Civil Law - Partition Suit – Claim by Granddaughter – Property Inherited under Section 8 HSA – Not Ancestral – Rejection of Plaint – Plaintiff sought 1/4th share in property purchased by grandfather, claiming it to be ancestral – Court held: After Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property inherited by Class I heirs on intestate death of male Hindu is absolute property of heirs, not ancestral coparcenary property – Plaintiff, whose father was alive at time of grandfather’s death, is not Class I heir – No right in property [Paras 12-19].

Cause of Action – Non-disclosure – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Plaint Rejected – Since plaintiff has no legal right in suit property, plaint discloses no cause of action – Without existence of right, question of partition or injunction does not arise – Suit barred at threshold [Paras 11, 19-23].

Interpretation – Ancestral Property vs. Self-Acquired Property – HSA Effect – Court relied on CWT v. Chander Sen (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987) 1 SCC 204 – Property devolving under Section 8 HSA is individual property of heir, not HUF property – Coparcenary rights not created by such succession – Plaintiff’s reliance on Mitakshara pre-HSA principles misplaced [Paras 12, 16-18].

Final Decision – Application under Order VII Rule 11(a) Allowed – Plaint Rejected – No order as to costs [Para 24].

Income Tax – Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) – Adjustment under Section 143(1)(a) – Disallowance Upheld – The assessee challenged addition of ₹4.14 crores made u/s 143(1)(a) towards delayed deposit of employees’ EPF/ESI contributions – Held: Relying on Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. (2023) 6 SCC 451, the Court upheld that employees’ contributions are distinct from employers’ and must be deposited within the statutory due date, failing which deduction is not allowed – The Court rejected the argument that such additions under Section 143(1)(a) were impermissible, noting that the delay was evident from audit records and not a debatable issue – ITAT was justified in sustaining the adjustment [Paras 35–45].

Prospective vs Retrospective – Explanation 5 to Section 43B – Clarificatory in Nature – Retrospective Effect – The assessee argued that Explanation 5 (inserted by Finance Act, 2021) should apply prospectively – Held: The Supreme Court in Checkmate Services had already clarified the legal position based on pre-existing provisions; Explanation 5 is declaratory and does not introduce a new condition – Hence, it applies retrospectively and supports disallowance even for AY 2019-20 [Paras 37–41].

Binding Precedents – Sub Silentio Argument Rejected – The Court dismissed the claim that Checkmate Services was sub silentio regarding retrospective application – Held: The decision substantively analyzed the relevant provisions (Sections 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va), 43B), and clarification in Explanation 5 was unnecessary for its ratio – Checkmate is binding and applicable [Paras 37–41].

National Holiday – Due Date for PF/ESI Deposit – Relief Granted – For a portion of the contribution deposited on 16.08.2018, where due date (15.08.2018) was a national holiday, the Court allowed deduction – Held: Under Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, deposit on the next working day is valid where deadline falls on a public holiday – Issue settled by earlier coordinate bench in Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. – Deduction allowed for this part only [Paras 46–47].

Final Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The Court upheld the disallowance of ₹4.14 crores under Section 36(1)(va) but allowed deduction for the amount delayed due to a national holiday – ITAT’s decision affirmed in part and reversed to limited extent – Appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 45–48].

Bail – Anti-National Facebook Post – Sections 152, 192, 197(1), 353(2) BNS – Bail Rejected – Applicant posted provocative and derogatory content including insult to Indian National Flag and slogans glorifying Pakistan – Cyber investigation traced posts to applicant's verified IP and mobile – Court found conduct detrimental to national integrity and social harmony – No grounds for bail [Paras 2–10].

Cyber Crime – Electronic Evidence – Facebook Post Verified Through IP and Mobile Linking – Meta data and cyber report confirmed the posts were made from applicant's mobile using his SIM and devices – Forensic collection upheld as credible prima facie evidence linking accused to offense [Paras 6(i)-(ii), 8].

National Flag – Insult to National Honour – Bail Denied – Photograph showing dog sitting on Indian Flag uploaded by applicant was termed as deliberate act of dishonour – Court reaffirmed importance of safeguarding national symbols and noted that such acts were punishable and socially corrosive [Paras 7, 9].

Criminal Antecedents – Previous Involvement in Arms Act and Attempt to Murder Cases – Considered in Bail Rejection – Two prior cases including one under Section 307 IPC weighed against applicant's plea for liberty [Para 6(vi)].

Social Media Responsibility – Posts Capable of Inciting Communal Disharmony – Court observed that the content uploaded was capable of disturbing public peace and order – Bail denied due to possibility of larger societal impact [Para 8].

Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Prima facie materials against the accused supported by technical evidence and witness statements – Insult to National Flag viewed as serious and non-bailable conduct – Application dismissed [Paras 10–11].

Banking Law - SARFAESI Act – Section 14 – Nature of Magistrate’s power – Ministerial vs. adjudicatory – Powers exercised by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/District Magistrate under Section 14 are purely ministerial – Magistrate not required or empowered to adjudicate disputes between borrower, secured creditor, or third parties – Duty limited to assisting secured creditor in taking possession on compliance with statutory affidavit requirements [Paras 9.1–9.3, 10.1–10.2].

SARFAESI Act – Section 14 – Requirement of notice to borrower – No obligation – Statutory scheme mandates only filing of authorised officer’s affidavit – Magistrate to act within 30 days (extendable to 60 days with reasons) – No requirement to issue notice to debtor or hear objections – Any grievance lies under Section 17 before DRT [Paras 11.3–11.8, 12.4–12.6].

Possession Delivery Warrant – Condition regarding third parties – Impermissible – Once property is a secured asset under SARFAESI, Magistrate cannot restrict possession delivery warrant by saving alleged third-party rights – Such disputes, if any, to be adjudicated under Section 17 before DRT, not by Magistrate under Section 14 [Paras 12.1–12.6, 13.1–13.2].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Observation in impugned order dated 29.04.2025 in Crl. Misc. No.16/2025 (“possession delivery warrant is not binding on 3rd parties, if they are in possession of the property in any capacity”) quashed – Order under Section 14 SARFAESI to be implemented without the said observation [Para 13.3, 26].

Tax Settlement Scheme – Appeal dismissed as non-maintainable after specified date – Assessee held eligible under DTVSV Scheme, 2024 as appeal was pending on 22.07.2024 – Rejection of declaration quashed.

Income Tax – Eligibility under DTVSV Scheme – Appeal pending on specified date but later held non-maintainable – Declaration rejection quashed – Appeal was pending as on 22.07.2024 and hence taxpayer was eligible under Scheme despite subsequent dismissal as non-maintainable – Rejection of declaration on ground of invalidity of appeal not justified [Paras 6–25].

Scheme Interpretation – Applicability of CBDT FAQ No.36 – Circulars binding – Clarifies eligibility even if appeal disposed on merits or dismissed as withdrawn after specified date – Held: FAQ No.36 clarifies scheme covers such cases – Appeal treated as pending on 22.07.2024 [Paras 10–14, 23].

Binding Precedents – Prior decisions on similar schemes applicable – Tushar Agro Chemicals and Atul Roshanlal Gupta relied – Appeals, even if incompetent or irregular, held to be pending for purpose of benefit under tax settlement schemes [Paras 21–22].

Administrative Law – Rejection of benefit on hyper-technical ground – Not permissible when scheme intends to resolve disputes – Reiterated that interpretation should align with object of the scheme to reduce litigation and promote compliance [Paras 21, 23–24].

Decision – Impugned rejection communication dated 11.04.2025 quashed – Respondent directed to process declaration in accordance with DTVSV Scheme, 2024 – Petition allowed [Paras 24–25].

Family Law - Domestic Violence – Interim Residence Order – Shared Household – Alternate Accommodation – Validity – Wife sought exclusive residence in shared household; Magistrate declined eviction of husband but directed him to provide rented alternate accommodation with equivalent amenities—Sessions Court upheld—Held: Interim orders are meant to maintain equilibrium pending trial; cohabitation under one roof proved unworkable due to violence and acrimony; direction to provide alternate accommodation is reasonable, equitable, and legally sound – No interference warranted [Paras 5–7].

Criminal Revision – Scope – Evidence appreciation not permissible – Documents on alleged illicit relationship (against wife) or alternate properties (against husband) irrelevant at interim stage – Such contentions to be examined only in trial of main Domestic Violence petition – Revisions dismissed [Para 7].

Decision – Both revision petitions (Crl.R.P. 16/2025 and 1212/2024) dismissed – Orders of Magistrate and Sessions Judge upheld – Interim arrangement of alternate accommodation for wife stands [Para 12].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Award – Hearsay Evidence – Rejection of Admitted Documents – Award Set Aside – Arbitral award allowed Respondent’s claim for refund due to allegedly defective packaging – Petitioner contended that the arbitrator relied on hearsay evidence from an expert witness (CW-2), and disregarded two SGS India lab reports that showed no odour or defect in the packaging – Held: Arbitrator wrongly disregarded admitted contemporaneous evidence in the form of SGS India reports and instead relied on CW-2’s report, based on hearsay statements from Respondent's staff in 2016 about goods received in 2013 – Such reliance constitutes a gross procedural error and offends basic notions of justice – Award shocks the conscience of the Court and is liable to be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act [Paras 34–40, 47].

Public Policy – Section 34(2)(b)(ii) Arbitration Act – Violation of Basic Notions of Justice – The rejection of reliable and admitted laboratory evidence, coupled with acceptance of uncorroborated hearsay testimony, amounted to a breach of public policy and justice – The Award conflicts with Explanation 1(iii) to Section 34(2)(b)(ii) as it offends the most basic notions of fairness, reliability, and adjudicative reasoning – Held: The conduct of the arbitrator fell foul of judicial standards and vitiated the award [Paras 44–47].

Admissibility and Evidentiary Value – Marking of Documents and Cross-examination – Arbitrator erred in holding that SGS India reports had no evidentiary value for lack of author testimony, despite both parties having marked and admitted the documents – Court held that contemporaneous lab reports should have been preferred over retrospective hearsay-based expert opinion – No obligation on Petitioner to cross-examine when burden of proof not met by Respondent [Paras 36–43].

Decision – Commercial Arbitration Petition allowed – Arbitral Award dated 02/12/2019 set aside – Deposit of USD 165,000 made pursuant to earlier court order permitted to be withdrawn by Petitioner after 4 weeks [Paras 48–52].

Murder  – Section 302 IPC – Circumstantial Evidence – Reliability of Witnesses – Trial Court convicted appellant for running over deceased with pick-up van due to enmity from alleged illicit relationship attempt – On appeal, Court found PW-1 (complainant) and PW-7 (widow of deceased) not eyewitnesses; both gave contradictory versions about source of information (reporter Vikram Purohit vs. PW-12 Parveez) – PW-12 turned hostile, denied knowledge – Reporter not examined – Held: contradictions fatal, prosecution failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt. Acquittal. [Paras 22-24].

Revenge/Enmity Theory – Double-Edged Weapon – Court reiterated principle (SC in Aslam @ Imran v. State of M.P., 2025 LiveLaw SC 365; Maukam Singh v. State of M.P., 2025 INSC 435) that enmity may provide motive but equally raises possibility of false implication – In absence of documentary proof of prior illicit relationship complaint, prosecution’s revenge theory unsustainable [Paras 25-26].

Prosecution Evidence – Interested Witnesses – PW-1, PW-4, PW-7 statements found based on assumptions and hearsay, not direct observation – IO (PW-6) conducted casual investigation without corroborative evidence – No recovery, no direct witness – Held: conviction based on presumption, not proof – Benefit of doubt to accused [Paras 18-24].

Trial Court Judgment – Error in Appreciation of Evidence – Trial Court relied on “revenge theory” and uncorroborated witness accounts – High Court held findings erroneous; enmity alone cannot sustain conviction without reliable proof – Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 27-29].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted by giving benefit of doubt – To be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 30].

Civil Liability – Damages - Negligence by Licensing Authority – Non-issuance of Duplicate License – Driver prevented from duty – Appellant, a permanent DTC driver, lost his license in 1996; MLO refused duplicate citing expiry, though DTC records showed validity till 20.12.1996 – Civil Judge in earlier suit (2002) directed issuance of duplicate license, confirming validity till 1996 – Held: Negligence of respondents established; appellant wrongly deprived of duty as driver for 1997–2001 – Loss of salary attributable to negligence of Licensing Authority [Paras 19-24].

Evidence – Public Records – Salary Register – Admissibility – PW2 produced original DTC salary register (Ex. PW2/A), signed by Depot Manager, showing salary appellant would have earned as driver – Court held document admissible under Section 35 Evidence Act – No contrary evidence led by respondents; Trial Court erred in rejecting cogent record – Presumption of correctness applies to official records [Paras 26-33].

Employment – Continuity of Service – Appellant never terminated – Though not assigned driving duty, remained in service; later given desk duty in 2001 until license reissued in 2002 – Salary paid was less than driver’s entitlement – Court held appellant entitled to damages for difference between actual salary paid and driver’s pay for 1997–2001 [Paras 37-44].

Decision – Appeal Allowed in Part – Damages enhanced by ₹30,000 (in addition to ₹15,000 awarded by Trial Court) with 9% interest from date of appeal till realisation – Finding of negligence of MLO/MLA final; DTC not liable – Decree modified accordingly [Paras 45-49].