Taxation Law - CGST – Detention & Penalty under Section 129(3) – Rule 138 Violation via Loading-Point Mismatch – Petition Dismissed – Goods in transit intercepted on 09.03.2025; E-Invoice and E-Way Bill were generated but actual loading point (Rupnarayanpur, West Medinipur, West Bengal) differed from the declared dispatch point (Village-Sakui, Kharagpur) – GPS logs (six-hour halt on 08.03.2025) and driver’s statement corroborated mismatch – Held: Violation of Rule 138 established; adjudicating authority had adequate adverse material; writ held to be an afterthought and devoid of merit – Petition dismissed in limine [Paras 2, 5, 8, 10].

E-Way Bill Compliance – Sufficiency of GPS/Driver Evidence – Discrepancy in Place of Dispatch – Outcome: Violation Upheld – The Court accepted GPS location data and driver’s statement as confirming the true loading point, justifying detention and penalty proceedings under Section 129 read with Rule 138 – Mere possession of e-way bill/e-invoice is insufficient when core particulars (place of dispatch) are incorrect [Paras 2, 6, 8].

Input Tax Credit (Section 16) – Suspicious/Cancelled Suppliers – Relevance at Detention Stage – Investigation Warranted – Records indicated heavy ITC availed (about ₹1.01 Cr in FY 2023-24 and ₹1.03 Cr in FY 2024-25) from suppliers largely suspended/cancelled or unrelated to the stated line of business – Though not finally adjudicated, such material supported detention and the authority’s adverse view at the roadside proceedings [Paras 3–5].

Release on Payment – No Absolute Waiver – Still, Writ Found Meritless – Payment of penalty to secure release, even without protest, does not per se waive the right to challenge – Nevertheless, given the cogent adverse material (GPS/driver corroboration and compliance breach), the challenge was deemed an afterthought and lacking in merit [Paras 8–9].

Final Order – Writ of Certiorari/Mandamus – Reliefs Denied – With Rule 138 violation proved and adequate material before the adjudicating authority, the Court refused to interfere with the MOV-09 penalty and declined refund with interest – Writ petition dismissed in limine [Para 10].

Criminal revision against conviction under Section 138 of NI Act – Petition challenging concurrent judgments convicting petitioner for dishonour of cheque due to i

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 NI Act – Conviction Upheld – The petitioner challenged concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that the cheque was lost and misused – The Court held that once the signature on the cheque is admitted, a presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 arises in favour of the complainant, which the petitioner failed to rebut by any credible evidence – Held: Conviction proper, as legal liability was established and defence of lost cheque was rightly disbelieved [Paras 30-41, 48-51].

Compounding of Offence – Necessity of Complainant’s Consent – Composition Application Dismissed – The petitioner’s application for compounding was dismissed as the complainant refused to consent, and the Court reaffirmed that offence under Section 138 NI Act cannot be compounded without the complainant’s approval – Held: No power to force compounding without complainant’s consent [Paras 21-29].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – Revisional Interference Limited – Revision Dismissed – The High Court reiterated the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction and declined to interfere with concurrent findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts which were based on proper appreciation of evidence – Held: No perversity in findings warranting interference [Paras 16-20].

Fine and Compensation – Fine Set Aside, Compensation Upheld – The Trial Court’s direction to impose both fine and separate compensation was modified in light of Supreme Court rulings – Held: Fine of ₹5,000/- set aside, compensation of ₹7,50,000/- maintained considering losses, delay and litigation expenses [Paras 54-59].

Sentence – Six Months Imprisonment Upheld – In view of the deterrent object of Section 138 NI Act, the sentence of six months simple imprisonment was found appropriate and was upheld [Paras 52-53].

Decision of the Court – Partial Relief – Criminal Revision partly allowed by setting aside the fine while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment and compensation awarded to the complainant [Para 61].

nsufficient funds – Plea of lost cheque rejected – Consideration of compounding refused due to absence of complainant’s consent.

Tenancy Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Personal Necessity – Section 13(3)(a)(i) of the Rent Act – Revision Dismissed – The petitioners, legal heirs of the original tenant, challenged concurrent findings allowing eviction from the first floor of a residential premises at Chandigarh on the ground of personal necessity of the landlady for her daughter – Held: The landlady, aged 86, credibly established her bona fide need to settle with her divorced daughter in her own premises in the evening of her life – Courts below rightly found the need to be genuine and not a pretext to relet the premises – No perversity found in findings – Revision dismissed [Paras 2, 9, 11(i)].

Landlord’s Discretion – Tenant Cannot Dictate Manner of Use – Landlord is Best Judge – It was argued that the landlady’s daughter could reside on the vacant second floor or continue to live in Delhi – Held: Tenant has no authority to dictate how or where landlord or her family should reside – Desire for an independent living space on first floor cannot be questioned – Minor details such as floor preference not open to tenant’s objection [Paras 11(i), 11(iv)].

Residential Use – Tuition Classes Not a Commercial Activity – Misuse Allegation Rejected – Petitioner argued that the daughter’s intent to take tuitions post-retirement would amount to misuse of residential premises – Held: Occasional tutoring by a retired teacher does not amount to commercial activity – In any case, this was not the primary ground of eviction – Allegation of misuse found to be unfounded [Para 11(ii)].

Earlier Non-occupation of Vacated Premises – Medical Reason Justified – Tenant contended that ground floor was vacated earlier on personal necessity grounds but was not occupied – Held: Explanation of landlady suffering paralytic stroke and husband's subsequent demise found to be sufficient – Need was not illusory or fabricated – Non-occupation due to health and age-related issues does not nullify present necessity [Para 11(iii)].

Pleading and Proof – Non-possession of Alternate Accommodation – Compliance Sufficient – Petitioners argued that mandatory ingredients of Section 13(3)(a)(i) were missing – Held: Though averments regarding non-possession were not explicitly stated for the daughter, they were made for the landlady whose necessity was in focus – Even otherwise, proof by way of evidence is sufficient compliance – Tenant estopped from raising such plea at revision stage when no such objection was taken in written statement – Reliance placed on Harbhajan Singh vs. Lakhbir Singh, 2019 (2) RCR (Rent) 316 and Navyug Goods Carrier vs. Manpreet Singh, 2018 (2) RCR (Rent) 496 [Paras 9(iii), 11(vi)–11(viii)].

Additional Evidence – Rejected – Attempt to Delay – Tenant sought to introduce additional evidence to prove misuse of premises and subsequent re-letting of ground floor – Held: Appellate Authority rightly rejected the application, noting that all relevant points were already addressed – Found to be an attempt to prolong litigation [Para 11(v)].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Concurrent Findings Not to Be Interfered – Settled Law – Held: No perversity or illegality found in the concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Appellate Authority – High Court under revisional jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence unless findings are patently perverse or illegal

– Revision dismissed [Para 11(x)].

Matrimonial Law - Section 2(s), Section 17, and Section 19 of the DV Act - Shared Household – Definition under Section 2(s) DV Act – Under-Construction Flat Not Covered – The petitioner sought orders under Section 19(d) and (e) of the DV Act for payment of pending installments towards a jointly booked flat claiming it as “shared household” – Held: Shared household under Section 2(s) requires actual residence or right to reside in an existing household – Since the flat was under construction and never in possession of either party, it does not qualify as shared household under DV Act [Paras 4, 24-35].

Residence Rights – Scope of Protection under Section 19 DV Act – Limitation Clarified – Court clarified that Section 19 of DV Act is aimed at preventing eviction from an existing shared household or providing alternate accommodation, and not for enforcing financial obligations relating to prospective properties not in possession – Held: Directions to pay installments for an under-construction flat are beyond the scope of Section 19, which focuses on securing residential shelter of the aggrieved woman [Paras 29-35].

Interpretation of Shared Household – Constructive Residence Doctrine Not Applicable – The petitioner relied on Supreme Court’s judgment in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi for broader interpretation of shared household – Held: Constructive residence presupposes a right to reside in an existing household and cannot extend to unpossessed, under-construction properties – Right to reside in shared household cannot be enforced where property is not habitable or occupied [Paras 14-16, 32-34].

Financial Orders – No Compulsion to Pay Installments – Statutory Limits – Prayer for directing respondent to pay remaining installments or through salary deductions to developer was rejected – Held: No statutory basis under DV Act for compelling a respondent to complete payment towards acquisition of an under-construction property claimed as shared household [Paras 34-35].

Decision of the Court – Writ Petition Dismissed – The High Court upheld the decisions of ACMM and Sessions Court rejecting relief under Section 19(d) and (e) DV Act, and dismissed the writ petition, discharging the rule [Paras 36-38].

Civil Law – Mental Infirmity – Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem – Order 32 Rule 15 CPC – Independent Guardian Appointed - Plaintiffs sought medical examination and appointment of administrator/guardian for PC (D3) citing alleged Alzheimer/Dementia and undue property transfers – Defendant SD (D5) sought appointment as guardian citing caregiving role – Court held that given the conflicting claims regarding property transfers, it would be inappropriate to appoint any interested party as guardian – Ordered appointment of an independent Court Officer as guardian ad litem for PC (D3) – Held: Inquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 satisfied; independent guardian warranted to ensure fairness [Paras 44-64].

Medical Examination – Collection of Evidence – Court Declined Medical Evaluation – The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ prayer for fresh medical examination of PC (D3), holding that present examination cannot reliably determine the mental state at the time of past transactions and such direction would amount to collection of evidence for a party – Held: Plaintiffs to establish claims via regular evidence, not through compelled medical testing [Paras 53-55].

Fitness of Proposed Guardian – Conflict of Interest – Adverse Interest Barred Appointment – The Court held that SD (D5), having been involved in disputed property transfers and alleged to have acted adversely to PC (D3) and other family members, was not a fit person to act as guardian – Adverse claims and conflicting interests render family members unsuitable for neutral representation – Independent Court officer appointed instead [Paras 58-64].

Scope of Inquiry – Limited to Suit Representation – General Guardianship Left Open – The Court clarified that appointment of guardian ad litem is limited to representation in the suit – Issues of general guardianship under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 or Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 not adjudicated and left open for separate proceedings [Para 65].

Decision – Partial Allowance – Independent Guardian Ad Litem Appointed – Plaintiffs’ prayers for medical examination rejected, appointment of SD (D5) declined – Court appointed Court Officer (Master and Assistant Prothonotary) as guardian ad litem to represent PC (D3) in ongoing suit – Cost of guardian to be borne by Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 jointly [Paras 66(i)-(ii)].

Civil Law - Redemption of Mortgage – Limitation Period under Article 61 Limitation Act, 1963 – Suit for redemption not barred – The suit seeking redemption of usufructuary mortgage executed in 1969 was dismissed by the lower courts as time-barred—Held, limitation for redemption of mortgage accrues from the date when the right to redeem arises—Assignment of mortgage in 1986 created acknowledgment of mortgage rights—The right to redeem remains alive under Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act—Decree of lower courts rejecting redemption suit set aside [Paras 9-23].

Gift Deed – Validity under Section 123 Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Gift upheld – Courts below held gift deed void for lack of proper attestation by two witnesses—Held, Registrar (PW2) acted as attesting witness with sufficient animus, satisfying the statutory requirement—Execution not denied by executant; proviso to Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act applies—Registered gift deed operates as valid transfer of ownership—Decree declaring gift deed invalid is reversed [Paras 24-28].

Counter-Claim – Maintainability under Order VIII Rule 6A CPC – Counter-claim dismissed – Counter-claim was not linked to the suit property or cause of action—Held, counter-claim must arise from cause of action related to the suit and be within limitation—Counter-claim regarding gifted property after long inaction held untenable—Lower courts’ acceptance of counter-claim incorrect and reversed [Paras 29-33].

Injunction Suit – Decree of Injunction Denied – Suit for injunction by respondent dismissed – Plaintiffs having valid redemption and partition rights and existence of valid gift deed disentitles defendants from absolute injunction relief—Decree granting injunction in OS 216/2004 set aside [Paras 34-35].

Final Decision – Judgment of Trial Court and Appellate Court set aside – Redemption suit decreed – Gift deed upheld – Counter-claim dismissed – Injunction suit dismissed – Plaintiffs entitled to partition and costs throughout [Para 35].

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Correction in Preliminary Decree – Sections 152, 153 CPC – Revision Petitions Dismissed – The petitioners challenged the trial court’s order allowing correction in the preliminary decree passed in 1985, whereby the property number in Schedule A was changed from “Plot No. 51” to “Plot No. 57”, Veer Nagar, Jain Colony, Delhi – Petitioners contended they were bona fide purchasers without notice of partition proceedings and that the correction prejudiced their proprietary rights – The Court held that the correction was clerical in nature, permissible under Sections 152,153 CPC, and necessary to reflect the actual subject matter involved in the original suit – The Court refused to decide on lis pendens or title of petitioners, leaving that open to be decided under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC – Revision petitions found to be devoid of merit and dismissed [Paras 20-24, 28-29].

Correction of Decree – Typographical Error in Property Number – Sections 152, 153 CPC – Correction Allowed – The preliminary decree mistakenly referred to the property as Plot No. 51 instead of Plot No. 57 – Defendant No.10, the original owner, had clearly identified the correct property in his written statement – Held: Trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Sections 152/153 CPC to correct a clerical error which did not change the subject matter or nature of the decree – Substantial justice must prevail over technical mistakes [Paras 20-24].

Lis Pendens – Claim of Bona Fide Purchaser – Determination Deferred – Petitioners contended that their title was protected as they purchased the property during pendency without knowledge of the litigation – Held: Since the present revision was confined to correction of the decree, the question of lis pendens or validity of purchasers’ claim was left open to be determined in appropriate proceedings under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC or otherwise – No adjudication on merits of title [Para 28].

Procedural Objection – Multiple Orders Challenged in Single Petition – Objection Raised – Respondents raised the issue that multiple orders were impugned in a single revision – Held: Though not conclusively ruled upon, the Court proceeded to dispose of the revision on merits in interest of justice [Para 17].

Finality of Partition – Longstanding Decree Not to be Undermined – Partition proceedings initiated in 1982 were upheld by Supreme Court in 2016 – Petitioners raised objections only after appointment of Local Commissioner for final decree – Held: Allowing such objections would defeat the purpose of a decree that had attained finality – Courts must prevent delay and obstruction in execution of lawful decrees [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Revision Petitions Dismissed – The correction of property description in the preliminary decree from Plot No. 51 to Plot No. 57 was upheld – Petitioners’ claim of being innocent purchasers without notice was not adjudicated – All pending applications disposed of – No merit found in either revision petition [Para 29].

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Domestic Enquiry – Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the dismissal order and subsequent Labour Court award rejecting his claim – Alleged embezzlement of ₹500 proved in enquiry – Court held it is not within its scope under Article 226 to reassess sufficiency of evidence – Only “no evidence” can invite interference – Labour Court’s conclusion upheld [Paras 1-8].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Court Refused to Reassess Merits – Following Supreme Court rulings, the Court reiterated that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not grounds for interference – Interference under Article 226 only permissible where findings are perverse or based on no evidence – None found in present case [Paras 6-7].

Punishment – Proportionality – Embezzlement Proven – Dismissal Held Justified – Petitioner argued that returning the embezzled sum negated need for harsh punishment – Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that refund does not nullify misconduct – Dismissal not shockingly disproportionate to the proven charge [Paras 9-12].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Labour Court Award Affirmed – Writ petition dismissed – No perversity or legal infirmity found in Labour Court’s evaluation or award [Paras 13-14].

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence – Requirement of Domestic Relationship – DV Act – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of Trial and Appellate Courts which held that no domestic relationship existed between her and Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 since 2013 – Held: The petitioner was residing in a separate household since 2013 and no present or continuing threat of domestic violence existed – No specific allegations against Respondents 5 and 6 and complaint filed after 21 years of marriage without new incidents – Petition dismissed [Paras 4–6, 12–15, 23–25].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Scope Limited – No Perversity Found – Petition Dismissed - High Court reiterated that interference under Section 482 CrPC is limited to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Held: No perversity or abuse of process found in the impugned concurrent orders – Complaint lacked specific, timely and credible allegations against Respondents 3, 5 and 6 – Petition dismissed [Paras 13, 24].

Allegations Against Relatives – General Allegations Insufficient – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Petition Dismissed - Allegations against in-laws were vague, stale, and unsupported by material particulars – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, such omnibus allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution under DV Act – Criminal process not to be used as pressure tactic – Petition dismissed [Paras 15–22].

Right of Residence – Misplaced Reliance on Supreme Court Ruling – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner relied on Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi to sustain complaint against in-laws – Held: No claim of shared household or residence sought against in-laws; prayer limited to alternate accommodation – Reliance misplaced – Petition dismissed [Para 22].

Criminal Proceedings – Need for Specificity – SC Guidance in Geddam Jhansi and Kamal Cases – General Allegations Quashed - Court emphasized that domestic violence complaints must contain specific allegations supported by material facts – Held: Bald claims and delayed filing after years of separation cannot justify issuance of summons – Criminal proceedings rightly quashed [Paras 17, 19–21].

Final Order – Petition Dismissed – No Cost – Petition lacked merit and failed to show legal infirmity in lower court orders – Proceedings already abated against deceased Respondent No. 4 – Petition dismissed in entirety [Paras 10, 25].