Land Acquisition – Enhancement of Compensation – Market Value – Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Appeal Dismissed – Land bearing Gat No. 307 admeasuring 82,200 sq. mt. at Village Kusgaon acquired vide Section 4 Notification dated 19 December 1996 – SLAO awarded compensation at Rs. 14.5 per sq. mt. solely on the basis of Ready Reckoner rates – Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 500 per sq. mt. – Respondent-Claimant accepted the enhanced compensation – On appeal, Held: SLAO's reliance solely on Ready Reckoner rates for determining compensation is legally impermissible – Ready Reckoner rates are meant for collection of stamp duty and cannot form the basis for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act [Paras 49–54].

Valuation – Expert Report – Registered Government Valuer – Weightage – Valuer determined market value at Rs. 950 per sq. mt. after applying 25% deduction from base rate of Rs. 1273.10 per sq. mt. – Valuation report took into account proximity to Lonavala Municipal Council limits, non-agricultural and industrial potentiality, hill-top location with resort/farmhouse potential, availability of basic amenities in vicinity, and comparable sale instances – Held: Expert valuation report is entitled to due weightage and cannot be ignored – Appellant failed to controvert the report [Paras 56–57].

Comparable Sale Instances – Deductions Towards Development Charges – Six sale instances at Exhibit 13 considered – Closest exemplar being first sale instance dated 7 September 1995 for land at village Bhangarwadi at Rs. 787 per sq. mt. – Reference Court applied further deductions beyond the 25% already deducted by the Valuer to arrive at Rs. 500 per sq. mt. – Held: Deduction of approximately 35% from first sale instance and approximately 45% from Valuer's figure reflects a holistic and reasoned determination – Large area of land not fetching the same rate as small plots is not an absolute proposition [Paras 60–73].

Principle of Guesstimation – Compensation Determination – Held: Determination of compensation for acquired land is not an exact science – In absence of direct evidence and comparable exemplars, Court may resort to informed estimation (guesstimation) grounded in evidence and relevant factors – Exercise must be holistic, considering characteristics of land, its future potentiality, and market sentiment – Sliding scale of judicial discretion cannot be extended to mere speculation – Reference Court's findings are within permissible limits of discretion and do not warrant interference [Paras 75, 83].

Deductions – Development Charges – Upper Limit of 75% – No Straight-Jacket Formula – Held: Deductions towards development charges vary depending on facts and circumstances of each case – Upper benchmark of 75% is the maximum permissible limit and is not automatically applicable – Reference Court's determination of Rs. 500 per sq. mt. after considering negative factors under Section 24 of the Act is neither perverse nor excessive [Paras 70–72, 81].

Decision: First Appeal dismissed – Reference Court's Impugned Judgment dated 2 June 2007 confirmed – Respondent permitted to withdraw decretal amount of Rs. 3,99,06,045/- deposited with the Registry, along with accrued interest, within four weeks – No order as to costs – Judgment not to be acted upon for four weeks from date of uploading.

Matrimonial Law – Interim Maintenance – Section 125 CrPC – Writ under Article 227 – Petition Dismissed – Husband challenged the Family Court's order awarding Rs. 20,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife, contending that the wife was independently employed earning over Rs. 40,000/- per month and that he himself was unemployed following retrenchment – Held: An able-bodied husband with documented professional qualifications and substantial prior income cannot evade maintenance obligation by citing unemployment – Family Court's order upheld as just and reasonable – Writ Petition dismissed – Arrears directed to be cleared within three months [Paras 16–21].

Capacity to Pay – Presumption Against Unemployed Husband – TDS Records as Evidence of Earning Capacity – Petitioner-husband, a qualified software engineer, claimed unemployment since 08.09.2023 following organizational restructuring – However, TDS statements for 2022–2024 disclosed total taxable income of Rs. 45,50,288/- and Rs. 66,29,532/- respectively – Petitioner also owned a 3BHK house in Yelahanka and two properties in the United Kingdom – Held: Past lucrative income and professional qualifications establish continued capacity to fulfill matrimonial obligations – Mere plea of unemployment is insufficient to negate liability [Paras 6, 13–14, 17].

Wife's Employment – Not an Absolute Bar to Maintenance – Status Gap – Respondent-wife, an M.Sc. holder employed as Administrative Support (SQA) at Elanco, Bangalore, earning Rs. 40,000/- per month – Held: Gainful employment of wife does not automatically disentitle her to maintenance – Court must assess whether wife's income suffices to maintain a lifestyle commensurate with that enjoyed during marriage – Given the husband's documented high income during marriage, wife's salary did not bridge the status gap [Paras 7, 18].

Quantum of Maintenance – Conservative and Supportive – Wife initially sought Rs. 70,000/- per month – Family Court judiciously reduced the amount to Rs. 20,000/- – High Court found this to be a conservative figure aimed at preventing destitution relative to the husband's status – No jurisdictional error or patent illegality found warranting supervisory interference under Article 227 [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Impugned order dated 04.08.2025 of the IV Addl. Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No. 685/2022 upheld – Petitioner directed to clear all arrears of interim maintenance within three months from the date of this order.

GST – Consolidated Show-Cause Notice – Multiple Financial Years – Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Reference to Larger Bench – Petitioners challenged single consolidated show-cause notices issued under Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act clubbing multiple financial years as being without jurisdiction — Contention based on co-ordinate Bench decision in Milroc Good Earth Developers v. Union of India holding no provision exists in CGST Act to club various tax periods — Revenue contended that the Delhi High Court in Mathur Polymers v. UOI & Ors. and Ambika Traders v. Commr. upheld consolidated notices, and the Supreme Court dismissed SLPs against both decisions, with the dismissal in Mathur Polymers being by a speaking order — Held: Significant legal issues not expressly considered in Milroc deserve consideration by a Larger Bench — Matter referred accordingly [Paras 9–31].

Consolidated Show-Cause Notice – Sections 73(1) and 73(3)/74(1) and 74(3) – Plain Reading – Held: Prima facie, on a plain reading of Sections 73 and 74 read conjointly, sub-section (3) specifically uses the words "for any period under sub-section (1)" and "such periods other than those covered under sub-section (1)", indicating legislative awareness and permission for notices covering different periods — To restrict sub-section (1) to a single financial year would amount to reading something into the provision which the legislature deliberately avoided — Sub-section (10) prescribes limitation only for passing of orders under sub-section (9) and does not in any manner restrict or create an embargo on issuance of a show-cause notice under sub-section (1) — A limitation to pass an order cannot be construed as a limitation on issuance of a show-cause notice — The two are independent statutory concepts [Paras 17–28].

Cleavage of Opinion – High Courts – Milroc vs. Mathur Polymers – Co-ordinate benches of the Bombay High Court at Goa and Nagpur as well as the High Courts of Kerala, Madras and Karnataka held consolidated notices impermissible — Delhi High Court and Allahabad High Court held such notices permissible — Supreme Court dismissed SLP against Mathur Polymers by speaking order — Held: Decision of Supreme Court dismissing SLP by speaking order constitutes a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution binding as per Kunhayammed and Ors. — Milroc may not lay down the correct position in law as it relied on Madras High Court decisions which in turn misapplied the Supreme Court judgment in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Caltex India, which dealt with validity of parts of a combined assessment order and not prohibition on consolidated notices [Paras 4, 24–26].

GST Policy Wing Clarification – Dated 16.09.2025 – Noticees' Rights Preserved – Clarification issued by the GST Policy Wing categorically states that consolidation of proceedings does not extend or alter the limitation period prescribed for each individual financial year — Each year stands independently for calculation of limitation — Held: Noticees are always entitled to raise objections that demand for a particular period is time-barred and the proper officer is bound to consider such objection and confine determination to periods within limitation [Para 27–28].

Questions of Law Referred to Larger Bench: (1) Whether sub-section (10) of Sections 73/74 controls sub-section (1) so as to prohibit consolidated show-cause notices for different years; (2) Whether sub-section (10) per se prohibits issuance of a single consolidated show-cause notice for multiple financial years/tax periods; (3) What is the effect of Section 160 of the CGST Act on proceedings initiated under Sections 73/74 by consolidated show-cause notice; (4) Whether Milroc Good Earth Developers lays down the correct position in law; (5) What is the legal position brought about by the Supreme Court's speaking order in Mathur Polymers under Article 141 of the Constitution [Para 30].

Decision: Matter referred to the Larger Bench for decision on five questions of law — Registry directed to place papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of Larger Bench — Interim orders in all matters to continue till decision by Larger Bench.

Review Jurisdiction — Scope and Limitations — Minimum Wages Act, 1948 — Appropriate Government — Review petition filed by workman challenging Division Bench judgment which held that State Government, and not Central Government, was the appropriate government under Section 2(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, where workman was employed by a private contractor and deployed at a nationalised bank — Division Bench had set aside the order of the Authority under the Act and remitted the matter to the Divisional Labour Commissioner — Held: None of the grounds urged in the review petition constitute an error apparent on the face of the record; contentions relating to appropriate government, employer's identity under Section 2(e), and scheduled employment under "watch and ward" were all considered and decided by the Division Bench and cannot be re-agitated in review — Review petition dismissed [Paras 22–29].

Review Petition — Change of Counsel — Maintainability — Review petitioner, a workman, appeared through a different advocate who was not part of the earlier Division Bench proceedings — Opposite Party No.1 objected relying on Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, (1997) 9 SCC 736 — Court took a lenient view given the difficulties faced by a workman in engaging earlier counsel — Principle that review petitions should not be filed routinely with change of counsel as a second attempt at hearing on merits, noted and applied [Paras 12–13].

Review Jurisdiction — Principles Governing — Error Apparent on Face of Record — Distinction from Appellate Power — Review maintainable only upon: (i) discovery of new and important matter not within knowledge despite due diligence; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason analogous to the foregoing — Review not maintainable where: grounds are mere repetition of rejected arguments; only an alternative view is possible; appreciation of evidence is sought to be reopened; or the petition is an appeal in disguise — Held: The grounds urged do not satisfy any of the maintainable parameters; they amount to re-arguments of rejected contentions and reappraisal of evidence — Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited, (2019) 4 SCC 376, distinguished as inapplicable to the present context [Paras 14–29].

Decision: Review application dismissed — No costs.

Civil Procedure – Local Commissioner – Appointment under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Scope and Limitations – Petitioner filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with or raising construction over Khasra No. 722, on which a Kuhl (water channel) exists between the lands of the parties – Trial Court dismissed the application for appointment of a Local Commissioner on the ground that it cannot be used to collect or create evidence for a party – Held: Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is not a panacea to be invoked by litigants who are unable to prove their case; the satisfaction for ordering a local investigation must be that of the Court, not of the parties – Petition dismissed [Paras 21–29].

Burden of Proof – Encroachment – Plaintiff Must Stand on Own Legs – It is a basic principle of law that he who alleges must prove – The plaintiff alleged encroachment over Khasra No. 722 by the defendants but failed to lead any independent or reliable evidence to substantiate the same – No steps were shown to have been taken before revenue authorities for demarcation prior to filing the application – The Court cannot lend a helping hand to a party to prove its own case through the mechanism of a Local Commissioner [Paras 20, 25, 29].

State Land – Necessary Party – Plaintiff's Locus – DW 2, the Revenue Officer, stated in cross-examination that Khasra No. 722 is owned by the State of H.P. – In the absence of the State as a party, no relief on the application could be granted to the petitioner – Even if encroachment were assumed, the affected party would be the State and not the plaintiff, who has failed to establish any right over the said Khasra [Para 19].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Impugned order of the trial Court dated 23.06.2025 dismissing the application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC upheld – No jurisdictional error found – Pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Eviction — Public Sector Undertaking — Loss of Rent Control Protection — MRC Act — Revision Dismissed — Applicant-IOCL operated a retail fuel outlet on suit premises at Kurla, Mumbai, held on lease from 1967 — Lease expired on 12.10.1997 — Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (MRC Act), which excluded public sector undertakings and companies with paid-up capital of ₹1 crore or more, replaced Bombay Rent Act from 31.03.2000 — MRC Act also inapplicable to open lands — Tenancy terminated by notice dated 27.11.2002 under Section 106 TPA — Trial Court decreed eviction Suit; Appellate Bench confirmed — Held: IOCL lost protection from eviction and rent escalation upon coming into force of MRC Act; concurrent findings of Trial and Appellate Courts affirmed; revision dismissed [Paras 15, 42, 43, 44].

Section 213, Indian Succession Act — Probate — Suit for Eviction — Not a Suit to Establish Right Under Will — Section 213 bars a legatee or executor from establishing any right in respect of bequeathed property in a court of justice without probate — However, Section 213 has no application where the suit is not founded on the Will and the plaintiff does not seek to establish any right under the Will — A landlord suing a tenant for recovery of possession need not prove title; establishment of landlord-tenant relationship suffices — Where the plaint contains no reference to the Will and is framed on the basis of landlord-tenant relationship, Section 213 is inapplicable — Held: Suit not based on Will; objection on ground of want of probate rejected [Paras 20, 21, 22, 41].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship — Estoppel — Payment of Rent — Section 116 Evidence Act — Applicant-IOCL offered rent to Plaintiff No. 1 (Mrs. Perviz Patel) through letters spanning December 2002 to June 2024 — IOCL itself acknowledged ownership of Plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 in a Suit filed by it bearing No. 487 of 2017 — Held: IOCL having admitted landlord-tenant relationship by offering rent and acknowledging ownership, is estopped from questioning title of Plaintiffs or their right to sue — Payment of rent is sufficient to establish landlord-tenant relationship [Paras 25, 26, 35].

Power of Attorney — Maintainability of Suit — Institution and Evidence — Verification of plaint by constituted attorney does not mean the suit is filed by the attorney in personal capacity — A power of attorney holder, to the extent of his personal knowledge, can depose as a witness — In the present case, the constituted attorney (Plaintiff No. 4/Papeyon) had personal knowledge of issuance of the termination notice and deposed accordingly — Plaintiff No. 4 was the power of attorney holder of the original Plaintiffs at the time of filing suit in 2003; conveyance in its favour was executed only on 29.07.2011 — Held: Suit maintainable; evidence of constituted attorney, based on personal knowledge, not liable to be discarded [Paras 36, 37, 38, 39, 40].

Termination Notice — Validity — Issuance by Power of Attorney Holder — Termination notice dated 27.11.2002 issued on behalf of three original Plaintiffs — Mere fact that the constituted attorney gave instructions for issuance does not mean notice was issued on attorney's behalf — Notice bore no indication that it was issued on behalf of the attorney — IOCL did not dispute factual receipt of the notice — Held: Termination notice validly issued on behalf of original Plaintiffs; tenancy validly terminated [Para 37].

Section 213 Indian Succession Act — Scope — Right as Legatee/Executor vs. Right in Other Capacity — Section 213 bars only establishment of right as executor or legatee and not right in any other capacity — Where a legatee files suit for recovery of possession from a tenant in capacity as landlord, and not for declaration of title under the Will, Section 213 is no bar — Distinction between right under a Will and right arising otherwise clearly established — Held: Applicant's reliance on Section 213 wholly misplaced; the provision does not operate to bar a landlord-tenant suit where Will is neither pleaded nor relied upon [Paras 21, 34, 35, 41].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed — Concurrent findings of Trial Court and Appellate Bench affirmed — No costs — Stay not continued.

Commercial Law – Recovery of Dues – Inter-State Sale of Goods – 'C' Form Declarations – Respondent-plaintiff, manufacturer of Tapioca Starch and Sago, sued appellants for recovery of outstanding dues of Rs. 25,08,218/- and Rs. 33,08,069/- respectively based on books of accounts, invoices, and 'C' Form declarations under the Central Sales Tax Act – Appellants denied liability contending invoices were fabricated and all dues fully settled – Held: Once 'C' Form declarations are signed and accepted by the appellants, the burden shifts to them to prove that the entire amount was paid and no dues remain – Appellants failed to discharge this burden – Trial Court decree upheld [Paras 17-18].

Limitation – Extension During COVID-19 Pandemic – Last payment made by appellants on 29.08.2017 / 20.07.2017 – Three-year limitation period would ordinarily have expired in 2020 – Suits filed on 23.05.2022 – Held: In view of the Supreme Court order in Suo Motu W.P. No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022 extending the period of limitation during the pandemic period, the suit claims were within limitation – First point answered in favour of respondent [Paras 15].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Civil Standard – Auditor's Report – Appellants produced Auditor's Inspection Report (Ex.B2) but failed to examine the auditor as a witness – Mere production of a document without examining the author is insufficient proof – In civil proceedings, once the plaintiff establishes the case on a preponderance of probability, the onus shifts to the defendant – Respondent proved its case through oral and documentary evidence including ledger accounts (Ex.A6), invoices (Ex.A7 series), and 'C' Form declarations (Ex.A8) [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Decrees of the Commercial Court, Salem in C.O.S. Nos. 18 and 19 of 2022 upheld – CMP Nos. 18800 & 18802 of 2024 also dismissed – No order as to costs.

Trademark – Passing Off – Standard of Proof – Distributor Relationship – Appellant, an Italian manufacturer of brass plumbing products, alleged that its erstwhile Indian distributor (respondent) had sold counterfeit or non-genuine goods under its registered trademarks "RB" and "Rubinetterie Bresciane" – Single Judge dismissed the passing off suit on the ground that no material object representing counterfeit products was produced and documentary evidence was inconclusive – Division Bench holds that in a passing off action, the standard is preponderance of probabilities and likelihood of misrepresentation, not conclusive proof of counterfeiting – Suit in C.S. No. 405 of 2014 partly decreed and injunction granted [Paras 49, 57–59, 64–66].

Passing Off – Cumulative Circumstantial Evidence – Respondent admitted appellant's prior adoption and proprietary rights in the trademarks – Respondent internally generated quality certification documents using earlier certificates issued by appellant without authorisation – Respondent sourced similar products from undisclosed third-party manufacturers including those in China while declining to disclose details on grounds of "business secrecy" – Invoices (Ex. P-15) showed supply of Pressure Reducing Valves of 65 mm size, a specification never manufactured or supplied by appellant – Respondent had applied for registration of trademark "RB" in its own name before Trade Marks Registry and claimed prior use, subsequently withdrawing the application – Held: Cumulatively, these circumstances reasonably establish likelihood of misrepresentation and confusion as to origin of goods in the course of trade [Paras 50–54, 58–59].

Documentary Evidence – Appreciation – Typographical Error – Ex. P-9 – Single Judge treated a clerical year-error in an email issued by Apco Trading Company as a material inconsistency undermining appellant's case – Division Bench holds that where documentary and oral evidence (P.W.1, Questions 75–77) clearly explains the discrepancy as a typographical error and the invoice number remains identical, such an error cannot be treated as a substantive inconsistency – Findings of Single Judge on this point unsustainable [Para 55].

Documentary Evidence – Expert Report – Ex. P-10 – Rejection Unjustified – Single Judge discarded third-party laboratory report (Ex. P-10) on the ground that official translation was not filed and the author was not examined – Division Bench holds that absence of certified translation is a curable procedural defect and cannot alone be the basis for wholesale rejection of the report, particularly when no serious objection was raised at the relevant time [Para 56].

Defamation – Commercial Communications – Termination of Distributorship – Appellant issued communications to customers after terminating the distributorship, informing them about the termination and advising purchase only from authorised sources – Single Judge held that since counterfeiting was not proved, the communications were ipso facto defamatory and awarded damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- – Division Bench holds that this approach is legally unsustainable – Defamation requires independent consideration of whether the statements were false, made without lawful justification, and actually caused harm – Communications issued in good faith for protection of legitimate commercial interests based on reasonable apprehension do not ordinarily constitute actionable defamation – Respondent produced no convincing material demonstrating actual loss of reputation or business resulting from the communications – Decree for damages in C.S. No. 891 of 2015 set aside [Paras 60–62, 64].

Damages – Passing Off – Claim Rejected – Appellant also failed to produce clear or reliable evidence of actual or quantifiable loss arising from respondent's conduct – Claim for damages by appellant accordingly rejected – However, absence of proved damages does not defeat entitlement to injunctive relief in a passing off case, as an injunction is primarily intended to prevent continued misrepresentation and protect goodwill associated with the mark [Para 63].

Decision: O.S.A. No. 241 of 2020 partly allowed – O.S.A. No. 255 of 2020 allowed – Common judgment dated 29.11.2019 set aside – C.S. No. 405 of 2014 partly decreed; permanent injunction granted restraining respondent, its agents and persons claiming through it from using appellant's trademark or any identical or deceptively similar mark in a manner likely to represent goods as those of the appellant – Claim for damages by appellant rejected – Decree for damages granted in C.S. No. 891 of 2015 set aside – Appellant permitted to withdraw deposited amounts with accrued interest – No order as to costs – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 64–68].

Civil Law – Res Judicata – Dismissal of Connected Appeal for Non-Prosecution – Finality of Decree – Suits for possession of room measuring 18' x 12' situated on suit land — Trial court and appellate court concurrently held revenue entries in favour of plaintiffs, defendants to be mere trespassers, and suit decreed for vacant possession — Co-defendant Avtar Chand filed RSA No. 368 of 2006 before High Court; dismissed for non-prosecution on 22.12.2008 — Remaining defendants' appeals (RSA Nos. 365 and 366 of 2006) pending — Held: Dismissal of RSA No. 368 of 2006 rendered decree for vacant possession final; adjudicating present appeals could produce conflicting decrees — Present appeals barred by res judicata and dismissed [Paras 19–23].

"Order 41 Rule 4 CPC — Not Available Where Appeal Already Filed Jointly by All Defendants" – Appellants sought to sustain present appeals by invoking Order 41 Rule 4 CPC, contending that one co-defendant could obtain reversal of whole decree on a ground common to all — Held: Order 41 Rule 4 applies at the stage of filing an appeal and enables one plaintiff or defendant to file appeal against whole decree; once all defendants file jointly, Rule 4 is unavailable — Furthermore, where decree has attained finality against one co-defendant due to dismissal of his appeal, surviving appellants cannot revive that finality through Rule 4 — Ratio of Rameshwar Prasad vs. Shyam Beharilal Jagannath applied [Paras 15–18].

"Dismissal for Non-Prosecution Operates as Res Judicata" – Dismissal of RSA No. 368 of 2006 for non-prosecution resulted in finality of decree for vacant possession in favour of plaintiffs as against Avtar Chand — Adjudicating present appeals and potentially dismissing the suit would create conflicting decrees — Held: Dismissal of appeal even for non-prosecution amounts to res judicata and bars re-agitation of the same matter — Ratio of Prem Raj Sharma vs. Baldev Verma and Asha Devi vs. Dau Dayal applied [Paras 19–21].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed — Substantial Questions of Law Nos. 1 to 3 held redundant — Pending applications disposed of — Records of courts below to be returned forthwith.