued to executing court to decide execution case within six months from submission of certified order [Paras 24–25]

Sales Tax – Definition of Dealer – Club Activity – Profit Motive – Not Established – Exemption Granted – Respondent Hyderabad Race Club engaged primarily in horse racing – Petitioner State contended that activities like sale of oats, tender forms, and food items amounted to business – Held: Club not operating with profit motive – Transactions incidental to charitable purpose – Not a “dealer” under Section 2(e) of APGST Act – Tribunal’s view upheld [Paras 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 39].

Tax Classification – Cattle Feed – Oats Sold to Horse Trainers – Whether Taxable as General Goods or Concessional Cattle Feed – Held: Oats fall within definition of Cattle Feed under Entry 80 – Tax at Concessional Rate Applicable – Horses legally classified as cattle under Cattle Trespass Act – Oats used solely as feed – Entry 80 applicable – Reclassification as “general goods” rejected [Paras 6, 14–17, 27–31, 40–42].

Point of Taxation – First Point of Sale – Whether Taxable on Purchase or Sale Value – Held: Tax to be Levied on Subsidised Sale Value – Respondent sold oats to trainers for ₹10.66 lakhs against purchase price of ₹52.30 lakhs – Entry 80 prescribes tax at first point of sale – Tax to be calculated on sale value [Paras 6, 18, 42].

Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Liberal and Purposeful Interpretation of Entry 80 – Broader Scope Includes Feed for Livestock and Horses – Court held Entry 80 to include all livestock feed – Subsequent legislative amendments (Entries 80A, 80B) show earlier inclusion of various feed types in Entry 80 – No narrow interpretation permitted – Supported by judicial precedents and dictionary definitions [Paras 20–26, 43].

Burden of Proof – State Failed to Disprove Classification – Tribunal Order Justified – Respondent presented sufficient documentary and expert evidence supporting oats as cattle feed – State failed to show contrary – Tribunal rightly upheld concessional rate and rejected full taxation on purchase value [Paras 11, 18, 41, 44].

Decision: Tax Revision Cases dismissed – Orders of STAT upheld – Respondent not a dealer – Oats taxable under Entry 80 as cattle feed – Tax payable on actual sale value, not purchase value [Paras 45–46].

Partition Suit – Impleadment of Proposed Vendees – Agreement to Sell – Order I Rule 10 CPC – Agreement to sell executed during pendency of partition suit by one co-owner in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 – Trial court allowed impleadment – Held: Agreement to sell does not create any right or interest in immovable property under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act – Proposed vendees have no legal or equitable right in the suit property – They are neither necessary nor proper parties under Order I Rule 10 CPC – Trial court committed material irregularity in allowing impleadment [Paras 2–14, 22–23]

Agreement to Sell – Nature of Rights – Legal Position – Supreme Court and High Court precedents reaffirmed that agreement to sell is a personal contract and creates no proprietary interest in the property – Right of proposed vendee is limited to seeking specific performance – Mere agreement does not entitle impleadment in title-related litigation [Paras 6–14]

Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Section 52 TPA – Applicability – Sale agreement executed during pendency of partition suit – Held: Such transfer is hit by Section 52 – No sale deed executed and no permission from court obtained – Impleaded parties not protected from consequences of lis pendens – Cited Bibi Zubaida Khatoon and Savinder Singh – Court emphasized that transferee pendente lite takes the risk of outcome of the suit and cannot claim impleadment as of right [Paras 15–21]

Necessary and Proper Parties – Scope under Order I Rule 10 CPC – Party with no enforceable legal interest cannot claim addition – Court’s discretion under Rule 10 must be guided by the nature of right and necessity for effective adjudication – Agreement holders did not meet threshold – Impleadment unjustified [Paras 16–18, 22–23]

Decision: Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 29.08.2023 allowing impleadment of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 set aside – Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 held to be neither necessary nor proper parties – No order as to costs [Para 23]

Criminal Procedure – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Right of Victim – Appellant sought leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in complaint involving serious offences under IPC – Supreme Court in M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran held that victims have an unconditional right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. – High Court followed the same in Dharampal v. State of Haryana – Held: Application to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 and transferred to Sessions Court for disposal [Paras 3–4]

Limitation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of 13-day delay in filing the appeal – Delay condoned for sufficient cause shown [Para 1]

Decision: Application under Section 378(4) treated as appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. – Registry directed to transfer records to Sessions Judge, Mansa – Delay condoned – Appeal to proceed before Sessions Court.

Criminal Law – Arrest Warrants – Economic Offences – Petitioner challenged trial court’s order rejecting application under Section 70(2) CrPC for converting arrest warrants into bailable warrants – Allegation of tax evasion of over ₹10.65 crores under CGST and Customs Acts – Held: Offences are grave economic crimes with national fiscal implications – Petition raises significant legal issue involving conflicting High Court precedents – Matter referred to Larger Bench [Paras 1–5, 22–30]

Economic Offences – Tax Evasion – Gravity of Offence – Court held that economic offences involving fake ITC claims and massive loss to public exchequer must be viewed seriously – Mere readiness to appear or quantum of sentence is not sufficient ground to convert non-bailable warrants – White-collar crimes affect national economy and require stricter bail considerations [Paras 6–9, 12–17]

Judicial Precedent – Conflicting Coordinate Bench Decisions – In view of divergent rulings in P.C. Purohit v. Union of India and Girdhar Gopal Bajaria v. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Court emphasized that judicial propriety demands matter be referred to Larger Bench – Coordinate Bench cannot override previous ruling of equal strength – Reference made to Chief Justice for constitution of Special/Larger Bench [Paras 22–30]

Decision: Petition not decided on merits – Matter referred to Special/Larger Bench to resolve conflict in precedents – Chief Justice requested to constitute appropriate bench to answer whether arrest warrants in serious economic and criminal cases can be converted into bailable warrants as a matter of right under Sections 70(2) CrPC or 72(2) BNSS.