Labour Law – ESI Act – Principal Employer Liability for Contract Workers – Petitioner contended that contract workers, engaged via petty contractors with no direct supervisory control by KSEB, should not be covered under the ESI Act – The Court highlighted that under Section 2(12), establishments employing more than 10 workers are covered, and principal employers bear responsibility for ensuring ESI contributions – Held: KSEB’s liability as principal employer includes contract workers engaged indirectly through contractors [Paras 14-20].

ESI Contribution Demands – Exemption for High Earners and Contract Workers – The petitioner argued exemption for employees earning above ₹21,000/month and claimed that ESI demands were incorrectly calculated based on exaggerated worker numbers – Held: Court found that ESI dues assessment must consider eligible employees and should re-evaluate worker count and wages under Section 45A; erroneous assessments warrant reconsideration [Paras 21-25].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Hearing and Fair Assessment – Noting discrepancies in assessments and lack of consultation, Court ordered a fresh determination of ESI liabilities after a hearing – Held: Demand notices quashed; respondents directed to reassess KSEB’s contributions following fair procedure [Paras 26-30].

Decision:

The writ petition is allowed in part. Demand notices (Exts.P4, P7, P9, and P10) are quashed. Respondents are directed to conduct a reassessment after giving the petitioner an opportunity for hearing.

Bail Application – Custodial Detention – Section 439 CrPC – Bail Granted - The petitioner sought bail, asserting prolonged detention and lack of specific evidence linking him to the alleged offences of wrongful confinement, assault, and murder – The State opposed bail, citing witness statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the chargesheet naming eight accused, including the petitioner – The Court noted that despite completed investigation, the petitioner’s specific involvement was unclear, and extended detention was unjustified given the remote likelihood of early trial commencement – Held: Petitioner granted bail with conditions to avoid tampering with evidence or witness intimidation [Paras 1-3].

Conditions of Bail – Appearance and Conduct – Compliance Mandated - The Court imposed strict conditions on the petitioner, including restriction from entering the jurisdiction of the Nagrakata Police Station, regular reporting to the local police, and a warning that any breach would enable the trial court to cancel bail without further reference – Held: Bail conditional on compliance to ensure fair trial proceedings [Paras 4-5].

Decision: The bail application is allowed, subject to a bail bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties, one local. The petitioner must adhere to stipulated conditions, including staying outside Nagrakata Police Station limits and regular reporting, to retain bail.

Right to Information Act – Disclosure of Candidate Marks – Petitioner, a candidate for Junior Clerk post, was denied information regarding marks obtained by other candidates on grounds of confidentiality under Maharashtra District Courts Right to Information (Revised Rules), 2009, and under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of RTI Act – Petitioner contended that public interest and transparency required disclosure of all candidates' marks – Held: Disclosure of marks obtained in a public recruitment process does not constitute an "unwarranted invasion of privacy" as it is related to a public activity – Disclosure justified by larger public interest, promoting transparency and accountability in recruitment process [Paras 5-7, 24-29, 35-38, 50-52, 54].

Confidentiality and Public Interest – Applicability of Rule 13(e) of Maharashtra District Courts RTI Rules – Rule 13(e) exempts information affecting examination confidentiality – Court clarified that once an exam concludes, disclosure of marks does not affect confidentiality but rather enhances transparency – Prior disclosure by another district court (Wardha) found relevant though not binding, affirming transparency practices in public recruitment [Paras 43-46, 51-52].

Privacy Concerns – Section 8(1)(j) and Privacy – Marks in public exams not deemed personal information exempt under Section 8(1)(j) – Court distinguished between genuinely private information and information relevant to public recruitment – Found that disclosure serves public interest by ensuring recruitment fairness and transparency, which outweighs privacy concerns of individual candidates [Paras 25-28, 30-34].

Precedent Analysis – Supreme Court Precedent in Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal – Petitioner relied on Supreme Court’s clarification that disclosure of information related to public functions and transparency aligns with RTI Act objectives – Rationale of public interest and accountability reinforced need for disclosure in cases involving public selection process [Paras 31-37].

Decision – Petition partly allowed – Orders denying petitioner access to other candidates' marks set aside – Direction issued to furnish marks obtained by candidates from serial nos. 1 to 363 in written/screening test, Marathi and English typing test, and interview within six weeks upon payment of prescribed costs – Promotes public confidence in recruitment process and aligns with RTI's goal of transparency [Paras 54-56].

Criminal Law – Cheating and Breach of Trust – Prima Facie Case for Summons – Petitioner challenged the order setting aside summons issued against Educomp and associates for alleged fraud and misrepresentation in a joint venture – Court found that allegations involved a contractual dispute lacking evidence of fraudulent intent at inception, dismissing claims under Sections 420, 406 IPC – Held: Mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offense unless deceitful intent exists from the start, as required for offenses under Section 420 IPC [Paras 8-12, 24-28].

Civil vs. Criminal Liability – Contractual Disputes and Penal Provisions – The Court emphasized that allegations arising solely from contract performance disputes should proceed through civil channels, with criminal liability reserved for clear deceit or misrepresentation – Relying on precedents, the Court stressed that invoking criminal process to resolve civil disputes constitutes abuse of law – Held: Civil remedies sufficient; penal proceedings inappropriate for the presented allegations [Paras 30-33].

Decision: Petition dismissed. The Court upheld the Sessions Court’s order quashing the summoning order, concluding the dispute was civil and did not justify criminal proceedings.

Criminal Law – Murder – Evidence of Hostile Witnesses – Conviction Upheld – Appellants were convicted for murdering Chand Masih in daylight following a conspiracy – Prosecution witnesses turned hostile during the trial – Court relied on their earlier corroborated statements and medical evidence – Held: Testimonies of hostile witnesses can be partially relied upon if corroborated by other evidence – Conviction upheld [Paras 23-27].

Hostile Witnesses – Admissibility of Earlier Testimonies – Principles Applied – PW1 (complainant) and PW2 (mother of the deceased) resiled from their initial depositions implicating the accused – Court noted the earlier statements were corroborated by medical and forensic evidence and thus admissible – Principles from Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi vs State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC reinforced [Paras 20-22, 25-26].

Conspiracy – Common Intention Under Section 120-B IPC – Proven Through Circumstantial Evidence – Accused acted with pre-planned intent to kill the deceased – Multiple injuries inflicted with sharp weapons substantiated premeditation – Proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 23-24].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration with Witness Statements – Conviction Justified – Medical reports confirmed injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons as described by witnesses in earlier testimonies – Incised wounds aligned with the sequence of events narrated in the FIR and initial depositions [Paras 21, 25].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Life Imprisonment Upheld – Court affirmed sentences of life imprisonment and fines for the appellants under Sections 302, 120-B, 148, and 149 IPC – Appeals dismissed, holding that the appellants acted in a calculated and heinous manner [Paras 26-27].

Judicial Immunity – Protection under Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 – The petitioner argued that actions performed under Section 165 of the Land Revenue Code were judicial in nature, entitling him to protection under the Judges (Protection) Act – The Court noted that Additional Collectors are empowered to perform judicial functions per Section 17 of the Code – Held: Petitioner’s quasi-judicial actions fall within the ambit of “judge” under the Act, granting immunity from disciplinary proceedings based on such actions [Paras 5-12, 30-36].

Administrative Law – Competence of Additional Collector – The Court reviewed the petitioner’s authority to grant permissions under the work distribution order and found his exercise of powers as Additional Collector lawful – Prior High Court rulings confirmed that work distribution does not limit judicial functions to the Collector exclusively – Held: Petitioner’s authority under the work distribution order was valid, making the disciplinary action baseless [Paras 18-23].

Malafide Disciplinary Action – Impact on Career Advancement – The Court observed that initiating disciplinary proceedings after a prolonged delay, without findings of personal gain or misconduct, suggests malicious intent to impede petitioner’s promotion to IAS cadre – Held: Chargesheet quashed; proceedings deemed punitive and lacking in legal grounds [Paras 38-42].

Decision: The petition is allowed. The chargesheet dated 29.04.2019 and subsequent inquiry orders are quashed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for promotion to IAS cadre, if otherwise eligible.

Civil Law – Partition and Family Property – Corporate Ownership and Ancestral Rights – Plaintiff sought partition of properties purchased in the name of the family-owned company, claiming they were joint family properties managed by the defendant – Court held that property registered under a company, even if family-owned, is not family property in legal terms; shareholder rights are distinct from property ownership – Held: Partition suit not maintainable for corporate assets [Paras 5-8, 55-56].

Company Law – Distinct Legal Entity – Shareholder vs. Company Ownership – Plaintiff contended that family members held all shares and controlled the company, making its assets family property – Relying on Supreme Court precedents, Court reiterated that a company is a separate legal entity, and shareholders have no proprietary rights over company-owned assets – Held: Plaintiff entitled only to share in dividends or profits as per Articles of Association, not direct ownership [Paras 42-44].

Pleading Standards – Requirement for Specificity in Allegations of Fraud – Plaintiff alleged forgery and fraud in transfer of shares by the defendant but failed to provide detailed pleadings or specific relief challenging share transfers – Court emphasized that under Order VI Rule 4 CPC, specific allegations and reliefs are essential to substantiate claims of fraud – Held: Plaintiff barred from relief due to lack of specific pleadings and evidence, with no grounds to challenge share transfers indirectly [Paras 34-36, 48].

Decision:

Suit dismissed. Plaintiff not entitled to partition or ownership claim in corporate assets; reliefs denied due to failure to establish joint ownership or sufficiently plead allegations of fraud [Paras 55-56].

Income Tax Law – Reassessment Notice – Assumption of Jurisdiction Beyond Four Years – Reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2011-12 was challenged by the petitioner (Discovery Communications India), as the original assessment had already been completed under Section 143(3) – Notice issued after the four-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 147, alleging escapement of income without new tangible material and based on the previous assessment record from AY 2012-13 – Held: Without failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening the assessment constitutes a mere change of opinion, rendering the reassessment notice invalid [Paras 1, 2, 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30].

Reassessment Beyond Four Years – Condition for Failure to Disclose – The court observed that reopening under Section 147 beyond the four-year period requires proof of a failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for the assessment, which was absent in this case – The notice under Section 148 did not specify any undisclosed facts or evidence of nondisclosure by the petitioner – The reassessment was initiated solely based on the same material available during the original assessment [Paras 16, 17, 24, 26].

Change of Opinion – Invalid Ground for Reopening – The court held that reassessment based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO) is not permissible – When an assessment order is completed under Section 143(3), the AO cannot reopen it merely because of a shift in opinion on previously verified claims – Citing judgments in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd., the court reiterated that the AO has no authority to review on the same facts under the guise of reassessment [Paras 22, 24, 27].

Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – Reopening Based on AY 2012-13 Records – The reasons provided by the AO for reopening relied on details from the assessment records of AY 2012-13, without any new tangible evidence for AY 2011-12 – The expenses for Discovery Appreciation Plan (DAP) and production and translation costs, which the AO sought to disallow, had already been examined and allowed in subsequent assessments, affirming consistency in the deductions – The court cited A.T. Kearney India Ltd. v. ITO and Ultra Marine Air Aids (P) Ltd. v. IAC to emphasize that reassessment notices lack validity when the foundational reason ceases to exist [Paras 18, 29].

Alternative Remedy – Section 263 Invocation – The court noted that if the AO believed there was an error in the original assessment, the appropriate remedy would have been a revision under Section 263, not reassessment under Section 147 – The AO’s reasoning that the assessment errors were due to mistakes or insufficient verification is insufficient to justify a reassessment [Paras 20, 27].

Decision: Petition allowed – The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 dated 31.03.2018 and the reassessment proceedings initiated thereunder – No cost order issued [Paras 30, 31].

Rent Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Proof of Authority and Derivative Title – Whether Agreement to Sell and Power of Attorney Establish a Valid Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Held: An agreement to sell combined with a power of attorney grants the landlord authority to collect rent and seek eviction. Under Section 2(c) of the 1949 Act, the landlord need not necessarily be the owner to file an eviction petition – Documents including an agreement to sell, power of attorney, and subsequent conveyance deed substantiated the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties – Relationship upheld [Paras 30-35].

Change of User – Violation of Statutory Conditions – Whether Change of Premises Use Warrants Eviction – Held: Using industrial premises for trading rather than industrial purposes violates statutory conditions of allotment – Such a change of use also risks resumption of premises by the Chandigarh Administration – Ejectment on grounds of misuse upheld [Paras 45-50].

Material Impairment – Deterioration of Value and Utility – Application to Industrial Premises – Held: Unlawful usage adversely impacted the value and utility of premises intended for industrial purposes – Findings of the appellate authority supported eviction on this ground [Paras 52-55].

Bona Fide Necessity – Landlord’s Personal Use – Criteria and Evidence – Held: A landlord's bona fide requirement is presumed unless disproven by the tenant – Evidence substantiated the landlord's intent to demolish and rebuild the premises for personal business needs – Personal necessity upheld [Paras 60-65].

Decision: The petitions were dismissed. The Court upheld the eviction orders on the grounds of bona fide necessity, change of user, and material impairment of premises' value and utility.