Income-tax – Nil Withholding Certificate – Section 197 – Rule 28AA – Rejection of application – Mechanical approach by Assessing Officer – Assessing Officer rejected application solely on ground that determination of income at Section 197 stage is premature and tax must be deducted to protect revenue – Held: Such reasoning contrary to statutory mandate of Rule 28AA which requires consideration of estimated income, tax liability of previous four years, existing liabilities and advance tax – Non-consideration of mandatory parameters vitiates decision-making process [Paras 20–26, 30–32].

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement – India–UK DTAA – Fees for Technical Services – Managerial services – “Make available” test – Petitioner providing routine managerial and administrative support services to Indian subsidiary on cost-to-cost basis – ITAT in petitioner’s own case for AYs 2020-21 and 2021-22 held such services not taxable as FTS under Article 13 – Held: Until set aside, Tribunal’s findings are binding on Revenue authorities [Paras 23, 26–28].

Judicial Discipline – Binding nature of appellate orders – Filing of appeal – Effect – Revenue contended that appeals against ITAT orders were pending – Held: Mere filing of appeal does not render appellate order inoperative – Authorities bound to follow decisions of higher appellate forums as per Kamlakshi Finance Corporation principle [Paras 26–28].

Administrative Law – Speaking order – Section 197 proceedings – Scope – Assessing Officer must record application of mind to statutory factors under Rule 28AA – Order stating that assessment is not possible and deduction is required to safeguard revenue does not meet statutory requirements – Non-application of mind renders order arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 21–22, 30–32].

Remand – Section 197 application – Although impugned order and certificate quashed for failure to follow Rule 28AA – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with law – Direction to decide afresh within four weeks and without being influenced by pendency of appeals unless ITAT orders are set aside or varied [Paras 33–35].

Decision: Impugned order dated 09.06.2025 and certificate dated 30.07.2025 quashed – Matter remanded to Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication under Rule 28AA – Writ petition disposed of.

Tenancy – Eviction – Damage to Premises – Permanent Structure – Lease Permitting “Some Changes” – Scope of Clause – Respondent-tenant made material alterations including demolition of internal walls and creation of new entry without landlady’s permission – Held: Clause 5 of lease permitting “some changes” for hospital use cannot be interpreted as blanket permission for structural changes – Removal of internal walls and making new entry amounts to damage and erection of permanent structure within meaning of Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) of Bombay Rent Act – Appeal Court’s interpretation of Clause 5 found to be perverse – Eviction decree restored on these grounds [Paras 13–24].

Eviction – Change of User – Lease Clause Allowing Conversion from Residential to Hospital Use – No Violation – Clause 5 of lease expressly permitted tenant to use residential portion as hospital – Held: Change of user not made out as per Section 13(1)(k) – Concurrent finding of both courts upheld [Paras 12, 21–22].

Eviction – Bonafide Requirement – Availability of Alternative Premises to Landlady – No Greater Hardship Shown – Landlady had already obtained possession of multiple tenanted premises – Concurrent finding that requirement not bonafide upheld – No interference under Section 115 CPC warranted [Para 11].

Eviction – Nuisance – Allegations of Medical Waste and Misconduct Not Substantiated – Landlady failed to produce independent evidence or witnesses – Allegations were uncorroborated and denied – Concurrent finding of no nuisance upheld [Para 12].

Scope of Revision under Section 115 CPC – Interference Limited to Jurisdictional Errors and Perversity – Appeal Court's findings on permanent structure and damage found perverse and based on misreading of lease clause – Justified interference under Section 115 CPC – Findings on other grounds not interfered with [Paras 10, 18–20].

Decision: Civil Revision Application partly allowed – Appellate Court judgment dated 22/09/2006 set aside to the extent of reversal on grounds under Sections 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) – Trial Court’s eviction decree restored on those grounds – Respondent directed to vacate suit premises within 6 weeks, subject to affidavit of undertaking [Paras 24–28].

Criminal Law – Appeal against Acquittal – Jurisdiction – Section 378 CrPC (Post-2005 Amendment) – Trial Court acquitted accused of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC (all bailable offences) – State preferred appeal before Sessions Court – Sessions Court reversed acquittal and convicted accused – High Court held that in view of Section 378(1)(b) CrPC, appeal against acquittal in bailable offences lies only before the High Court and not before the Court of Sessions – Held: Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction and its judgment is nullity in law [Paras 12–18].

Jurisdiction – Order without authority of law – Effect – Appeal entertained and decided by a Court lacking jurisdiction – Such judgment is void ab initio – Continuation of proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court and violation of Article 21 of Constitution – Held: Judgment of first appellate court liable to be set aside on this ground alone [Paras 15–18].

Criminal Law – Rash and Negligent Driving – Sections 279, 304-A IPC – Standard of proof – Mere occurrence of accident resulting in death or injuries insufficient to sustain conviction – Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur not applicable stricto sensu in criminal trials – Prosecution must establish rashness or negligence beyond reasonable doubt – Held: Burden not discharged by prosecution [Paras 22–23].

Evidence – Appreciation – Interested and unreliable witnesses – PWs.1 to 3 occupants of the car involved in accident and hence interested witnesses – PW2 (driver of car) not tendered for cross-examination despite opportunity – PW3 failed to identify accused or manner of accident – PW4 reached spot after accident and not an eye-witness – None of the witnesses conclusively proved that accused was driving the bus or acted rashly and negligently – Trial Court’s view held to be a possible and reasonable view [Paras 6–8, 25].

Appeal against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Appellate court can reverse acquittal only if trial court’s view is perverse or no reasonable view is possible on evidence – Trial court had properly appreciated evidence and extended benefit of doubt – Sessions Court reversed acquittal without cogent reasons – Held: Reversal unsustainable in law [Paras 19–21, 25].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.02.2013 passed by II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, set aside – Judgment of acquittal dated 07.03.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & JMFC, Bantwal restored and confirmed – Accused acquitted of offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A IPC – Fine, if paid, to be refunded – Amicus Curiae fee of Rs.10,000/- awarded.

Child Custody – Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act – Section 6 – Natural Guardian – Father as natural guardian of minor son – Right not absolute – Subject to welfare of child – Section 13 mandates welfare of minor as paramount consideration – Custody cannot be claimed as a matter of right [Paras 7–10].

Custody of Minor – Welfare Principle – Parens Patriae Jurisdiction – Court duty to assess physical, mental, moral and emotional well-being of child – Financial superiority of one parent not decisive – Welfare to be assessed holistically – Family Court rightly exercised jurisdiction keeping child’s best interest in view [Paras 10–11, 15].

Father Living with Another Woman – Effect on Custody – Appellant admitted relationship and cohabitation with another woman as second wife without divorce – Conduct amounting to cruelty and misconduct – Relevant factor disentitling father from custody – Grant of custody in such circumstances not in welfare of child [Paras 13–15].

Second Marriage / Live-in Relationship – Impact on Child – Though second marriage per se does not bar custody, it is an important factor – Child cannot be placed in uncertain environment with stepmother when secure and settled with biological mother – Supreme Court precedents applied [Paras 14–15].

Mother’s Custody – Stability and Emotional Security – Minor residing with mother since separation – Receiving love, care and stable environment – No material to show mother unfit – Custody with mother held to be in best interest of child [Paras 13, 15–16].

Appellate Interference – Family Court Findings – No perversity or legal infirmity in findings – Appeal under Section 19(1) Family Courts Act dismissed – Family Court judgment affirmed [Paras 16–17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 21.04.2022 of Family Court, Bemetara upheld – Custody of minor Master Yash Joshi to remain with mother – Parties to bear their own costs.

Land Acquisition – Valuation of Compensation – Section 26 of 2013 Act – Highest Exemplar to be Adopted – Deed No.05821 registered before the notification under Section 4 LA Act adopted as basis for compensation – Deduction of structure value permitted – Compensation fixed at Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah – Average sale price and post-notification deeds excluded – Referral Court’s reliance on average valuation and pleadings held perverse [Paras 21–46]

Land Acquisition – Interest on Excess Compensation – Sections 72 and 80 of the 2013 Act – Referral Court failed to consider statutory interest on excess and principal compensation – Entitlement under Section 72 (9% or 15% interest depending on delay) and Section 80 (for delayed deposit of compensation) recognised – Matter remanded to ascertain possession date and apply interest accordingly [Paras 56–60]

Land Acquisition – Applicability of 2013 Act – Section 24(1)(a) – Compensation to be determined under 2013 Act when no award passed under 1894 Act – Referral Court erred in applying 1894 principles and in requiring Governor’s approval for award – Held: Approval not required under 2013 Act – Compensation valid from date of award, not from date of government assent [Paras 47–55]

Land Acquisition – Admissibility of Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – State’s additional documents (e-assessment slips, etc.) rejected for being unsupported by pleadings – Claimants' RTI responses not entertained as deduction of structure value already accounted for – Principles of Ratanlal (2018) and Bachhaj Nahar (2008) applied [Paras 30, 44]

Remand – Scope and Directions – Referral Court directed to: (i) Apply Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah as base compensation; (ii) Award 100% solatium under Section 30(1) of 2013 Act; (iii) Grant 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3); (iv) Re-examine evidence or call records on date of possession to determine interest under Sections 72 and 80 [Para 12]

Decision: Appeals and cross-objections allowed in part – Judgment and awards dated 20.09.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, First Court at Hooghly, set aside – Matters remanded to the Referral Court to reassess compensation and interest as per 2013 Act – Specific compensation amount of Rs.5,52,544/- per cottah fixed – Interest and solatium to be calculated accordingly – Directions issued for disbursement of previously deposited funds with Registrar General, adjusted against final award [Paras 11–15]

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – Criminal Prosecution – Cognizance and Summoning Order – Scope of Interference in Revision – Revisionists challenged the summoning order contending lack of application of mind, absence of valid sanction, procedural irregularities in sampling, and non-compliance with Rule 46 of Drugs Rules – Held: At the stage of cognizance and summoning, Magistrate is only required to see prima facie satisfaction and not to conduct a mini trial – No glaring illegality or perversity found in the summoning order – Interference at revisional stage not warranted [Paras 2, 10, 18, 28].

Adulterated and Spurious Drugs – Presence of Diethylene Glycol and Ethylene Glycol – Public Health Hazard – Samples of DOK-1 Max Syrup manufactured by revisionist company found containing substantial percentage of DEG and EG, which are toxic and prohibited under Indian Pharmacopoeia 2018 and British Pharmacopoeia 2020 – WHO Medical Product Alert issued relating to deaths of children in Uzbekistan – Held: Prima facie material clearly discloses offences under Sections 17-A, 17-B and 27 of the Act [Paras 11, 13, 23–24].

Liability of Directors and Company Officials – Section 34, Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Vicarious Criminal Liability – Revisionists contended that complaint lacked specific averments regarding their role in day-to-day affairs – Held: Directors and senior officers are presumed to be in charge of and responsible for conduct of business – Mere denial of involvement not sufficient at summoning stage – Applicability of Section 34 is a matter of evidence to be tested at trial [Paras 4, 9, 16, 27].

Procedural Compliance – Sampling, Analysis and Test Reports – Alleged Irregularities – Objection raised regarding sampling from warehouse/control room and alleged non-compliance with Rule 46 – Held: Sampling, sealing and analysis carried out as per prescribed norms – Technical objections cannot defeat regulatory prosecutions involving public health – No fatal procedural irregularity demonstrated [Paras 8, 14, 26].

Not of Standard Quality vs Adulterated/Spurious Drugs – Applicability of Penal Sections – Argument that test report only declared drug as “not of standard quality” and not adulterated or spurious – Held: Presence of toxic DEG and EG renders the drug adulterated and injurious to health – Invocation of stringent penal provisions justified at prima facie stage – Final applicability of sections to be determined at charge/trial stage [Paras 6, 11, 17].

Sanction and Maintainability of Complaint – Section 32, Drugs and Cosmetics Act – Revisionists alleged absence of valid sanction – Held: Complaint filed by competent Drugs Inspector within statutory mandate – No express bar to institution or continuance of proceedings shown [Paras 4, 22, 28].

Decision: All Criminal Revisions dismissed – Cognizance and summoning order dated 19.01.2024 upheld – No interference warranted – Revisionists at liberty to raise all permissible defences at the stage of framing of charge and during trial.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Acquittal Set Aside – Dishonour of Cheque – Trial Court ignored documentary evidence (Cheque Return Register and Memo) establishing date of knowledge of dishonour – Complainant issued statutory notice within 15 days from said date – Held: Trial Court committed legal error by failing to consider Exhibits 3 and 6 which directly impacted limitation and compliance with Section 138(b) – Acquittal set aside – Case remanded for fresh adjudication [Paras 8–19, 22]

Criminal Procedure – Acquittal – Appeal Against Acquittal – Improper Appreciation of Evidence – Trial Court failed to consider material documentary exhibits forming part of record – No findings recorded regarding Exhibits 3 and 6 – Selective appreciation of evidence vitiated judgment – Held: Judgment based on incomplete analysis is legally unsustainable – Remand warranted for fresh decision [Paras 15–19, 21–23]

Limitation – Section 138 NI Act – Date of Dishonour vs. Date of Knowledge – Distinction between date of dishonour of cheque and date of receipt of intimation by payee is material – Statutory notice issued based on date of knowledge supported by documentary evidence – Trial Court erred by failing to account for this aspect – Legal notice held to be within limitation [Paras 9–10, 16]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 30.03.2016 set aside – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh adjudication after proper appreciation of entire documentary and oral evidence – Trial Court directed to pass a reasoned judgment uninfluenced by present observations and to dispose of the case expeditiously [Paras 20–23]

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Dying Declaration – Acquittal – Accused convicted by Trial Court for murder of deceased by setting her ablaze after alleged quarrel arising out of illicit relationship – Prosecution case resting mainly on dying declaration and medical evidence – On appeal, High Court finds that there were no eyewitnesses and neighbours (PWs.1 to 3) did not support prosecution case regarding presence of accused at scene – Last seen theory not established – Motive of illicit relationship not proved by cogent evidence – Held: Chain of circumstantial evidence not complete and incapable of excluding other hypotheses – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 10–14, 29–32].

Evidence Act – Section 32 – Dying Declaration – Reliability and admissibility – Dying declaration recorded by Assistant Sub-Inspector in hospital allegedly in presence of doctor – Doctor failed to certify mental and physical fitness of deceased in a satisfactory manner – No mention of vital parameters such as blood pressure, pulse rate or treatment administered – Duty doctor and case-sheets not produced – Deceased had suffered 80–85% burn injuries including face and lips – Mother and sister of deceased stated that deceased was not in a position to speak when they visited hospital – Held: Dying declaration not proved to be wholly reliable, voluntary and truthful – Cannot be sole basis for conviction [Paras 15–27].

Witness Testimony – Hostile witnesses – Neighbours as chance witnesses – PWs.2 and 3, neighbours of deceased, stated that they only heard cries and saw deceased with burn injuries – Categorically denied seeing accused at spot or running away from house – Prosecution version of last seen circumstance disbelieved – Evidence held insufficient to connect accused with crime [Paras 13–14].

Motive – Proof – Illicit relationship – Alleged motive based on illicit relationship between accused and deceased and objections by parents of accused – Neither parents of accused examined nor independent evidence led to establish motive – Held: Motive not proved and cannot by itself sustain conviction in absence of other reliable circumstances [Para 12].

Appeal – Criminal Appeal against conviction – Interference by High Court – Trial Court relied heavily on doubtful dying declaration and ignored material contradictions and omissions in prosecution evidence – Failure to scrutinize circumstantial evidence in strict legal standard – Held: Judgment of conviction and sentence liable to be set aside – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt [Paras 28–32].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgment of conviction dated 27.08.2018 and sentence dated 31.08.2018 set aside – Accused acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC – Accused to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Order regarding disposal of properties maintained.

Service Law - Departmental Enquiry – Police Personnel – Allegation of Corruption – Reliance on Electronic Evidence – CD Not Proved – Non-Examination of Complainant – Violation of Natural Justice – Enquiry Vitiated – Departmental proceedings founded solely on alleged video CD purportedly showing acceptance of bribe – CD neither exhibited nor proved during enquiry – Complainant who allegedly recorded video not examined – Respondent not supplied CD nor given opportunity to rebut contents – Findings based on unproved and derivative material – Held: Enquiry suffers from foundational defects and violates principles of natural justice [Paras 36–40, 42].

Disciplinary Proceedings vis-à-vis Criminal Acquittal – Effect of Acquittal Based on Inadmissibility of Evidence – Criminal case and departmental enquiry founded on same CD – Criminal court held electronic record inadmissible for want of original device, Section 65-B certificate and authenticity – Acquittal affirmed by High Court – Though departmental proceedings not barred per se after acquittal, where acquittal is based on unreliability of foundational material, disciplinary authority must assess existence of independent evidence – No substantive material remaining once CD excluded – Charge unsustainable [Paras 41–42].

Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 – Rule 16(iii) – Scope and Limitations – Rule permits reliance on prior statements where witness cannot be procured without undue delay – Cannot be invoked to dispense with proof of primary incriminating material – Rule does not cure defect where very basis of charge is unproved – Reliance on Rule 16(iii) misplaced [Paras 39–40].

Standard of Proof in Departmental Enquiry – Preponderance of Probabilities – Limits – Though standard of proof is lower than criminal trial, material relied upon must still be legally admissible and put to delinquent officer – Findings cannot rest on material neither proved nor supplied – Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute evidence even in departmental proceedings [Paras 37–38, 42].

Parity – Co-Delinquents – Relevance – Other officials allegedly involved in same incident either exonerated or granted relief by Tribunal – Allegations and evidence common – Selective sustainment of punishment against respondent without distinguishing material unjustified – Parity relevant though not determinative [Para 43].

Judicial Review – Disciplinary Matters – Scope under Article 226 – Tribunal confined itself to examining existence of legally sustainable evidence and fairness of process – No re-appreciation of evidence as appellate authority – Interference justified where findings based on no evidence – High Court declined to interfere with Tribunal’s order [Paras 35, 45–46].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Order of CAT dated 02.08.2016 upheld – Departmental proceedings and penalties quashed – No order as to costs.