Taxation Law - Income Escaping Assessment – Validity of Reopening – Prima Facie Material Justifying Reassessment – Reopening of assessment for AY 2012-13 challenged on grounds that original assessment under Section 143(3) was already concluded and that reassessment notice was issued based solely on third-party information – Held: Department acted on tangible material received from DGIT regarding accommodation entries, and a preliminary enquiry was conducted before issuance of notice under Section 148 – Presence of prima facie belief satisfies statutory requirement for reopening [Paras 1–3, 10–11, 16].

Limitation – Four-Year Bar under Section 147 Proviso – Mixed Question of Fact and Law – Petitioner claimed full and true disclosure was made during original assessment and reopening beyond four years was barred – Held: Whether full and true disclosure was made is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be conclusively decided in writ jurisdiction – Detailed factual enquiry required before competent authority [Paras 3, 12, 19].

Alternative Remedy – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Writ Petition Not Maintainable When Statutory Remedy Availed – Petitioner simultaneously filed appeal before appellate authority challenging reassessment order while writ was pending – Held: Petitioner cannot pursue dual remedies and writ petition is not maintainable under such circumstances [Paras 22–24].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on SC and HC Rulings – Scope of Judicial Interference – Petitioner’s reliance on precedents like A. Raman & Co., Micro Marbles, and Kohinoor Hatcheries distinguished – Held: In present case, there existed prima facie material unlike in cited cases – Proper procedure under GKN Driveshafts followed – Writ jurisdiction limited to testing existence, not sufficiency, of material [Paras 5–9, 17–19].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – No Grounds Made Out – Court held that reassessment notice and order were not vitiated by procedural or jurisdictional errors and petitioner had alternative remedy through appeal – Petitioner granted liberty to pursue statutory remedies [Para 25].

Civil Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Effect of Family Settlement – Maintainability of Release Application – Tenant’s Claim of Co-Ownership Rejected – The petitioner contended that he was not a tenant under respondent no.3 and had become co-owner by purchasing a part of the tenanted premises from respondent no.4 – Held: Based on oral family settlement between respondents no.3 and 4, the property was partitioned; thus, respondent no.3 became sole owner of a portion and could maintain a release application – Purchase by petitioner from respondent no.4 did not make him co-owner with respect to respondent no.3’s share – Relationship of landlord-tenant with respondent no.3 upheld [Paras 13-17].

Split Tenancy – Effect of Partial Ownership on Tenancy Rights – Tenancy Not Split – The petitioner argued that tenancy cannot be split and he became owner of the entire property – Held: The petitioner became owner only of the part sold by respondent no.4; tenancy continued in respect of the portion held by respondent no.3 – No legal bar on such bifurcation due to family settlement and specific sale deeds – Tenancy held to exist with respect to the portion claimed in release [Paras 13-18].

Bonafide Need – Comparative Hardship – Evidence-Based Findings – Release Upheld – Respondent no.3 sought release for starting business for himself and his sons – Appellate Court considered bonafide need, hardship, and lack of evidence from petitioner on alternative accommodation – Closure of petitioner’s sawmill noted – No perversity found in concurrent findings – Release affirmed [Paras 13-14].

Equitable Relief – No Rent Paid – Conduct of Tenant Considered – Equitable Jurisdiction Not Invoked – Petitioner failed to pay rent to either landlord – Court noted petitioner’s conduct and refused to grant discretionary relief under Article 226 – Equitable relief denied [Paras 15, 19].

Interference Under Article 226 – No Perverse or Arbitrary Finding – Scope Limited – Held: Appellate authority’s findings based on facts, evidence and legal principles – No perversity or arbitrariness shown – No ground made for judicial review under Article 226 – Petition dismissed [Paras 28-29].
 

Muslim Law - Probate and Will – Requirement of Proving Testamentary Capacity and Absence of Suspicion – Will Rejected - Appellant claimed two Wills executed by deceased Tajuddin Shaikh in his favour – Trial Court and High Court found multiple suspicious circumstances including inconsistency regarding property ownership timelines, typewritten Wills with identical wording, and lack of clarity on religious identity and testamentary rights – Held: Appellant failed to discharge burden of proof required under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act to establish valid execution of Will [Paras 6, 9-13, 16-17].

Mohammedan Law – Limits on Bequest – Bequest Beyond One-Third Invalid Without Consent – Will Partially Invalid - As per Mohammedan Law, bequest beyond one-third of estate to non-heir is invalid without consent of legal heirs – Court held Will to be invalid beyond said limit in absence of such consent – Validity of Will limited to extent permissible under law [Para 14].

Suspicious Circumstances – Inclusion of Properties Not Owned at Time of Will – Will Held Invalid - Land purchased after the alleged execution date of first Will was included in it – Appellant failed to explain or produce evidence showing pre-existing agreement – Held: Inclusion of such land created suspicion regarding authenticity of Will [Para 16].

Succession Certificate – Grant to Legal Heirs – Certificate Upheld - Respondents were legal heirs of deceased and proved relationship – In absence of valid Will, Court rightly granted heirship and succession certificate to respondents – No interference warranted [Para 18].

Appeal – Dismissal of Appeal – Findings of Trial Court Upheld - Trial Court's conclusions based on factual and legal analysis upheld – No merit found in appeals filed by Sunil Shinde – Appeals dismissed [Para 19].
 

Employment Law - Home Guards Recruitment – Prior Approval Under Section 3 of HG Act – Not Required for Selection – Approval Needed Only at Appointment Stage – Writ Allowed - Petitioner challenged refusal by Commandant-General to accord approval to selection list on the ground that prior approval was not obtained – Held: Section 3 of the Odisha Home Guards Act requires approval only for appointment, not for initiating selection process – Board’s selection process without prior approval not irregular – Rejection of approval based on misinterpretation of law – Direction issued to consider approval afresh [Paras 9–13].

Statutory Interpretation – "Subject to" and "Approval" – Distinction Between Approval and Permission – Approval May Be Post-facto - Court held that “approval” under Section 3 is not synonymous with “permission” – Prior approval is not mandated unless expressly stated – Circular requiring prior approval is not statutory and cannot override the Act – Selection list is valid pending post-facto approval [Paras 10–11].

Administrative Instructions vs Statute – Circular Cannot Override Statute – Selection Not Void - Circular dated 03.07.2014 requiring prior approval before appointment cannot be read into the statute where the law only requires approval at appointment stage – Rejection of entire selection on this basis is unjustified – Authority cannot assume appellate role in rejecting selection process [Paras 11.3–13.4].

Doctrine of Ratification – Approval Can Be Granted Post-facto – Action Not Invalid for Lack of Initial Sanction - Approval includes ratification of existing acts – Where appointment is yet to be made, Commandant-General can validly accord approval retrospectively – Held: No illegality in seeking approval after selection process concludes [Paras 11.4–13.4].

Writ – Decision Quashed – Direction for Reconsideration - Refusal to grant approval quashed – Matter remitted back to Commandant-General to re-examine approval request in accordance with law [Para 13.5].
 

Pension – Delayed Absorption – Entitlement Recognized – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Petitioner served as Medical Officer at a government-acquired institution and was directed to be absorbed in 2005 – Absorption delayed till 2010 despite court orders – Court held delay attributable solely to State – Held: 
Petitioner entitled to count service period from 22.02.2005 to 20.04.2010 toward qualifying service for pension [Paras 13–20]. 
 
Equitable Doctrine – No Advantage from Own Wrong – Delay by State Cannot Prejudice Employee – Following Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, Court held that respondents cannot deny pension on ground of shortfall in qualifying service when delay in formal absorption was their own doing – Period must be counted for pension entitlement to avoid civil consequences [Paras 18–19]. 
 
Service Law – Rights Crystallized by Judicial Direction – Binding on State – Court emphasized that petitioner’s right to absorption under the 1983 Act crystallized on 22.02.2005 as per previous writ order – State bound to honour such finding; inaction thereafter cannot be used against petitioner [Paras 14–16]. 
 
Retrospectivity – No Wages for No Work – But Period Counts for Pension – While denying claim for salary during 2005–2010, Court held petitioner entitled to count that period for pension qualifying service – “No work no pay” does not apply to pension rights if employee ready to serve and State delays appointment [Para 18]. 
 
Final Decision – Writ Allowed – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Pension Directed – Tribunal’s rejection order dated 02.09.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to treat petitioner’s qualifying service as commencing from 22.02.2005 – Pension and arrears to be paid within 8 weeks with transparent calculation details [Paras 20–21]. 
 

Criminal Law - Cross-examination – Discretionary Recall Power – Denied for Delay and Abuse – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners sought to recall complainant witness under Section 311 CrPC, citing medical issues of previous counsel – Court found this unsubstantiated and held repeated non-appearance and adjournments amounted to abuse of process – Held: Recall not a matter of course; discretionary power to be used judiciously [Paras 5–10]. 
 
Trial Conduct – Repeated Defaults – No Diligent Effort to CrossExamine – Petitioners At Fault – Court noted that non-bailable warrants were repeatedly issued due to non-appearance, and trial had been prolonged by petitioners’ conduct – Held: Courts should not reward tactical delay or passive conduct by litigants seeking to derail proceedings [Paras 10–11]. 
 
Precedent – Discretion Under Section 311 CrPC – Applied Cautiously 
– Relying on Vijay Kumar, Ratanlal, Zahira Sheikh, Satbir Singh, and 
Swapan Kumar Chatterjee, Court reiterated that power under Section 311 CrPC should be exercised only when essential for justice, not to remedy negligence of parties or allow obstruction of proceedings [Paras 8–10]. 
 
Name Change of Complainant – No Fresh Right to Recall – Petitioners argued that change in complainant’s name during proceedings justified cross-examination – Court rejected this, holding it had no bearing on prior opportunities granted and exhausted [Para 10]. 
 
Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed Unimpeded – High Court found no infirmity in trial court’s refusal to recall witness – Petition and all pending applications dismissed [Paras 11–12]. 
 

Murder of Family Members – Conviction Upheld – Death Sentence Commuted – Appellant convicted for murder of his wife, parents, and minor son – Trial court awarded death penalty – High Court confirmed guilt based on eyewitnesses (PW-1 & PW-2), medical, ballistic and FSL evidence – However, death penalty commuted to life imprisonment for 20 years actual incarceration considering mitigating factors [Paras 1–20, 41–50, 74–75]. 
 
Eyewitnesses and Medical Evidence – Convincing – Injuries Ante-Mortem and Homicidal – Evidence from Ranjana Bai and her son corroborated by postmortem reports – Axe and gun injuries matched – FSL confirmed blood on appellant’s clothes and weapon – Firearm used in murder of minor son Shivyansh confirmed by presence of lead [Paras 12–31, 39–44]. 
 
Mitigating Circumstances – Intoxication, Mental State, and Reformation Potential – Death Commuted – Court found appellant was in an intoxicated state, habitual cannabis consumer – No prior criminal record – Surviving minor son and possibility of reformation considered – Held: Case does not fall under “rarest of rare” doctrine requiring capital punishment [Paras 55–75]. 
 
Sentencing Doctrine – Extensive Review of Rarest of Rare Jurisprudence – 
Balance Sheet Test Applied – Court elaborated on Bachan Singh, Machhi Singh, Swamy Shraddananda, and Manoj v. MP principles – Applied balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors – Determined that alternative punishment of life imprisonment for 20 years was appropriate [Paras 52–73]. 
 
Final Decision – Death Sentence Set Aside – Life Imprisonment for 20 Years Imposed – Appellant’s conviction under IPC and Arms Act upheld – Sentence modified: death penalty commuted to life imprisonment (actual incarceration of 20 years), with concurrent sentences – Fine and other punishments unchanged [Para 75]. 
 

Family Law - Guardianship – Jurisdiction under Guardians and Wards Act – Territorial Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence – Dismissal of Revision - Wife filed guardianship petition claiming child under 5 years forcibly retained by husband’s family – Husband challenged maintainability on jurisdictional ground under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Held: Where child is under 5 years, presumed to reside with mother – Jurisdictional fact needs evidence – Not a pure question of law – Revision against rejection not maintainable [Paras 2–11].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Not Decidable under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Petitioner sought dismissal claiming minor resided outside Boudh district – Court held that ordinary residence is a factual issue needing inquiry – Cannot be decided solely on pleadings – Appropriate to be addressed during trial [Paras 7–10].

Applicable Precedents – Apex Court and High Court Decisions Considered – Kerala, Allahabad, and Supreme Court Rulings Applied - Court relied on Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo, S. Prabhu v. Rajani R, and Sarabjit v. Piara Lal – Emphasized that child’s ordinary residence requires factual determination – Rejected applicability of contrary ruling in Dillip Kumar Behera v. Puspanjali Behera to present case [Paras 6, 10].

Revision – Scope under Section 115 CPC – Interference Declined – Trial Court Order Not Perverse - Family Court's rejection of husband’s objection found reasonable and legally sound – No jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Section 115 CPC – Revision dismissed [Paras 11–13].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Vicarious Liability – Non-Director Cannot Be Prosecuted – Petitioner Not Liable – Petitioner was neither a director of the accused company nor a signatory to the dishonoured cheques – Extract from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs confirmed he had no association with the company – Held: As per settled law under Section 141 NI Act, mere designation without active role in the company’s affairs does not fasten liability – Prosecution against petitioner quashed [Paras 3, 7].

Quashing of Complaint – Section 482 CrPC – Specific Averments Mandatory – The complaint lacked any specific allegations detailing the petitioner’s role in the conduct of the company’s business – Held: In the absence of such averments, vicarious liability cannot be inferred – Continuing proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law [Paras 7-8].

Precedents – Binding Nature of Apex Court Decisions – Followed – Court relied on landmark judgments including SMS Pharmaceuticals, Harmeet Singh Paintal, Saroj Kumar Poddar and K.K. Ahuja to reiterate that criminal complaints must specifically show how the accused was responsible for business conduct – Held: The petition deserved to be allowed based on established legal principles [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Petitions Allowed – Criminal Case Nos. 53135 and 53136 of 2016 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, quashed against the petitioner – Rule made absolute [Para 8].