Civil Law – Interim Injunction – Violation of Status Quo Order – Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction with application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC – Trial Court granted injunction on 30.12.2019 directing parties to maintain status quo – Local Commissioner’s report confirmed ongoing construction by defendants in breach of order – Appellate Court partially allowed defendants’ appeal permitting them to complete construction on existing structure citing equity and investment – Held: Appellate Court erred in rewarding violation of trial court’s injunction by allowing construction completion – Such use of Local Commissioner’s report to justify continued breach undermines sanctity of interim orders – Appellate Court’s order modified – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creation of charge over suit land during pendency of suit – Trial Court’s interim directions restored [Paras 2-9].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Order of Appellate Court modified – Parties directed to maintain status quo regarding possession and nature of suit land – Respondents restrained from further construction, alienation, or creating any charge over the property without leave of the Trial Court.

Motor Accident Claim – Delay in FIR – Explanation Accepted – Accident on 11.08.2010, FIR registered on 18.08.2010 – Delay explained as due to communication lapse between hospital and police – Supported by Medico Legal memo – Held: Explanation plausible – FIR and medical records sufficiently establish accident and manner of occurrence [Paras 15–17].

Negligence – Proof of Involvement of Vehicle – Though owner and driver initially disowned accident by letters (Ex.R1, R2), both admitted involvement during cross-examination – FIR, medical evidence, and testimony of motorcycle rider (PW-2) corroborate accident – Held: Auto driver negligent – Insurer liable to indemnify owner [Paras 17–18].

Causation – Contributory Factors – Medical evidence revealed deceased had chronic liver disease, obesity, smoking history – Death resulted from “complications of head injury” – Held: Though contributory factors existed, accident remained proximate cause of death – No deduction warranted solely on that basis [Para 18].

Non-joinder of Parties – Motorcycle Not Insured – Deceased was pillion rider – Motorcycle owner not impleaded – However, since offending auto caused accident, insurer’s liability unaffected [Para 19].

Compensation – Salary Components – Inclusion of Allowances – Deceased was Senior Manager at Motorola earning ₹1,96,173.35 per month – Held: HRA, LTA, Medical and Car Lease Allowances to be included in income – Special/Conveyance Allowance excluded as reimbursement – Income tax and professional tax deducted – Monthly income fixed at ₹1,60,000 [Paras 27–30].

Future Prospects and Multiplier – Deceased aged 37 years – 50% added towards future prospects – 1/4th deducted for personal expenses – Multiplier ‘15’ applied – Loss of dependency computed at ₹3.24 crore [Paras 31–33].

Medical Expenses – Medi-claim Policy – Reimbursement proved – Premium paid by employer through salary deduction – Only ₹200 per month deductible considered – No separate compensation allowed for reimbursed medical expenses [Paras 21–23].

Quantum – Modified Award – Tribunal’s award of ₹2.99 crore enhanced to ₹3.26 crore – Apportionment revised – Wife ₹1 crore, two minors ₹75 lakh each, parents ₹38.18 lakh each – Interest at 7.5% p.a. maintained – Insurer directed to deposit within 8 weeks [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Appeal by Insurance Company dismissed – Appeal by Claimants partly allowed – Compensation enhanced to ₹3.26 crore with 7.5% interest – Apportionment and deposit directions as per Court’s order.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Companies Act Offences – Bail Granted – Chartered Accountants facing prosecution under Sections 143 r/w 147 and 448 of the Companies Act, 2013 and related provisions for allegedly auditing falsified financial statements of SRS Group companies and concealing related party transactions – Petitioners had not been arrested during investigation – Trial court had issued summons and later warrants, prompting petitions under Section 438 CrPC – High Court held there was no material to show petitioners received disproportionate payments or undue favors in lieu of favorable audit reports – No evidence of complicity in the loan fraud or siphoning of funds – Bail granted as custodial interrogation not required [Paras 1, 3, 24, 29, 30]

Companies Act – Section 212(6) – Twin Conditions for Bail – Applicability – Court held that in absence of prima facie material indicating conspiracy or intent to commit fraud, statutory rigors of Section 212(6) would not preclude grant of bail – Reverse burden clause under Section 212(6) must be triggered only after primary burden is discharged by the prosecution – Held: Petitioners satisfied both limbs of Section 212(6) – Not guilty of offence and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail [Paras 31-33]

Audit Practice – Professional Negligence vs. Criminal Conspiracy – Distinction Drawn – Allegations primarily relate to failure in following auditing standards and non-reporting of circular transactions and related party dealings – Court observed no direct evidence of quid pro quo, criminal intent, or conspiracy with SRS Group controllers – Case does not exceed beyond dereliction of duty – Held: Auditors’ acts, even if deficient, did not amount to criminal complicity in financial fraud [Paras 24, 28-30]

Bank Lending – Role of Auditors – Scope of Responsibility – Consortium of banks (led by SBI) granted large-scale loans to SRS Group – Court found that banks did not rely upon audited financial statements while sanctioning credit – Held: No causal link between auditors' conduct and grant of loans – Bail granted as no complicity established [Paras 26-27]

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted to all petitioners – Conditions imposed to ensure presence before trial court – Court clarified that mere professional lapses without quid pro quo or mens rea do not satisfy threshold under Section 212(6) Companies Act, 2013.

Banking Law - Debt Recovery – SARFAESI Proceedings – Maintainability of Writ – Appellant, a Small Enterprise under the MSMED Act, challenged action taken by the Bank under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act citing failure to follow RBI’s rehabilitation guidelines – Contended that Bank could not invoke SARFAESI without exploring rehabilitation under 2015 RBI Notification – High Court held that since the grievance arose from action under Section 13(4), remedy under Section 17 before DRT was available – Writ petition rightly dismissed by Single Judge for availability of alternate remedy [Paras 2, 5–8]

Debt Recovery Tribunal – Jurisdiction under SARFAESI Act – Appellant argued that DRT lacked jurisdiction as the challenge was to the very applicability of SARFAESI – Rejected – Held: Section 17(1) permits any aggrieved person to approach DRT against measures under Section 13(4), including cases where SARFAESI action is alleged to be invalid ab initio – Jurisdiction of DRT not ousted – No fault found with Single Judge’s reasoning [Paras 6–8]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Writ petition rightly not entertained – Appellant directed to avail remedy before DRT [Para 9]

Civil Procedure – Res Judicata – Suit for Injunction Barred by Prior Decree – Appellant-plaintiff, claiming as Karanavan of Kadapurathaillam Tarwad, filed suit for prohibitory injunction alleging unlawful possession by members of a Thavazhi – Trial Court dismissed suit as barred by res judicata based on earlier decisions (OS 47/1969 and OS 6/1975) – Held: Prior suit involved identical properties, parties, and reliefs including possession and injunction – Finding in Full Bench decision in AS 267/1979 upholding bar of res judicata operates against present claim – No new possession claimed after prior decision – Present suit not maintainable [Paras 12–13].

Civil Procedure – Preliminary Issue – Scope of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC – Trial Court decided res judicata as preliminary issue – Held: Where facts relevant to res judicata are undisputed, the issue may be determined as preliminary – Court not bound to proceed to full trial merely because mixed question of law and fact is raised – Reliance placed on Jamia Masjid v. K.V. Rudrappa (AIR 2021 SC 4523) [Paras 10–11, 13].

Customary Law – Marumakkathayam – Reversionary Rights – Plaintiff claimed reversion of thavazhi property (attalodukkam) on extinction of female line – Earlier judgments had already adjudicated on such reversionary claim – Re-litigation barred [Paras 2–6].

Civil Procedure – Fresh Suit on Possession – When Earlier Suit Involved Same Relief – Appellant contended that possession as on date of suit was not adjudicated earlier – Held: Prior suits involved claims for possession and injunction over same properties – No claim of fresh possession after previous decree – No ground to reopen issue – Suit barred [Para 13].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Trial court rightly held suit to be barred by res judicata – Res judicata can be determined as preliminary issue where relevant facts are undisputed – No interference warranted with judgment and decree of the District Court, Lakshadweep dated 05.06.2015 in OS No. 7 of 2012 [Paras 12–13].

Income Tax – Faceless Assessment Scheme – Reassessment – Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of Jurisdictional Assessing Officers (JAOs) in issuing notices under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act after introduction of the “E-Assessment Scheme of Income Escaping Assessment, 2022” – Held: Section 151A mandates faceless mechanism for reassessment procedures – Notifications and statutory scheme leave no discretion to the Department – JAOs lack jurisdiction to issue such notices post 29.03.2022 – Impugned notices issued outside the scheme are void [Paras 3–7(E)]

Jurisdiction – Interpretation of Section 151A and Notification – High Court followed binding precedents including Bombay High Court’s decisions in Prakash Pandurang Patil v. ITO and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT – Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP confirms finality of interpretation – Held: There is no concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and FAO – All reassessment-related notices must be through automated allocation under the faceless scheme [Paras 7(A)–7(D)]

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction – Court reiterated that issuance of reassessment notices contrary to statutory scheme causes prejudice per se – No further proof of prejudice is required to invalidate notices issued by authorities lacking jurisdiction – Right to lawful assessment is protected under law [Para 7(A), 7(F)]

Decision: All writ petitions allowed – Notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(b), 148A(d), and 148 of the Income Tax Act set aside – Jurisdictional Assessing Officers had no authority to issue notices post-2022 Scheme – Consequential proceedings and orders, if any, also quashed – No order as to costs.

Family Law – Property Dispute Between Father and Son – Ownership and Possession – Father filed suit seeking mandatory injunction against son to vacate portion of self-acquired residential house – Son claimed house was joint family property and he was a coparcener – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held that property was purchased by father and his brother from their personal income and was not HUF property – Defendant failed to produce any evidence of coparcenary or ownership – Held: Son residing in father’s house as a permissive occupant cannot claim legal right to remain in possession – Father has absolute right to revoke permission and seek possession [Paras 5.4, 5.5, 6, 14, 15].

Civil Procedure – Suit for Mandatory Injunction – Maintainability – Son argued that suit should have been for possession and not mandatory injunction – Held: When defendant is in permissive possession without legal title and plaintiff remains in joint possession, suit for mandatory injunction is maintainable – No bar in seeking injunction to recover possession from permissive occupier [Paras 19, 20, 23].

Licensee vs. Permissive Possession – Meaning and Scope – Use of term "licensee" in plaint not fatal – Courts held son was not a licensee in strict legal sense but a permissive occupant – Gratuitous permission by parent creates no vested right – Suit maintainable even in absence of formal licensor-licensee relationship – Distinguished permissive possession from contractual license [Paras 8–12].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent findings of fact by both courts below based on proper appreciation of evidence – Defendant failed to establish any legal right or raise a question of law – Held: No ground for interference under Section 100 CPC – Appeal devoid of merit [Paras 14, 17, 18].

Exemplary Costs – Abuse of Process – Prolonged litigation by son against father despite lack of legal claim – Court deprecated the conduct and imposed exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on appellant – Observed such litigation erodes family trust and burdens judiciary [Para 24, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of lower courts affirmed – Exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed on appellant to be paid to respondent.

Criminal Law – Permission to Travel Abroad – Right to Personal Liberty under Article 21 – Parameters for Judicial Discretion – Petitioner, facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 380, and 34 IPC, sought permission to travel abroad for business purposes – Earlier permissions granted in 2023 and 2024 were duly complied with – Trial Court rejected latest application fearing abscondence – Held: Right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 – Restriction thereon must satisfy procedure established by law which is just, fair and reasonable – Courts must balance liberty of the accused with the administration of justice, ensuring presence during trial [Paras 7–10, 13].

Flight Risk – Interpretation of “Likely to Abscond” – Predictive Standard – The term “likely” must denote a reasonable or palpable probability, not a speculative possibility – Courts cannot deny liberty based on conjectural fears – Determination of flight risk must rest on tangible and cogent material [Para 11].

Judicial Discretion – Principles for Grant of Permission to Travel Abroad – Courts must consider gravity of allegations, antecedents, bona fides of travel, and safeguards ensuring return – No rigid formula can be laid down – Discretion must be exercised with fairness, equity, and good conscience [Paras 12–13].

Procedural Justice – Hypertechnical Approach Decried – Petitioner’s earlier itinerary had lapsed; remitting matter to trial court would serve no purpose – Procedural rules are handmaidens of justice, not its mistress – High Court permitted travel directly to avoid multiplicity of proceedings [Para 14].

Decision – Petition allowed – Petitioner permitted to travel abroad as per itinerary (15.10.2025–03.12.2025) subject to conditions imposed by trial court including furnishing of ₹10 lakh bank guarantee – Guarantee liable to forfeiture in case of non-return or violation of conditions [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Bail – Financial and Document Forgery Allegations – Petitioner accused of fraudulently obtaining large sums of money and property from informant by exploiting spiritual influence – FIR alleges transfer of land through forged gift deed and adoption deed – Charge sheet filed under BNS – Petitioner in custody since May 2025 – High Court noted pendency of related civil suit seeking cancellation of adoption deed – Held: Dispute predominantly civil with criminal elements – Continued detention not warranted as investigation complete and no custodial interrogation required [Paras 1–6, 9]

Bail – Triple Test – Flight Risk – Tampering with Evidence – High Court found that with charge sheet filed and evidence primarily documentary, risk of witness tampering minimal – Flight risk to be mitigated through surrender of passport – Petitioner’s previous cases noted, but found distinguishable and insufficient to deny bail – Liberty cannot be curtailed solely on allegations without trial – Bail granted subject to strict conditions [Paras 7–8]

Criminal Law – Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Parallel Proceedings – Acknowledged that a civil suit was filed by informant prior to the FIR challenging adoption deed – FIR silent on civil suit – Court noted that both parties had prior relationship and transactions, which support existence of civil dispute – Held: Bail appropriate as allegations and defences are to be tested during trial, not at bail stage [Paras 5–6]

Decision: Bail Application Allowed – Petitioner Sambit Ray admitted to bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 5,00,000 with two solvent sureties – Conditions imposed include surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, regular appearance before trial court, and prohibition on leaving the country without permission – Court reserves liberty for cancellation of bail in case of violation of conditions.