Jurisdiction – Show Cause Notice – Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act – Quashed – Appeal against the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 41-A by the District Registrar of Assurances, Ananthapuram, demanding deficit stamp duty – High Court held that Section 41-A applies only to registered instruments and cannot be invoked for unregistered documents – As the document in question was unregistered, the show-cause notice was found to be without jurisdiction – Notice quashed [Paras 14-15, 21].

Stamp Duty – Secondary Evidence – No Validation Allowed – The impugned notice demanded stamp duty on copies of documents seized by the Vigilance Department – Court held that the Indian Stamp Act applies only to original instruments, and copies cannot be impounded or subjected to deficit stamp duty – Held: Copies of documents are not instruments under the Indian Stamp Act and cannot be used for imposing stamp duty [Paras 21-22].

Role of Vigilance Department – Lack of Authority – Ultra Vires Action – The Vigilance and Enforcement Department directed the District Registrar to collect deficit stamp duty – Court held that such executive actions without statutory authority contravene the Indian Stamp Act – Vigilance Department lacks jurisdiction to act as a statutory authority under the Act [Para 14].

Section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act – Applicability Limited to Original Instruments – The District Registrar relied on Section 33 to justify the demand – Court held that Section 33 empowers impounding of only original instruments voluntarily produced before the authority – Seized or secondary documents do not fall within its purview – Held: Section 33 does not apply in the present case [Para 22].

Writ Petition – Maintainability Against Show Cause Notice – Whirlpool Corporation Principle – Dismissing the writ petition as premature, the Single Judge failed to consider the lack of jurisdiction in issuing the notice – High Court relied on Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks to hold that writ jurisdiction is maintainable when a notice is issued without jurisdiction – Appeal allowed [Paras 11-13].

Decision:  The writ appeal was allowed, and the impugned show-cause notice dated 05/06/2015 was quashed for being issued without jurisdiction. The High Court ruled that Section 41-A does not apply to unregistered documents and that copies of documents cannot be impounded for the purpose of collecting deficit stamp duty. The role of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department in initiating proceedings was also found to be without legal authority.

No costs were awarded, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
 

Caste Claim – Rejection for Lack of Evidence – Validity Upheld – Petitioner’s claim for belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe was rejected due to discrepancies in ancestral records – Vigilance Cell report found tampered documents wherein "Mani" was altered to "Mana" – Court upheld Committee’s rejection, emphasizing the probative value of pre-Constitutional records over recent documents [Paras 18-20].

Probative Value of Historical Documents – Section 8 of Act of 2000 – Documents from 1918-1944 revealed caste entries as "Mani/Mane/Malgujar" for the petitioner’s ancestors – Court observed these older documents hold higher probative value than subsequent manipulated documents – Petitioner failed to rebut these findings satisfactorily [Paras 21-23].

Precedent – Scope of Entry No. 18 in Presidential (ST) Order 1950 – Citing Maroti Vyankati Gaikwad v. Deputy Director (2023), Court held "Mana" Scheduled Tribe must be read strictly and does not encompass sub-tribes like "Mani" or "Mane" – Petitioner’s reliance on Priya Gajbe v. State of Maharashtra rejected as factual context differed significantly [Paras 24-27].

Validity Certificates of Relatives – Lack of Evidentiary Weight – Petitioner relied on 12 caste validity certificates issued to relatives – Court noted these were obtained through fabricated or incomplete documentation and lacked affidavits establishing blood relations – Committee was justified in discarding them [Paras 28-29].

Decision:  The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the findings of the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner failed to demonstrate belonging to the "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. It directed that the fabricated caste validity certificates issued to the petitioner’s relatives be reviewed afresh.
 

Habeas Corpus – Child Custody – No Detention Found – Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus for her minor daughter allegedly detained by her estranged husband – Court held that since no judicial orders presently govern custody and respondents possessed a valid injunction restraining forcible removal of the child, no case of illegal detention exists – Petition dismissed [Paras 8-11].

Judicial Custody Framework – Remedies Under Family Law Open – Court observed that disputes relating to child custody are best addressed under the Guardians and Wards Act or similar family law mechanisms – Held: Parties may seek appropriate remedies without being influenced by observations made in this case [Paras 12-14].

Interim Arrangement – Welfare of Child Prioritized – Considering the child's comfort and welfare, the Court allowed the petitioner temporary access until 4 p.m. on 24/11/2024, directing the child to be returned to the respondents at the specified location thereafter [Paras 15-16].

Decision:  The writ petition was dismissed, holding that no illegal detention of the child was established. Interim access was granted to the petitioner for two days, with explicit directions for the return of the child to the respondents on 24/11/2024. The Court left all issues regarding custody open to be decided by appropriate family law forums.
 

Bail – Delay in arrest and insufficient recovery – Bail granted - The petitioner, accused of transporting cattle for illegal slaughter and firing at informants, argued that he was implicated solely based on the co-accused's disclosure. He was not arrested at the scene nor was any recovery made from him. Additionally, co-accused persons had been granted bail earlier. The Court held that pre-trial incarceration of five months was sufficient in the absence of conclusive evidence directly linking the petitioner to the offence – Bail granted, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds [Paras 3-5].

Right to bail – Judicial discretion and presumption of innocence - Reiterating principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Court observed that pre-trial detention should not extend unnecessarily. The Court cited precedents asserting that "bail is the rule, jail is the exception," emphasizing the presumption of innocence until proven guilty – The petitioner was granted bail on the principle that denial of liberty should not amount to pre-conviction punishment [Paras 4-5].

Other pending cases – No automatic denial of bail - The Court noted that the petitioner's involvement in other cases did not justify automatic denial of bail in the current matter. Criminal antecedents may be relevant, but each case must be evaluated independently based on its own merits – The petitioner’s custody in this FIR was deemed unwarranted for further detention [Para 4].

Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed. The petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court or Duty Magistrate concerned. The Court clarified that the observations made in the judgment would not prejudice the trial's merits.
 

Matrimonial Law - Concealment of Thalassemia Status – Cruelty – Decree of Divorce Upheld – The wife failed to disclose that she was a Thalassemia Minor during premarital discussions, which came to light only when she conceived a child with similar complications – The concealment led to medical and emotional strain in the marital relationship, justifying divorce on grounds of cruelty – The husband's evidence of concealment was corroborated by G-mail chats and medical records – The wife's narrative of being compelled to abort due to family preference for a male child was disbelieved, as it lacked corroborative evidence – Held: Non-disclosure of a significant medical condition constitutes cruelty sufficient to grant a decree of divorce [Paras 4.2, 7.4, 7.8] – Decision: Divorce decree upheld.

False Allegations Against Husband and Family – Cruelty Established – The wife made baseless allegations of abuse and forced abortion, including claims that her in-laws made her consult a priest for changing the child’s gender – The claims were found to be fabricated, especially given the high educational qualifications of the wife and husband (both doctors) – Additionally, complaints filed through an MLA to the husband's employer, alleging extramarital affairs, damaged the husband's professional reputation and constituted cruelty – Held: The conduct of the wife amounted to mental cruelty warranting dissolution of marriage [Paras 7.5, 7.6, 7.7] – Decision: Divorce decree upheld.

Restitution of Conjugal Rights – Appeal Dismissed – Evidence of Incompatibility and Cruelty – The wife's plea for restitution was deemed inconsistent with her conduct, as evidence showed her unwillingness to reconcile with her in-laws and her repeated abuse of the husband’s family – Held: The dismissal of the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was justified [Paras 7, 8] – Decision: Appeal for restitution dismissed.

Alimony and Maintenance – No Alimony Granted – Child’s Welfare Considered – The husband had already spent Rs. 25 lakhs on the bone marrow treatment of the couple's Thalassemia-affected daughter and was paying Rs. 20,000 monthly for her maintenance – Considering the financial contributions made by the husband and his continued support for the child, the Court directed the payment of an additional Rs. 10 lakhs to the wife for the child’s welfare – Held: No spousal alimony awarded, but compensation granted for the child’s welfare [Para 7.9] – Decision: Rs. 10 lakhs to be paid by the husband.

Judicial Notice of Facts – Applicability of Sections 56 and 57 of Evidence Act – No Overreach by Family Court – The Family Court’s reliance on judicial notice to dismiss the wife’s claim of sex-change medicines being administered by her in-laws was upheld – The Court observed that the claim was too far-fetched for two qualified doctors and lacked supporting evidence – Held: The Family Court did not err in considering the facts of the case under Sections 56 and 57 of the Indian Evidence Act [Para 7.8] – Decision: Judgment of Family Court upheld.
 

Jurisdiction of Benches – Appeals Based on Sentence Length – Rules Clarified – Question arose whether criminal appeals with a sentence of ten years or less, traditionally heard by a Single Judge, could be transferred to a Division Bench when arising from a common trial court judgment involving cases requiring Division Bench jurisdiction (e.g., under Section 372 or 377 CrPC) – Held: Such listing before a Division Bench is valid to prevent contradictory outcomes, but does not confer jurisdiction where none existed [Paras 8-12, 18].

Adherence to Supreme Court Precedents – Principles of Coram Non Judice – Referencing Pandurang v. State of Maharashtra and Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi, Court emphasized that judicial orders by an incorrect Bench are nullities, yet no similar issue arises when Division Benches hear cases meant for Single Judges [Paras 20-22].

Allocation of Benches – Avoidance of Anomalous Orders – Practice of listing all appeals arising from the same trial judgment together, including those requiring Division Bench jurisdiction, upheld to maintain judicial consistency and efficiency [Paras 23-25].

Rules vs. Practical Necessity – Procedural Amendments Suggested – Court recommended amendments to Patna High Court Rules to institutionalize the practice of grouping related appeals to Division Benches in appropriate cases [Paras 28-30].

Decision:

The reference was answered by affirming that appeals carrying sentences up to ten years can validly be heard by a Division Bench when arising from a common judgment involving related cases requiring Division Bench jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the need for amendments to ensure procedural clarity and avoid ambiguity.

Parole – Premature Release Pending Governor’s Decision – Granted – Petitioner, serving life imprisonment, sought release on parole pending the Governor’s decision on premature release – Court relied on Rashidul Jafar @ Chota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where premature release policies were deemed applicable without arbitrary delays – Held: Parole granted for 90 days to prevent undue incarceration during pendency of the Governor’s decision [Paras 10-15].

Premature Release Policies – Timely Processing by Committees Mandated – Advisory Committee recommended premature release, yet the final decision was delayed – Court directed the Life Convicts Release Committee to meet bi-monthly to expedite pending applications, following Rashidul Jafar principles – Held: Delay in convening meetings cannot deny eligible convicts their rights under remission policies [Paras 12-13].

Parole Conditions – Accountability and Conduct – Court imposed conditions for parole: no involvement in criminal activities and liberty to seek extension if required – Directed jail authorities to communicate compliance via electronic means [Para 18].

Decision: The writ petition was allowed. The petitioner was granted parole for 90 days, with liberty to seek an extension. The court directed the respondents to ensure the parole conditions were complied with and ordered the Registry to communicate the decision electronically to the jail authorities.

Civil Law - Recovery of Dues – Burden of Proof – Absence of Proof of Service – Invoice Terms Prevail – Payment Liability Affirmed - The appellant argued non-delivery of courier consignments and failure to provide proof of delivery absolved payment obligations – Respondent claimed proof was to be provided only upon request per invoice terms, which was never sought – Courts held the respondent discharged the initial burden by producing invoices and other evidence, while appellant failed to prove service deficiency or request for proof – Liability affirmed for unpaid invoices with interest [Paras 1-8, 17-19, 28-30].

Second Appeal – Concurrent Findings – No Substantial Question of Law – Scope of Section 100 CPC - Appellant sought interference with concurrent factual findings citing procedural and evidentiary flaws – Held: High Court interference under Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law; no perversity or material irregularity in findings demonstrated – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-25, 36-37].

Electronic Evidence – Section 65B of Evidence Act – Compliance Essential – Documents Excluded - Appellant produced an email alleging undelivered packages but failed to comply with Section 65B certification requirements – Trial Court rightfully excluded the email, and appellant could not rely on it to prove claims [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Trial Court and First Appellate Court decrees affirmed. Appellant directed to pay the outstanding amount of ₹1,76,128/- with interest at 12% per annum from the invoice date until realization, along with suit costs [Para 38].

Service Law – Deployment Order – Validity Upheld – Petition challenged a deployment order transferring the petitioner to the Belagavi Bench, contending lack of jurisdiction by the Chairman of the Tribunal – Court held that Section 13(1A) of the Administrative Tribunals Act grants wide superintendence powers to the Chairman, including issuing deployment orders – Deployment upheld [Paras 10-13].
Employee Conduct – Insubordination and Disobedience – Charges Proven – Petitioner failed to report for duty at the assigned Bench, signed attendance at the Bengaluru Bench after being relieved, and used inappropriate language with the Chairman – Court observed such behavior constitutes serious misconduct – Held: Punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect was lenient and proportionate [Paras 14-16].
Suspension During Disciplinary Enquiry – Justified – Suspension was challenged as arbitrary – Court noted suspension is a permissible administrative measure during disciplinary proceedings, especially given the gravity of charges – Held: No illegality in suspension or subsequent enquiry [Para 18].
Judicial Review – Limited Scope in Punishment Decisions – Court reiterated that disciplinary authority holds exclusive jurisdiction to decide on penalties unless manifestly disproportionate or contrary to law – Punishment of withholding increments upheld as reasonable [Para 20].
Costs Imposed – Frivolous Petition – Petitioner’s claims were deemed devoid of merit and indicative of misuse of judicial process – Cost of ₹10,000 imposed, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within six weeks, with a penalty of ₹100 per day for delay [Para 22].

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the disciplinary action, including the withholding of two increments with cumulative effect, was upheld. Costs of ₹10,000 were imposed on the petitioner for filing a frivolous petition, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within six weeks. Any delay in payment would attract an additional levy of ₹100 per day.