Income Tax – Appeal Dismissal for Non-payment of Admitted Tax – Delay of 9 Years – Writ Jurisdiction Denied – ITAT and Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed Ittina Infra-Tech’s appeals due to non-payment of admitted tax under Section 249(4)(a) IT Act—Assessee approached High Court after 9 years seeking remand—Held: Writ petition not maintainable due to delay, laches, and alternative statutory remedy—Order of Single Judge set aside [Paras 13–22].

Delay and Laches – Writ Filed After 9 Years – No Sufficient Cause – Respondent claimed ignorance of ITAT order and non-receipt of communication—Court held reasons not believable—Dates of hearing were fixed and Respondent failed to appear thrice despite restoration of appeals—Held: Conduct shows gross negligence—Delay unexplained and unacceptable [Paras 16–18, 25].

Jurisdiction – Writ Not Maintainable When Statutory Remedy Available – Court emphasized availability of statutory appeal under Section 260A IT Act—Held: Invoking writ jurisdiction after bypassing available remedy without explanation improper—Single Judge erred in entertaining petition [Paras 20, 30].

Precedents – Komalakshi Case Distinguished – Single Judge relied on Komalakshi case to allow remand—Division Bench held that case involved prompt approach and payment of dues, unlike present case—Held: Komalakshi not applicable—Facts materially different [Paras 19, 28–29].

Natural Justice – No Justification for Non-appearance – Tribunal had fixed hearing dates post-restoration—Respondent failed to appear or file condonation for delay—No evidence of denial of hearing—Held: Principles of natural justice not violated [Paras 16–18, 26].

Decision – Writ appeal allowed – Order dated 09.09.2022 in W.P. No. 13329/2022 set aside – Remand order quashed – Appeals of Respondent before tax authorities remain dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance [Para 22].

Motor Accident Claim – Rash and Negligent Driving – Eyewitness Testimony Upheld – Appeal Partly Allowed – The deceased, a government employee, fell from a moving bus due to sudden braking – Insurance company challenged the finding of rash driving citing lack of independent witnesses – Court upheld the testimony of PW3, co-worker of the deceased, corroborated by FIR and Investigating Officer – No evidence rebutting the eyewitness's credibility – Onus duly discharged by claimants [Paras 3–7, 17].

Driving Licence Validity – Endorsement for Transport Vehicle – Plea Rejected – Insurance company argued that the driver held a 20-year licence in violation of statutory term – Court found from record (Ext.RW2/A) that endorsements were in place and licence validly renewed for transport vehicle – No objection taken during trial – Argument held misconceived and dismissed [Paras 11, 18–20].

Contributory Negligence – Not Pleaded or Proved – Claim Denied – Insurance company raised contributory negligence for first time on appeal – No such plea before MACT nor any evidence led – Court rejected the argument as unsustainable [Paras 9, 21].

Compensation Calculation – Age and Dependency Considered – Award Modified – MACT used age 50 based on postmortem; High Court corrected it to 55 as per Parivar Register (Ext.PW5/E) – Multiplier revised to 11 – Future prospects added @15% in terms of Pranay Sethi – Monthly income ₹12,829/-, with deductions and future prospects applied – Revised compensation: ₹13,28,220/- plus ₹40,000 loss of consortium each for 5 claimants [Paras 22–30].

Interest – Award Sustained – Interest @7.5% p.a. from date of petition upheld – No deduction for income tax applied due to income being below taxable limit [Paras 27, 32].

Decision – Award Modified – Reduced Total Compensation – Respondents No. 1 and 6 (wife and son) held entitled to ₹13,28,220/- plus ₹40,000 each for consortium – Other daughters entitled to consortium only – Oriental Insurance Company directed to pay entire amount by 31/07/2025 with interest – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 30–33].

Civil Writ - Employment Law - Assistant Teacher Recruitment – Judicial Review of Answer Key – Limited Scope – Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners alleged erroneous evaluation and incorrect answers in ATRE-2018 and sought rectification – Held: Judicial review in academic matters is restricted to rare and exceptional cases with demonstrable, patent error – Courts must defer to the opinion of expert committees unless answers are clearly incorrect on the face of record – Majority of petitions dismissed for failure to meet qualifying marks even upon re-evaluation [Paras 2–6, 9–11, 12–13].

Evaluation Criteria – Minor Grammatical or Unit Errors – No Interference Where Substantive Answer is Incorrect – Petitioners contended that omission of units such as 'Rs.' or 'cm²' unfairly led to denial of marks – Held: Omission may be condonable in general language-based questions but not in scientific or mathematical subjects where units determine correctness – No relief where substantive answer failed evaluation standards [Paras 4, 5, 14–16].

Answer Key Disputes – Deference to Experts – Courts Not to Act as Academic Authorities – Petitioners questioned the correctness of several model answers – Held: As per law laid down by the Supreme Court, correctness of model answers certified by subject experts cannot be interfered with unless patently wrong – In absence of blatant error, Court declined to interfere [Paras 12–13].

Relief Limited to Potential Qualifiers – Cut-off Applied as Filter – Only those petitioners who, upon allowing their objections, could cross the qualifying marks (General: 67, SC: 60) were considered on merits – Rest of the petitions dismissed without detailed examination as academic exercise [Paras 9–11].

Re-evaluation Direction – Examination Authority to Verify Three Petitioners’ Claims – In three cases, petitioners potentially qualified upon rectification of answers – Held: Examination Regulatory Authority directed to re-examine answer scripts and update marks, subject to vacancy availability and verification [Para 16, Conclusion].

Civil Writ - Tender Process – Opening of Financial Bids – No Right to Pre-Award Disclosure – Petition Dismissed – Petitioner challenged opening of Cover-II (financial bids) without being informed of the outcome of its technical bid—Court held: Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 of ITB prohibit disclosure before award—Suppression of these clauses by Petitioner fatal—Held: No merit in claim; petition dismissed [Paras 1–3, 21–24].

Natural Justice – ITB Conditions Prevail – No Pre-Award Hearing Required – Though Petitioner invoked principles of fairness and transparency, Court held that having accepted ITB clauses, it cannot seek deviation—Right to reasons arises only post-award per clause 42.5—No violation of natural justice established [Paras 13, 22–23].

Procedural Suppression – Omission of ITB Clauses 28.1 and 42.5 – Petition Fails for Non-Disclosure – Petitioner relied on clauses 27.7 and 27.8 but omitted 28.1 and 42.5—Court found suppression deliberate and material—Cited K.D. Sharma v. SAIL to dismiss petition for lack of clean hands [Paras 16–18, 22].

Mega Infrastructure Projects – Judicial Interference Discouraged – Court emphasized significance of project and public impact of delays—Observed that evaluation time was reasonable given ₹8,000 crore scale—Held: Delay in bid opening unjustified where rights of Petitioner are protected post-award [Paras 19–20, 22(D)].

Post-Award Rights – Petitioner Free to Challenge Disqualification After Notification – Solicitor General assured Court that reasons for disqualification would be furnished—Court noted Petitioner can challenge both rejection and award subsequently—Preservation of electronic price bids directed [Paras 20, 25–26].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Interim stay on bid opening lifted – MMRDA directed to preserve price bids for 2 weeks post award – No costs awarded [Paras 23–26].

Writ - Passport Issuance – Pending Criminal Trial – Right to Possess Passport Distinct from Right to Travel – Petition Allowed - Petitioner facing trial under Section 15 of the NDPS Act – Trial Court permitted him to apply for passport but not to travel abroad – Passport authority denied issuance citing absence of departure permission under Section 6(2)(f) of Passports Act – Held: Right to hold a passport is part of personal liberty under Article 21, independent from actual travel – Issuance cannot be denied solely on ground of pendency of trial when court permits application [Paras 2–4, 7, 11].

Judicial Precedents – Supreme Court and High Court Guidance on Passport Refusals – Applied - Court relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Vangala Kasturi Rangacharyulu v. CBI, Ganni Bhaskara Rao v. UOI, and others – Held: Mere pendency of proceedings does not justify blanket refusal to issue passport – Convicted persons with less than two years’ sentence may also be entitled – Greater latitude warranted for accused persons presumed innocent [Paras 10–10.5].

Conditions Imposed – Undertaking and Deposit of Passport with Trial Court – Directions Issued - Court directed petitioner to submit an undertaking before trial court not to leave India without permission and to deposit passport with the court – Passport authority to process application upon compliance – Liberty granted to seek travel permission separately [Paras 12–13].

Decision – Petition Allowed with Directions – Passport to be Issued - Writ petition disposed of with detailed compliance conditions including affidavit to trial court, time-bound processing by passport office, and custody of passport with court – Petitioner's fundamental rights recognized and safeguarded [Paras 13–14].

Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304B, 498A, 302, 201 of the IPC – Appeal Against Acquittal - Presumption under Section 113B – Not Attracted – Presumption Rejected - Marriage of the deceased was within 7 years, but prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand – Testimonies of family members lacked consistency, specificity, and corroboration – No direct evidence linking accused to dowry demands – Held: Provisions of Section 113B not applicable, presumption for dowry death not raised [Paras 7–14].

Cruelty – Insufficient Evidence under Section 498A IPC – Acquittal Upheld - Allegations of cruelty primarily directed at in-laws and not the husband – Contradictions in testimonies and absence of independent corroboration weakened prosecution’s case – Held: No sufficient evidence to sustain conviction under Section 498A IPC [Paras 7–10].

Murder Allegation – Circumstantial Evidence – Benefit of Doubt - Prosecution relied on conduct of husband and discovery of weapon – Medical expert could not conclusively confirm homicidal nature of injuries – Injuries possibly from fall in vehicular accident – Held: Circumstantial evidence inconclusive, no unbroken chain of guilt established – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 16–20].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Limited Applicability – Explanation Not Sufficient to Prove Guilt - Prosecution invoked Section 106 to demand explanation from husband last seen with deceased – Court reiterated that burden remains on prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Failure of accused to explain does not dispense with prosecution’s duty to prove case [Paras 20].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope under Section 378 CrPC – No Interference Warranted - Trial Court’s view held to be plausible and based on appreciation of evidence – No perversity found in acquittal – Held: High Court will not interfere with acquittal unless judgment is manifestly erroneous – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21].

Criminal Law – Grievous Hurt – Section 326 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted for grievously assaulting neighbour with a sharp weapon—Trial court held 307 IPC unproved but convicted under 326 IPC—High Court held: Prosecution failed to prove identity of assailant beyond reasonable doubt—Inconsistent testimony, lack of motive, and absence of credible evidence fatal to prosecution—Conviction unsustainable [Paras 1–3, 12–22].

Evidence – Identification in Darkness – No Electricity – Doubtful Recognition – Incident occurred at 8:30 PM in village with no electricity—Key witnesses claimed to identify assailant in moonlight, yet failed to describe clothing—No test identification parade conducted—Held: Identification unreliable in absence of light and confirmed visibility [Paras 5–6, 12–14].

Medical Evidence – Injury Report Deficiencies – No FSL or Hospital Seal – Doctor’s report lacked hospital seal and did not specify nature/age of injuries—Only 3 cm cut wound identified despite alleged use of sharp Bamfok—Clothing and weapon not sent for forensic analysis—Held: Medical evidence not reliable; prosecution failed to corroborate injuries with alleged weapon [Paras 7, 15, 20].

Investigation Lapses – Sketch Map, Witness Omission, Weapon Not Produced – IO failed to include adjacent eyewitnesses in sketch map—Seizure list witnesses disowned contents—Weapon not produced in court or tested—Held: Serious lapses in investigation undermined prosecution case [Paras 5, 11, 18].

Motive – No Provocation or Reason for Assault – Prosecution failed to show motive—No prior enmity—Victim attacked allegedly while relieving himself at night—Held: Lack of motive casts serious doubt on prosecution’s version [Para 18].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 326 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted – Bail bond discharged under Section 437A CrPC [Paras 23–26].

Civil Law - Sections 54, 58 and 60 of the Transfer of Property Act - Transfer of Property – Conditional Sale vs. Mortgage by Conditional Sale – Deed Interpreted as Absolute Sale – Deed dated 24.03.1953 executed by Bibi Akikul Nisa was challenged as a mortgage with right of redemption – Trial court and appellate court held deed to be an absolute sale with right to repurchase within five years – Patna High Court upheld this view – Held: Clear recital showed title transfer with no debtor-creditor relationship; no ambiguity to justify inference of mortgage – Redemption suit not maintainable [Paras 3–9, 23–25, 38–43].

Document Construction – Single Document with Repurchase Clause – Not Sufficient for Mortgage – Court noted that presence of repurchase clause alone does not convert a sale into a mortgage – Absence of express mortgage language and exclusive reliance on one deed construed as sale with conditional buyback – Supposition under Section 58(c) rebutted – Key test: intention from the deed itself and absence of ambiguity [Paras 25, 34–35].

Title and Possession – Right to Mutation and Tax Payment Granted – Strong Indicator of Sale – Deed allowed purchaser to mutate name in municipal records and pay taxes – Found incompatible with a mortgage relationship – Held: Mortgagors do not part with right to mutation or relinquish future claims outright – Execution of prior 1950 mortgage deed followed by 1953 deed with higher consideration supported sale intention [Paras 38–39].

Inadequacy of Consideration – Not a Sufficient Test – Plaintiffs claimed inadequacy of sale price indicated mortgage – Court disagreed – Noted upward revision from 1950 mortgage value of ₹3200 to ₹7337 in 1953 justified sale consideration – Emphasized absence of interest and unrestricted possession by purchaser supported outright sale [Paras 11–13, 39].

Oral Evidence – Not Relevant for Clear Deed – Appellants challenged lower courts' rejection of oral evidence – High Court held oral testimony immaterial where deed terms are unambiguous – No fault found in courts’ decision to prioritize documentary terms over oral versions – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC obligations deemed fulfilled [Paras 10, 16, 33].

Precedent Analysis – Distinction from Chunchun Jha Line of Cases – Appellants relied on Chunchun Jha and Srinivasaiah to claim mortgage – Court distinguished based on factual context – Relied instead on Bhoju Mandal and Prakash to hold that document conveyed absolute sale – Held: Each case to be decided on its own terms; surrounding circumstances support sale [Paras 25–32, 41].

Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – Document of 1953 declared a sale deed with option of repurchase and not a mortgage – Findings of lower courts upheld – No error in concurrent findings – Suit for redemption not maintainable [Paras 42–44].

Criminal Law - Bail – Murder - Section 302, 307, 120B, 109 of the IPC - Delay in Trial – Parity with Co-Accused – Bail Granted – The Petitioner, accused of shooting and killing one individual and attempting to murder another as part of a criminal conspiracy, had been in custody since 27.10.2018 – While a weapon allegedly used in the crime was recovered from the Petitioner and linked through ballistic examination, key evidence such as eyewitness identification failed in court, and forensic custody of the weapon was unaccounted for during the relevant period – Noting that all co-accused had been granted bail, the Court held that the Petitioner was entitled to parity – Held: The evidentiary worth of the weapon recovery and mobile CDR data required trial scrutiny and was insufficient to deny bail at the current stage – Pre-trial incarceration of over six years, with slow trial progress, violated Article 21 and justified release on bail [Paras 5–8].

Prolonged Detention – Speedy Trial – Constitutional Right – Bail Allowed – The Petitioner had undergone six years of pre-trial detention, with only 22 out of 39 prosecution witnesses examined – Further trial delay anticipated – Relying on Tapas Kumar Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court emphasized the fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 and granted bail accordingly [Para 8].

Recovery of Weapon – Delay in Seizure – Evidentiary Doubt – Recovery of the firearm occurred over ten days post-incident and was linked to the crime through a ballistic report issued after ten months – No credible explanation provided regarding the weapon’s custody – Held: The delayed recovery and unclear chain of custody diluted the conclusiveness of such evidence, and the recovery could not, on its own, justify denial of bail [Paras 6–7].

Prior Criminal Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – The Petitioner’s involvement in other cases had either resulted in bail or were linked to the current case – The Court reiterated that mere pendency of FIRs does not bar grant of bail [Para 9].

Compliance During Interim Bail – No Misuse of Liberty – The Petitioner was earlier granted interim bail on three occasions and complied with all conditions – His conduct indicated no flight risk or threat of witness tampering [Para 10].

Decision – Bail Granted – The Petitioner was granted regular bail on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety of like amount and subject to conditions including restriction on travel, regular court appearance, and cooperation with the investigating authorities [Paras 11–14].