Taxation Law - Jurisdiction under Section 263 – Erroneous Order and Prejudice to Revenue – Valid Invocation by PCIT - The Revenue’s appeal under Section 263 contested an ITAT ruling that quashed an order by the PCIT, who had revised an AO’s decision accepting the land sale as tax-exempt based on agricultural classification – The court emphasized that an order is erroneous under Section 263 if passed without required inquiries; here, the AO failed to independently verify the land’s distance from municipal limits, relying solely on an ambiguous Tehsildar certificate – Held: The PCIT correctly invoked Section 263 as the AO’s inquiry was absent and the order prejudiced revenue [Paras 24-30, 36].

Certificate by Tehsildar – Insufficiency without Verification – Section 263 Application Supported - The assessee’s reliance on a Tehsildar’s certificate claiming the land as beyond municipal limits lacked corroboration, as the certificate omitted precise distance – The court concluded that the AO’s reliance without further inquiry did not meet the inquiry standards for capital gains exemption – The PCIT’s revision was upheld, highlighting that tax officers must confirm claims with thorough inquiry in line with Section 263 standards [Para 32-36].

Absence of Sufficient Inquiry versus Inadequate Inquiry – Revisional Power of PCIT - The court distinguished between lack of inquiry and inadequate inquiry, underscoring that an order with no inquiry is revisable under Section 263 – Here, the AO’s lack of assessment rendered the order erroneous, satisfying the twin conditions for PCIT’s jurisdiction under Section 263 [Para 40].

Decision – Order Reinstated – The court set aside the ITAT’s order, reinstating the PCIT’s direction to re-assess the case with proper inquiry, underscoring adherence to inquiry standards for capital gains exemption claims.

Hindu Law – Partition and Coparcenary Rights – Appeal – Daughters sought partition of ancestral property allotted to their father under a partition deed (Ex.A1) – Trial Court decreed the suit granting 1/5 share to each daughter – First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding the property as self-acquired – High Court found the First Appellate Court misconstrued the ancestral nature of the property and failed to consider binding admissions in Ex.A1 – Held: The property is ancestral, and daughters are entitled to coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Judgment of First Appellate Court set aside, and Trial Court's decree restored [Paras 1, 6–8, 36–37].
Evidence – Partition Deed (Ex.A1) – Recital and Estoppel – Partition deed (Ex.A1) explicitly stated the property was ancestral – First defendant, having voluntarily subscribed to the partition deed, was estopped from claiming the property was self-acquired – No evidence provided by the defendants to contradict the recital – High Court relied on binding precedents regarding the effect of admissions in registered documents [Paras 5, 8, 11–12].
Coparcenary and Ancestral Property – Character of Property – Notional Partition – Death of Rangasamy Chettiar in 1962 caused a notional partition under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act – Despite notional partition, the 2/3rd share held by surviving sons remained ancestral property – First defendant blended the share inherited through notional partition with ancestral property, retaining its ancestral nature – Daughters, as coparceners post-2005 amendment, were entitled to their shares [Paras 10–23, 36].
Legal Principles – Doctrine of Estoppel – Coparcenary Rights – Ext.A1 treated the entire property as ancestral – Defendants failed to prove otherwise – Court emphasized principles of estoppel binding parties to declarations in registered documents unless fraud or error is proved – Applied Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) and other precedents on coparcenary rights and notional partition [Paras 12, 19–20, 32].
Settlement Deeds – Invalidity – Defendants relied on settlement deeds (Ex.B1, Ex.B2) executed by the first defendant in favor of his sons – Held: The deeds were invalid as they were executed after the plaintiffs had become coparceners and had demanded partition – Plaintiffs’ rights vested under the 2005 amendment and could not be defeated by subsequent alienations [Paras 33, 36].
Ancestral Nature of Property – High Court held First Appellate Court erred in disregarding the admissions in Ex.A1 – Property was ancestral [Paras 8, 36].
Coparcenary Rights of Daughters – Based on the Vineeta Sharma ratio, the daughters were entitled to shares as coparceners [Paras 19, 36].
Onus of Proof – First defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving Ex.A1 recital was false or mistaken [Para 36].
Misinterpretation of Ancestral Property – High Court clarified the error in treating ancestral property as self-acquired [Para 36].
Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Decree of the Trial Court restored – Plaintiffs entitled to partition and 1/5 share each in the property – No costs – Miscellaneous petitions closed [Para 37].
 

Criminal Law - Fair Trial – Right to Defend – Access to Evidence by Accused – The accused sought access to CCTV visuals that were part of the prosecution evidence to prepare his defense. The court observed that denying access to such evidence infringes on the accused’s right to a fair trial. – Held: The accused has the right to view prosecution evidence unless it infringes on the privacy of the victim. – Outcome: Special Judge’s denial was unjustified; order set aside [Paras 8-11].

Admissibility of Digital Evidence – Compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act – The CCTV footage lacked certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The court clarified that its admissibility would be decided by the trial court on merits, but denying preliminary access to the accused was unwarranted. – Held: Non-certification does not preclude viewing for defense purposes. – Outcome: Viewing permitted; admissibility to be determined during trial [Paras 12-14].

Balancing Victim’s Privacy and Accused’s Rights – Legal Parameters – While granting access to CCTV visuals, the court underscored that such access must not compromise the victim’s privacy, aligning with precedents like Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v. State of Kerala. – Held: Privacy concerns must be balanced with defense rights. – Outcome: Accused and counsel allowed to view footage under regulated conditions [Paras 15-16].

Decision: The revision petition was allowed. The trial court’s order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted access to the CCTV visuals for defense preparation. The trial court was directed to facilitate viewing before or during the trial, subject to regulated conditions ensuring the victim’s privacy. Observations regarding admissibility were clarified as non-binding for the trial court.
 

Execution Proceedings – Auction Sale – Upset Price Fixation – Material Irregularity - The appellant, judgment-debtor, contested the fixation of the upset price at Rs. 29,00,000 for his property valued at a much higher amount, contending that this drastic reduction without reason caused substantial injury – The execution court initially set a higher upset price of Rs. 93,75,000, which was reduced due to non-bidding, but without a detailed assessment of the property’s actual value – Held: Reducing the upset price significantly without justifiable reasoning is a material irregularity that impacts the judgment-debtor's interests and fairness of the sale, rendering the sale void [Paras 3-5].

Execution Court’s Discretion – Assessment of Property Value – Absence of Advocate Commissioner’s Report Consideration - The court criticized the execution court’s decision to lower the upset price without considering the Advocate Commissioner’s valuation report, which assessed a higher market value – Court emphasized that property sales in execution must fairly reflect market value to prevent unjust financial loss to the judgment-debtor – Order setting aside the execution sale upheld due to lack of market value appraisal [Para 4].

Procedural Justice – Setting Aside Execution Order – Order 21 Rule 90 CPC - The substantial reduction of upset price without rationale led to procedural injustice by causing potential financial loss to the appellant – Under Order 21 Rule 90, CPC, material irregularities affecting judgment-debtor’s rights to fair value justify setting aside the auction sale – Direction issued for fresh sale proceedings with proper upset price determination [Para 6].

Final Decision - Appeal allowed, execution court’s order reducing upset price is set aside – New direction for execution court to conduct sale afresh, ensuring reasonable upset price determination within six months.

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence – Maintainability of Second Petition – No Bar Found - Petitioners argued that withdrawal of the first petition barred the respondent from filing a second petition under Section 12 of the DV Act – Court held that the principles of res judicata are inapplicable to domestic violence proceedings, especially when the respondent explained the circumstances leading to withdrawal of the first petition and re-filing of the second – Rejection of the application to drop proceedings affirmed [Paras 20-23].

Domestic Relationship – Definition and Applicability – Continuity Not Required - Petitioners contended absence of domestic relationship as the respondent had left the shared household in 2016 – Court ruled that the definition under Section 2(f) of the DV Act includes relationships where parties lived together at any point in time, satisfying the condition for a domestic relationship [Paras 24-26].

Allegations of Domestic Violence – Specific and Serious Claims Warrant Trial - Respondent’s petition included allegations of dowry demands, physical and verbal abuse, and forcible eviction – Court affirmed concurrent findings of the Magistrate and Appellate Court that allegations were specific and serious, justifying continuation of proceedings under the DV Act [Paras 15-19].

Decision: Petition dismissed. Trial Court and Appellate Court orders upheld. Interim directions vacated [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Law – Bail in Murder Case – No Direct Involvement or Presence at Crime Scene – Petitioner sought bail, claiming no involvement in the murder of the victim and that she was implicated due to her relation with the main accused, Rahul Rai, her brother – Court noted that the petitioner neither participated in the crime nor was present at the scene, and her implication was based only on familial connection – Held: In absence of any direct or corroborative evidence of involvement, petitioner granted bail [Paras 5-7].

Right to Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Co-accused Harjinder Kaur, similarly placed, was already granted bail by the Court on the same grounds of lack of direct involvement – Held: Consistency in bail orders justified, granting bail to petitioner on similar grounds [Para 6].

Decision: Petition allowed. Petitioner ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court [Para 7].

Family Law – Summoning of Witness – Application under Order XVI Rule 1(3) of CPC – Quashing of Family Court Order – Lack of Reasoning in Dismissal – Petitioner filed an application to summon a mediator as a witness in ongoing matrimonial dispute proceedings, asserting the relevance based on prior references to the individual’s mediation role in testimony – Family Court dismissed the application on grounds of delay, stating that the application was “belated” and aimed at filling lacunae, but did not provide specific reasoning – Held: The dismissal order lacked adequate justification for concluding delay or lacuna-filling motives; Family Court directed to reconsider the application with full opportunity for both sides to present arguments [Paras 3-5].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement for Reasoned Orders in Dismissal of Summoning Applications – High Court emphasized the necessity of detailed reasoning in Family Court orders, especially when dismissing applications to summon witnesses – The vague basis of “belatedness” without justification was deemed insufficient, leading to a directive for rehearing – Held: Orders must convey rationale, particularly when procedural rights such as witness examination are involved; remanded for reconsideration [Paras 4, 5].

Decision: Petition allowed – Family Court’s order set aside – Matter remanded to Family Court for reconsideration of witness summoning application (I.A. No. 7 of 2024 in O.P. No. 50 of 2019), with instructions to expedite proceedings – Both parties directed to appear before Family Court on 12/11/2024 [Para 5].
 

Contempt of Court – Social Media Remarks – Prima Facie Frustration – Proceedings Dropped – Respondent-Contemnor, an advocate, faced contempt proceedings initiated upon a reference alleging derogatory remarks against a Judicial Magistrate posted on social media – Remarks allegedly made in retaliation to judicial custody order passed during criminal proceedings – Respondent-contemnor alleged systemic harassment by police and judiciary, substantiated by medical reports showing injuries sustained in custody – Court observed that remarks were a frustrated outburst stemming from traumatic experiences and prima facie unjust treatment – Held: Social media remarks, though unacceptable, arose from circumstances warranting a lenient approach – Contempt proceedings quashed [Paras 1, 4, 8].

Criminal Contempt – Scope and Application – Balancing Free Speech and Judicial Dignity – Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach in contempt cases, highlighting principles laid down in precedents – Criticism of the judiciary permissible if fair and devoid of malice – Remarks scandalizing or obstructing the judicial process merit intervention, but courts must also consider the broader context of systemic grievances – Court noted the respondent’s frustration as a mitigating factor and observed that penal action would serve no useful purpose [Paras 6–7].

Relief – Contempt Proceedings Dropped – Rule Discharged – After evaluating the respondent-contemnor’s conduct and circumstances, court concluded that the proceedings did not warrant punitive action – Court adopted a truth-oriented and value-based approach to resolve the matter – Held: Contempt proceedings dropped – Rule discharged [Paras 8–9].

Decision: Contempt petition disposed of – No punitive action taken against the respondent-contemnor – [Paras 9–10].

Passport Application – Rejection on Grounds of Family’s Criminal Antecedents – Fundamental Rights Violated - The Court examined the rejection of passport applications on the ground of criminal records of the petitioner’s husband and father-in-law – Held: Criminal antecedents of family members cannot influence assessment of the petitioner’s character or eligibility for issuance of a passport. Respondents directed to reassess the applications based solely on the petitioner’s character [Paras 13-14].

Non-Compliance with Judicial Directions – Fresh Application Ordered in W.P. No. 10154/2021 – Repeated Rejection on Same Grounds - Respondents were previously directed to disregard grounds of earlier rejection in fresh assessments. Non-compliance with this direction led to rejection on identical grounds – Held: Such non-compliance amounts to a cavalier approach, warranting quashing of the impugned orders [Paras 12-13].

Article 21 – Right to Travel Abroad – Fundamental Rights – The petitioner enjoys the same fundamental rights as other citizens, and extraneous considerations based on family connections infringe upon her constitutional rights – Held: Reassessment ordered, and if eligible, the passport must be issued without delay [Para 14].

Decision:

The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders rejecting the passport applications are quashed. Respondents are directed to reassess the applications within four weeks, solely on the petitioner’s character, and issue the passport within six weeks if found eligible.