Income Tax – TDS Credit – Non-reflection in Form 26AS – Refund entitlement – Petitioner, a cooperative society exempt under Section 80P, sought refund of TDS deducted for A.Y. 2009–10 to 2015–16 – Department refused refund citing mismatch with Form 26AS – Held: Once assessee furnishes Form 16A evidencing deduction, Assessing Officer must verify and grant credit even if TDS is not reflected in Form 26AS – Assessee cannot be denied refund for fault of deductor [Paras 3–5, 8–9].

Tax Administration – CBDT Circular No. 05/2013 – Compliance – CBDT directed that when assessee produces TDS certificate, Assessing Officer must verify payment with deductor and grant due credit – High Court reiterates that AOs are bound to follow the circular and cannot compel taxpayers to suffer delays caused by third parties [Paras 7–8].

Writ Jurisdiction – Mandamus – Refund of wrongly withheld TDS – Court follows Delhi High Court’s Court on Its Motion v. CIT and Allahabad High Court’s Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. UOI – Mandamus issued directing AO to verify petitioner’s documents and pass refund order within four weeks – Assessee entitled to rely on cited precedents and CBDT circular before AO [Paras 4, 6, 9–11].

Decision:

Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no.3 to verify Form 16A certificates and issue refund in accordance with law within four weeks.

Customs Law – Import Clearance – Out of Charge – DRI Officer’s Post-Clearance Action – Petitioner’s goods (dry dates) cleared under Section 47 of Customs Act after full verification by Customs, FSSAI, and Ministry of Agriculture – Despite clearance and gate pass, goods forcibly brought back to CFS by DRI Officer based on unverified intelligence alleging Pakistani origin – Held: Action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) in securing return of cleared goods was arbitrary, not supported by law or legal procedure – No lawful revocation or show cause notice preceded such retrieval – Violation of natural justice and rule of law [Paras 1–7, 12–23, 33–34, 45, 54].

Customs Act – Section 47 – Legal Finality of Clearance Order – Goods once cleared for home consumption upon satisfaction by proper officer cannot be interfered with without following due process – No proceedings under Section 124 initiated – Held: Sixth Respondent’s telephonic “requests” to reverse clearance orders circumvented legal remedies available under Customs Act – Clearance once made under Section 47 cannot be undone without lawful proceedings [Paras 4, 19–23, 30–32, 37, 54].

Administrative Law – Natural Justice and Rule of Law – Highhanded action by government officer divesting goods already cleared without issuing notice or recording reasons – Held: Any civil consequence must be preceded by due process – Mere reliance on intelligence not enough – Absence of any file notings, written orders, or ‘reason to believe’ vitiates the action – Colour of office cannot replace colour of law [Paras 17, 23, 26–29, 31–33, 39, 54].

Powers of DRI – Section 106 Customs Act – Improper Invocation – DRI Officer relied on Section 106 to justify stopping and retrieval of goods – Held: Section 106 applies to smuggling suspicion before clearance – Goods in question already cleared after 6 days of examination – No lawful authority shown for recalling cleared goods post Out of Charge – Section 106 not attracted [Paras 24–26, 28, 32].

Disputed Origin – Pakistani Origin Allegation – Dry dates alleged to have originated in Karachi and routed through UAE – Clearance granted after specific examination instructions on Pakistani origin – Court refuses to adjudicate origin dispute under Article 226 – Directs Customs to issue show cause and follow due process [Paras 10–11, 38–42, 44–45, 54].

Remedy – Equitable Relief – Court refuses to order immediate release but imposes time-bound direction for issuance and adjudication of show cause notice – If not done, directs release of goods upon redemption fine/bank guarantee – Balances petitioner’s commercial interests with revenue’s concerns [Paras 47–50, 55].

Decision: Writ Petition partly allowed – Court holds action of DRI Officer (Respondent No. 6) arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of natural justice – However, in the interest of balancing equities, permits Customs Authorities to issue show cause notice within 4 weeks and dispose of it within 6 weeks of reply – If not complied, goods to be released upon furnishing bank guarantee for redemption fine – Rule made partly absolute – No costs [Paras 54–56].

Criminal Procedure – Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Power to Recall Witness – Investigating Officer – Application for recalling PW-12, Inspector Subhash Singh, rejected by trial court – Witness had investigated the case and received crucial electronic evidence (CD and pendrive) from deceased witness Sanjay (Ex-Sarpanch) – Held: Trial Court erred in dismissing application mechanically – In a murder trial, it is imperative that every material aspect of investigation be brought before the court – Recall of IO necessary to ensure complete and fair adjudication [Paras 1–3, 6–7].

Evidence – Electronic Evidence – CCTV Footage – Pendrive and CD handed to IO by deceased Ex-Sarpanch contained CCTV footage showing co-accused Ravinder at another location (library in Delhi) at time of offence – Such material potentially exculpatory – Re-examination of IO essential to bring this on record [Paras 3, 6].

Fair Trial – Duty of Court – In serious offences like murder, trial court must ensure full disclosure of investigative facts – Power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to be exercised to discover truth and render complete justice – Technical objections regarding “filling lacunae” cannot override requirement of fairness [Paras 6–7].

Summoning under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Relevance – Accused Ravinder, initially found innocent, was later summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. – Additional evidence from IO could aid determination of his true involvement – Court directed to permit recall of witness for complete evidence [Para 6].

Decision: Revision allowed – Order of trial court dated 11.09.2025 set aside – Trial Court directed to recall PW-12, Inspector Subhash Singh, along with case records for re-examination regarding all investigative facts and electronic evidence – All pending applications disposed of [Paras 7–8].

Maintenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Quantum – Concealment of Income – Revision Dismissed – Revisionist-husband, a company director, challenged Family Court order directing payment of ₹20,000/- p.m. each to wife and daughter – He alleged that maintenance was excessive considering his income of ₹2.4 lakh p.a. – Wife alleged concealment of true income and production of manipulated ITRs – Documentary evidence showed deposits exceeding ₹67 lakh in company accounts and assets worth over ₹1 crore – Court found deliberate suppression of income – Held: Revisionist had sufficient means and moral/legal duty to maintain wife and daughter [Paras 15–27].

Wife Living Separately – Justifiable Cause – Evidence showed wife was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment – Husband failed to cross-examine her on key allegations – Trial court rightly held that she was living separately for sufficient reasons [Paras 10–11].

Wife’s Qualification – Capability to Earn – Effect – Wife, though qualified (B.Com and Interior Design Diploma), left employment at husband’s insistence – Presently unemployed and caring for minor child – Mere capability to work not ground to deny maintenance [Paras 12–14].

Standard of Living – Principle of Parity – Wife entitled to live in similar standard as husband – Husband’s attempt to evade liability by showing reduced income rejected – Maintenance to ensure dignity and prevent destitution – Court reiterated that sustenance implies living consistent with family status [Paras 18–22].

Determination of Quantum – Guiding Principles – Reaffirmed Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 – Maintenance must be reasonable and realistic, neither oppressive nor meagre – Financial capacity, lifestyle, inflation, and dependent obligations to be considered [Para 23].

Presumption – Able-Bodied Husband – Following Chander Prakash Bodhraj v. Shila Rani (AIR 1968 Del 174) – Able-bodied man presumed capable of earning sufficient to maintain wife and child; concealment of income invites adverse inference [Para 28].

Decision: Criminal Revision dismissed – Family Court order upheld – ₹20,000/- per month each to wife and minor daughter affirmed – No interference warranted [Para 30].

Application for regular bail in a case involving grievous assaults stemming from prior enmity and extortion demands – alleged repeated attacks on complainant and his nephew, including within hospital premises – petitioner identified as principal assailant with multiple past criminal involvements.

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Appeal Against Acquittal – Respondent accused of driving a tanker rashly and hitting a cyclist who died on the spot – Eyewitness accounts (PW5 and PW6) found inconsistent, contradictory, and uncorroborated by physical evidence – No mechanical inspection of the cycle conducted – Tanker inspection showed no fresh damage – No photographs or reliable scene reconstruction adduced – Held: Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Acquittal justified [Paras 2–6, 13–15, 20–21].

Evidence – Eyewitness Credibility – Contradictions – PW6 claimed to witness the accident from both inside and outside a bus – PW5 admitted he did not see the driver – Statements made under Section 161 CrPC by PW6 contradicted his court deposition – No proof of witness presence at scene through memos or photographs – Held: Testimonies unreliable and insufficient for conviction [Paras 5, 13–14].

Criminal Procedure – Appeal Against Acquittal – Double Presumption of Innocence – Acquittal by Trial Court reinforces presumption of innocence – Appellate court must be cautious in overturning acquittals unless the trial court’s view is wholly unreasonable or perverse – Held: Trial Court’s view was a plausible one based on evidence – No grounds for interference [Paras 17–19].

IPC Section 304A – Requirement of Proof – Essential ingredients include rash or negligent act directly causing death – High speed alone not sufficient to infer rashness – Mere occurrence of accident not proof of negligence – Held: In absence of evidence on speed, traffic conditions, or manner of driving, conviction under Section 304A cannot be sustained [Paras 10–12, 16].

Presumption of Negligence – Res Ipsa Loquitur – Inapplicability – Held: Principle applies only when circumstances unmistakably point to negligence – Not attracted merely because an accident occurred – Criminal negligence must be established through specific evidence, not inference [Para 10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of respondent under Sections 279 and 304A IPC upheld – Court finds prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent act beyond reasonable doubt – Trial Court’s judgment found reasonable, based on lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in prosecution case – Double presumption of innocence reinforced [Paras 20–21].

Motor Accident Compensation – Quantum Awarded in Excess of Claim – Just Compensation – Tribunal awarded ₹1.3 Crores against claimed ₹82 Lakhs – Insurance Company objected to grant of compensation beyond claim – Held: Under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, courts and tribunals are empowered to grant “just compensation” irrespective of claimed amount – Social welfare legislation permits award above claimed figure to meet ends of justice – No legal embargo on granting compensation more than what is claimed [Paras 42-52] –

Assessment of Income – Guesswork in Absence of Documentary Proof – Permissible – Claimant’s income assessed as ₹20,000/month though no tax returns or formal proof was filed – Tribunal relied on lease agreements, oral testimony, and surrounding circumstances – Held: In motor accident cases, adjudication of income can involve reasonable estimation or guesswork where evidence is credible – Income determined by tribunal based on broad-based judicial approach found justified [Paras 53-61] –

Permanent Disability – Evidence – Medical and Lay Witnesses – Compensation for Future Care – Claimant rendered 100% disabled due to spinal cord injury (C5-C6) – Evidence from 20 witnesses including treating doctors, physiotherapists, hospital administrators, and attendants established permanent incapacitation – Costs of long-term physiotherapy, personal assistants, and medical expenses proved – Tribunal’s award supported by extensive documentary and oral evidence [Paras 17-41] –

Appeal – Scope of Interference – Appellate Court's Deference to Tribunal’s Factual Findings – Insurance Company challenged only two components: compensation exceeding claim and lack of income proof – Tribunal’s findings on all other heads of compensation remained unchallenged – Held: Where tribunal takes a possible view based on evidence, appellate court will not interfere unless findings are perverse or unsupported by record [Paras 62-63] –

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Tribunal’s award of ₹1.3 Crores upheld – Insurance Company and other respondents directed to deposit awarded amount within 2 months – Claimant permitted to withdraw full compensation without security – No costs [Paras 63-64].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Legally Enforceable Debt – Time-barred loan – Cheques issued in 2009 for loan and presented in 2013 – Dishonoured for “insufficient funds” – Appellate court held loan time-barred and acquitted accused – Held: Under Section 25(3) of Indian Contract Act, cheque itself constitutes written promise to pay a time-barred debt; therefore, liability is legally enforceable – Acquittal unsustainable [Paras 7–8, 18–19, 25–26].

Presumption – Sections 118 & 139 of N.I. Act – Once signature and execution of cheque admitted, presumption arises that cheque issued for discharge of liability – Burden lies on accused to rebut by cogent evidence – Accused failed to prove repayment or misuse of security cheque – Presumption unrebutted [Paras 17, 20, 24].

Security Cheque – Validity – Defence that cheques were given as security rejected – Even security cheques mature for presentation upon default in repayment – Dishonour attracts Section 138 – Reliance on Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2022) 18 SCC 614 [Para 23].

Limitation – Cheque towards Time-barred Debt – Cheque operates as fresh promise in writing under Section 25(3) of Contract Act reviving enforceability – Complaint maintainable despite lapse of limitation period for underlying loan [Paras 18–19, 25].

Case Law Applied – A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna, (2002) 2 SCC 642; S. Natarajan v. Sama Dharman, (2021) 6 SCC 413; K. Hymavathi v. State of A.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1128 – All affirm the principle that cheque for time-barred debt constitutes valid enforceable liability [Paras 19–20].

Scope of Revision – Section 397/401 CrPC – Revisional court justified in interfering with perverse acquittal ignoring binding precedent and statutory presumptions [Paras 26–28].

Decision: Revisions by complainant allowed – Acquittal orders dated 06.04.2018 set aside – Trial court’s conviction and sentence dated 13.11.2017 restored – Revision by accused dismissed – One conviction by appellate court affirmed [Paras 28–29].

Municipal Laws – NDMC Act – Misuse of Premises – Complaint under Section 252 read with Section 369(1) – Allegation that petitioner, an advocate, used basement of residential premises as office – Held: Legal profession is not a commercial or business activity – Office of an advocate not a “commercial establishment” – Complaint unsustainable [Paras 4–6, 20–24].

Profession vs. Commercial Activity – Distinction – Legal profession depends on individual skill and intellectual effort – No trading or profit motive – Supreme Court precedents (V. Sasidharan v. Peter & Karunakar, AIR 1984 SC 1700; M.P. Electricity Board v. Narayan, (2005) 7 SCC 283) establish that a lawyer’s office is not a commercial establishment [Paras 20–22].

Master Development Plan & Building Bye-Laws – Permissible Use – Clause 10 of MDP 2001 allows 25% of residential premises or 50 sq.m., whichever less, for professional use – Clause 14.12.1(vii) of Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983 permits basement use for office or commercial purpose if air-conditioned – Petitioner’s office met these requirements – No violation shown [Paras 29–34].

Inspection Report – Deficiency – No evidence that basement violated height, ventilation, or FAR norms – Inspection failed to note air-conditioning or other structural aspects – Held: No prima facie case of misuse made out [Paras 33–35].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of Complaint – Pendency of 22-year-old case based on unsubstantiated allegations constitutes abuse of process – In absence of offence under Section 252 NDMC Act, proceedings quashed under Section 482 CrPC following State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 [Paras 36–37].

Decision: Petition allowed – Complaint No. 487/2004 under Section 252 read with Section 369(1) NDMC Act and all consequential proceedings quashed – Pending applications disposed [Para 37–38