Taxation Law – Disallowance of Input Tax Credit – Section 73 of the CGST Act – Petitioner challenged the denial of ITC on works contract services used for constructing shopping malls, citing inconsistency with the Supreme Court's ruling in Chief Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax v. M/s Safari Retreats Private Ltd. – High Court held that the assessment order failed to consider the declaratory nature of the ruling in Safari Retreats and directed a fresh reconsideration of ITC eligibility based on the functionality test [Paras 6-8].

Declaratory Nature of Judicial Pronouncements – Application to Pending Cases – Safari Retreats judgment clarified the scope of "plant or machinery" under Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act – High Court observed that as the judgment is declaratory, it applies to assessments concluded before its pronouncement, warranting reconsideration of ITC claims [Paras 7-8].

Procedural Compliance – Hearing and Reconsideration – High Court set aside the impugned assessment order and directed a de novo determination by the respondent, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice and consideration of all issues raised [Paras 8-9].

Decision: Writ petition allowed. Impugned order (Ext.P3) dated 30/08/2024 was set aside. The respondent was directed to reconsider the matter de novo in light of Safari Retreats and all other contentions raised by the petitioner. The reconsideration must be completed within three months, following due hearing and procedural compliance.
 

Criminal Writ - Challenge to the opening of Class-B history sheets – Regulation 228 of U.P. Police Regulations – Procedural Irregularities – Impugned Order Quashed – Petitioners challenged the opening of Class-B history sheets approved by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Greater Noida – The Court found that the order was passed without applying mind, merely approving the report of the Station House Officer, without assigning reasons or affording the petitioners an opportunity to object – Held: Opening of history sheets against the petitioners violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the impugned history sheets are quashed [Paras 19, 22-27].

Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement of Fair Hearing – Violation of Article 14 – Even where natural justice is not explicitly provided under law, it must be read into provisions affecting personal liberty and rights – Opening of history sheets without providing an opportunity to object constitutes a violation of the right to equality under Article 14 – Held: Police authorities must provide citizens an opportunity to present objections before deciding to open history sheets [Paras 23-24, 26].

Surveillance and Fundamental Rights – Violation of Articles 19 and 21 – Class-B history sheets and resultant police surveillance were found to infringe upon the petitioners' rights to freedom of movement and privacy – Held: Mere implication in criminal cases, without evidence of habitual or professional criminality, does not justify subjecting individuals to perpetual surveillance under the pre-independence U.P. Police Regulations [Paras 25-26].

Constitutionality of History Sheet Provisions – Need for Guidelines – The Court emphasized that provisions under the U.P. Police Regulations were framed during the colonial era and do not align with the modern constitutional framework – Directed the State to amend guidelines to provide for mandatory opportunity of objection and annual review of history sheets [Paras 26-28].

Final Decision – Impugned history sheets against the petitioners quashed – State directed to issue revised guidelines for opening and reviewing history sheets to ensure compliance with constitutional mandates under Articles 14, 19, and 21 [Paras 27-28, 32].

Property Law – Partition Suit – Will Validity – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Plaintiff filed a suit seeking 1/6th share in the self-acquired property of late K.V. Vengadasamy Chettiar – Defendant No. 1 claimed exclusive ownership of the suit property based on an unregistered Will dated 20.05.2000 executed by the deceased, bequeathing the property to him – Subsequent sale of the suit property by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 – Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, upholding the genuineness of the Will – Held: Will executed in compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act – No suspicious circumstances proved – Second Appeal dismissed, confirming the judgments of the lower courts [Paras 6–34].

Will – Proof of Genuineness – Compliance with Legal Formalities – Plaintiff alleged suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, including absence of signature on each page, corrections in property description not attested by the testator, and non-registration of the Will – Defendant No. 1 proved the execution of the Will through attesting witnesses and the notary who prepared it – Held: Corrections made under the testator's instructions were initialed by the notary; absence of signatures on each page not fatal – Non-registration of the Will does not affect its validity as per Indian law – Evidence showed that the testator executed the Will in a sound and disposing state of mind and of his own free will [Paras 13–18, 26–31].

Inheritance Law – Disinheritance of Legal Heirs – Testator's Discretion – Will excluded other legal heirs and bequeathed the suit property to Defendant No. 1 – Held: Disinheritance alone is not a ground to invalidate a Will if the testator provides specific reasons – Testator explicitly stated that Defendant No. 1 cared for him and his wife during their lifetime – Evidence substantiated that the testator was of sound mind and understood the consequences of the bequest [Paras 13–14, 22–23].

Suspicious Circumstances – Rebuttal of Allegations – Plaintiff alleged that the testator traveled 11 km to a notary office instead of visiting a nearby Sub-Registrar’s office, and claimed contradictions in the evidence of attesting witnesses – Held: Testator's choice of the notary office explained by circumstances, including the day of execution (Saturday) – Minor discrepancies in the witnesses' testimony do not invalidate the Will – Courts below rightly held that the alleged suspicious circumstances were not sufficient to invalidate the Will [Paras 24–30].

Standard of Proof for Wills – Sound Disposing State of Mind – Propounder established that the testator signed the Will voluntarily, understanding its contents – Evidence showed that the Will was read out to the testator, who instructed corrections and signed it in the presence of witnesses – Plaintiff failed to produce contrary evidence or prove fraud, coercion, or undue influence – Courts below correctly applied principles from precedents, including Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023) 9 SCC 734 and H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443 [Paras 19–20, 26–31].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Will held genuine and valid – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court confirmed – Plaintiff not entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property – No costs [Paras 32–34].
 

Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech and Assembly – Article 19 – Right to Hold Public Meetings – Held: The right to hold public meetings and rallies is integral to a democracy and is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions – Petitioners granted permission to hold the assembly with conditions to ensure public order and minimize inconvenience.

Administrative Law – Discretionary Powers of Police – Refusal of Permission for Public Meeting – Held: Police discretion must be exercised reasonably and proportionately – Past incidents of violence cannot indefinitely deprive a political party of its constitutional rights – Permission granted with safeguards against potential public disturbances.

Public Order and Fundamental Rights – Balancing Conflicting Interests – Held: Public ways and spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely, but peaceful assemblies at designated locations must be facilitated to maintain the democratic ethos – Petitioners directed to follow strict conditions, including limiting attendance and parking arrangements, to balance rights and public order.

Decision: Petition allowed in part – Permission granted for a meeting at Shahid Minar Maidan with conditions – Petitioners and police authorities instructed to ensure compliance and maintain public order – No order as to costs.
 

Property Law – Revocation of Power of Attorney – Validity of Sale Deed Executed by Power Agent – Second Appeal – Dismissal – Suit Property originally owned by the plaintiffs through inheritance and subsequent acquisition – Plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) in favor of the first defendant as security for a loan – G.P.A. revoked by a registered Cancellation Deed, which was communicated to the Sub-Registrar – First defendant executed a Sale Deed in favor of the second defendant, which was presented for registration after the revocation of the G.P.A. – Sub-Registrar refused to register the Sale Deed – Plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and other reliefs – Trial Court decreed the Suit, holding the G.P.A. as a security document and its cancellation valid – First Appellate Court confirmed the decision – Held: Sale Deed was executed after the cancellation of the G.P.A. came to the notice of the defendants; sale was incomplete in the absence of registration – Second Appeal dismissed, with liberty to the second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed [Paras 6–19].

Agency Law – Power Coupled with Interest – Revocation and Termination – Plaintiffs contended that G.P.A. was executed as security for a loan and revoked through a Cancellation Deed – Defendants argued that the G.P.A. was irrevocable as it was coupled with interest, and revocation was not validly communicated – Held: G.P.A. was not coupled with interest as possession of the Suit Property was not handed over to the power agent – Revocation was validly communicated to the Sub-Registrar and came to the notice of the power agent before the registration of the Sale Deed – Sale Deed executed without a valid G.P.A. is invalid [Paras 14–18].

Sale Deed – Incomplete Sale Without Registration – Sale Deed executed by the power agent was presented for registration after the G.P.A. was revoked – Sub-Registrar rightly refused registration, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a sale is incomplete without registration – Held: The Sale Deed is not binding on the plaintiffs and does not convey any title to the second defendant – Remedy available to the second defendant is to seek specific performance [Paras 17–18].

Procedural Compliance – Registration of Cancellation Deed – Cancellation Deed was registered at a Sub-Registrar Office (S.R.O.) different from where the G.P.A. was registered – Plaintiffs sent a letter of objection to the Jurisdictional S.R.O. – Held: Registration of Cancellation Deed at a different S.R.O. is valid as per the Registration Act, 1908, and it was the duty of the Sub-Registrar to communicate the cancellation to the concerned Jurisdictional S.R.O. – No evidence suggests procedural non-compliance by the Sub-Registrar [Paras 15–16].

Liberty to File Suit for Specific Performance – Plaintiffs retain possession and title to the Suit Property – Second defendant granted liberty to file a Suit for Specific Performance based on the Sale Agreement and unregistered Sale Deed – Parties directed to raise all available contentions in the said Suit, including seeking exclusion of time spent in the present proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 [Para 18].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Plaintiffs' title and possession upheld – Sale Deed declared invalid – Liberty granted to second defendant to file a Suit for Specific Performance – No order as to costs [Paras 19].

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302 IPC – Single Fatal Blow – Applicability of Clause 3rdly of Section 300 IPC – Held: Intentional infliction of a fatal blow aimed at a vital part of the body establishes intention to cause death – Use of dangerous weapon (iron rod) and absence of provocation confirmed premeditated intention – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 24-27].

Criminal Law – Evidence – Sole Testimony of Related Witness – Reliability – Held: Testimony of PW9, the deceased’s daughter-in-law, was consistent, natural, and credible – Relationship with the deceased does not render her testimony unreliable when supported by circumstances – Conviction can be based solely on such reliable testimony [Paras 15-22].

Criminal Law – Hostile Witnesses – Partial Reliability – Held: Testimony of hostile witnesses PW2 and PW3 partially relied upon to establish motive – Courts are not bound to discard entire testimony of hostile witnesses but may accept parts that inspire confidence [Paras 21].

Sentencing – Life Imprisonment for Murder – Proportionality – Held: The sentence of life imprisonment for murder and rigorous imprisonment for trespass is commensurate with the gravity and nature of the offences – No leniency warranted [Paras 28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 447 IPC upheld.
 

Bail in NDPS Cases – Possession of Commercial Quantity – Section 37 NDPS Act – Rigorous Conditions for Bail – Applicant was accused of possessing 220 grams of Mephedrone (MD), a quantity far exceeding the commercial threshold – Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the court’s satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to reoffend – Held: Despite the statutory bar, extended incarceration (1 year and 11 months) and delay in trial proceedings warranted grant of bail under Article 21 of the Constitution [Paras 7–8, 14, 17].

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – Long Incarceration as Ground for Bail – Applicant was in custody for nearly two years, with no charges framed and no likelihood of trial concluding in the foreseeable future – The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that prolonged detention without trial infringes the fundamental right to life and liberty – Held: Continued detention of the applicant, given the delay in trial, violated his rights under Article 21, warranting bail [Paras 9, 10.3, 14].

Procedural Irregularities – Delay in Forensic Analysis – Non-Compliance with NDPS Act Procedures – Applicant argued that there were procedural lapses, including a 15-day delay in sending the seized contraband for forensic analysis and discrepancies in the appearance of the sample packets – Such lapses were held to weaken the prosecution's case, further supporting the grant of bail [Paras 4, 17].

Principle of Bail as the Rule and Jail as the Exception – Judicial Discretion in NDPS Cases – Despite the severity of NDPS offences, courts must exercise discretion judiciously to strike a balance between public interest and individual liberty – Held: Denial of bail in cases of prolonged detention would lead to indefinite incarceration, which is contrary to constitutional principles – Bail granted with stringent conditions to ensure fairness and accountability [Paras 9.1, 12, 16].

Decision – Bail granted to the applicant under stringent conditions, including a PR bond of Rs. 1,00,000, regular attendance at trial proceedings, prohibition on influencing witnesses, and restriction on leaving the state without permission. The observations were limited to the purpose of bail and did not affect the merits of the case [Paras 17, 18].
 

Termination of Government Counsel – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Inquiry Based on Unverified Video – Termination Set Aside – The petitioner, who was serving as A.D.G.C. (Criminal) in District Hathras, was removed from his post by an order of the Joint Secretary, Law Department, based on an inquiry report alleging objectionable remarks against Mahatma Gandhi – The inquiry committee’s report failed to establish the authenticity of the video relied upon, nor was the petitioner given an opportunity to present his defense – The court found the action against the petitioner to be malicious and unsupported by substantive material – Held: The termination order is unsustainable in law and is set aside – The petitioner is directed to be reinstated within three weeks [Paras 6-11].

Civil Law - Pathway Rights – Common Lane – Easementary Rights – Plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction over a 2-foot-wide North-South Lane used as a common pathway between adjoining properties. The Trial Court granted reliefs but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the suit for mandatory injunction was barred by limitation. The High Court held that the North-South Lane is a common lane for the use of both parties and not subject to exclusive ownership. – Held: Both parties have easementary rights only, and encroachments, if any, are to be removed as per law. Suits relating to pathways have recurring causes of action and are not barred by limitation. [Paras 13-16]

Encroachment – Recurring Cause of Action – Limitation Act – The defendants claimed that encroachments on the lane, if any, occurred more than three decades ago and the suit was time-barred. The court held that disputes over encroachment on a common lane give rise to recurring causes of action, and hence the suit was not barred by limitation. – Held: Dismissal of the suit by the First Appellate Court on limitation grounds was erroneous. [Para 16]

General Power of Attorney – Invalidity – Common Lane – A General Power of Attorney executed by defendants over the disputed lane was found void ab initio since the lane was a common property with no individual ownership rights. – Held: The Power of Attorney did not confer any rights over the lane, and the agent had no authority to alienate or encumber it. [Para 15]

Fixation of Boundaries – Demarcation of Common Lane – The High Court directed the demarcation of boundaries for the common lane based on the documentary evidence. Any encroachments identified after demarcation are to be removed in accordance with the law. – Held: Boundaries of the lane to be fixed as per the registered documents. [Para 17.3]

Decision: The second appeal in S.A. No. 154 of 2018 was partly allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside. The Trial Court's decree was modified to declare the lane as a common property, with easementary rights for both parties, and injunctions were granted accordingly.

The second appeal in S.A. No. 155 of 2018 was allowed. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court were set aside. The Trial Court's decree was modified, granting injunction against the defendant from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession or alienating the disputed lane based on the void General Power of Attorney.