Civil Law - Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – Plaintiff's Right Established – The plaintiff sought partition of joint family property, claiming a 1/3rd share – Defendants contended that the plaintiff had relinquished her rights through an unregistered relinquishment deed – The Trial Court held that the plaintiff had not relinquished her rights and decreed the suit – The First Appellate Court upheld the decision – Held: The plaintiff was entitled to partition and a 1/3rd share in the property [Paras 6, 18-20].

Bona Fide Purchaser – No Protection When Seller Lacks Absolute Title – Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the property from Defendant No. 3, who had acquired it through a sale deed executed by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 – The Court held that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 could only alienate their own shares and could not transfer the plaintiff’s undivided share – Held: The purchasers did not acquire a valid title over the plaintiff’s share [Paras 9, 20].

Scope of Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Dismissal at Admission Stage – The appellants challenged the concurrent findings of the lower courts – The Court emphasized that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if it involves a substantial question of law – Held: Since no substantial question of law arose, the second appeal was dismissed at the admission stage [Paras 15-23].

Relinquishment Deed – Absence of Proof – No Bar on Plaintiff’s Rights – The defendants claimed that the plaintiff had relinquished her share through an unregistered relinquishment deed executed at the time of her marriage – The Court found no evidence of such a document and held that the plaintiff retained her rights in the ancestral property – Held: The claim of relinquishment was not proved [Paras 19-20].
 

Service Law - Compulsory Retirement – Scope of Judicial Review – The petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement on grounds of procedural irregularities and alleged bias—Held: Judicial review in matters of compulsory retirement is limited to checking arbitrariness or mala fides—Employer’s subjective satisfaction cannot be substituted unless it is unreasonable or perverse—Writ petition dismissed [Paras 16-20].

Failure to Disclose Assets – Applicability of Conduct Rules – The petitioner contended that Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, did not require disclosure of his wife’s independently acquired properties—Held: Judicial officers are held to higher standards of probity—High Court’s circular mandating disclosure of assets by family members is valid and binding—Non-compliance justified adverse action [Paras 18-22].

Adverse Entries in Confidential Records – Whether Premature Action Was Taken – The petitioner argued that the adverse remarks in his annual confidential report (ACR) for 2019 were recorded after the decision to compulsorily retire him—Held: Decision was based on overall service record, complaints, and integrity concerns—Review committee formed its opinion independently before ACR entries—No violation of procedural fairness [Paras 12-14].

Service Law – Whether Government Guidelines Were Ignored – The petitioner claimed that compulsory retirement guidelines issued by the State were not followed—Held: Judicial officers cannot seek parity with other government employees—High Court has discretion under judicial service rules to set higher standards—No procedural lapse found [Paras 23-24].

Final Decision – Writ petition dismissed—Order of compulsory retirement upheld—Court emphasized that judicial officers must maintain the highest standards of integrity and conduct in public life [Paras 24-26].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Single Complaint for Multiple Cheques – Whether Maintainable – The petitioner challenged the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, arguing that separate complaints should have been filed for each of the four dishonoured cheques – Contended that under Section 219 CrPC, no more than three offences can be tried together – Held: A single consolidated demand notice for multiple dishonoured cheques creates a single cause of action—Since the complaint was filed after expiry of the statutory period post-demand notice, only one offence was constituted—Filing a single complaint was legally permissible [Paras 12-14].

Section 138 NI Act – Conditions for Offence Completion – The petitioner argued that dishonour of each cheque constituted a distinct offence – Held: An offence under Section 138 NI Act is completed only when the drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receiving a legal notice—As a single demand notice was issued for all cheques, only one offence was committed, making a single complaint maintainable [Paras 10-11].

Applicability of Section 219 CrPC – Whether Trial for Multiple Cheques Violates Procedural Law – The petitioner relied on Section 219 CrPC to argue that no more than three offences of similar nature within a year can be tried together – Held: Section 219 CrPC applies when multiple distinct offences exist—However, when a single cause of action arises due to a common legal notice, it constitutes a single offence under Section 138 NI Act—Provision of Section 219 CrPC not attracted [Paras 15-16].

Precedents – Consistent Judicial View on Consolidated Complaints – Court referred to judgments from other High Courts supporting the maintainability of a single complaint when a consolidated demand notice is issued – Held: Judicial precedents affirm that if multiple cheques are dishonoured but a single demand notice is issued, only one cause of action arises—Petitioner's reliance on Vani Agro Enterprises vs. State of Gujarat was misplaced as it involved consolidation of separate complaints rather than maintainability of a single complaint [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Petition dismissed – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Interim stay vacated – Trial to proceed before Magistrate as per law [Paras 16-17].
 

Negotiable Instruments – Power of Attorney Holder Conducting Case – Trial Court’s Rejection Not Justified – The petitioner, who had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, left for the UK for studies and appointed her father as power of attorney holder to conduct the case – The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the complaint did not contain an averment that the power of attorney holder had knowledge of the transaction – Held: The requirement to establish knowledge applies only when the complaint is originally filed through a power of attorney holder and not when the holder is introduced later – Impugned order set aside, and permission granted to the power of attorney holder to prosecute the case [Paras 2-4].

Reliance on Precedents – Misapplication of Supreme Court and High Court Rulings – The Trial Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Narayanan A.C. & Another v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2013 (3) KHC 885 (SC), and the Kerala High Court ruling in Shibu L.P. v. Neelakantan & Another, 2022 (4) KLT 592, to justify rejecting the power of attorney holder’s application – The High Court held that these precedents were inapplicable as they dealt with complaints filed directly by power of attorney holders, whereas in this case, the complainant herself had filed the complaint and later appointed a power of attorney holder – Held: The Trial Court’s reliance on these decisions was erroneous, and the rejection of the petition was unsustainable [Paras 4].

Petition Allowed – Power of Attorney Holder Permitted to Conduct Proceedings – The High Court found that the procedural objection raised by the Trial Court had no merit, as the absence of a pleading in the original complaint about the power of attorney holder’s knowledge was irrelevant – Held: The impugned order was set aside, the power of attorney holder’s petition was allowed, and the original petition was disposed of accordingly [Paras 4].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Grant of Bail for Non-Bailable Offenses – Violation of Supreme Court Precedent – Bail Upheld – The petitioner challenged the order granting anticipatory bail to respondent no. 2 despite bailable warrants being issued against him – Contended that the order violated the Supreme Court's ruling in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, 2024 (3) SCR 421 – Held: Bail under Section 438 CrPC was granted within legal parameters, and no valid grounds were presented to justify cancellation [Paras 3-6].

Bail Cancellation – Section 439(2) CrPC – Appropriate Forum for Cancellation – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought cancellation of bail through a petition under Article 227, arguing that anticipatory bail was improperly granted – The Court held that cancellation of bail can only be sought under Section 439(2) CrPC and that Article 227 is not the correct forum for such relief – The petition was found to be legally untenable and dismissed accordingly [Paras 12-14].

Grounds for Cancellation of Bail – No Violation of Conditions or Misuse of Liberty – Bail Sustained – The Court reiterated that bail can only be canceled if the accused misuses liberty, tampers with evidence, or poses a risk of absconding – No such grounds were established in this case – Reference made to Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary, 2014 (10) SCC 754, and Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481 – Held: The anticipatory bail granted to respondent no. 2 cannot be revoked merely on procedural objections [Paras 7-9].

Jurisdiction under Article 227 – Improper Invocation for Bail Cancellation – Petition Dismissed – The Court emphasized that petitions under Article 227 cannot be used as an alternative to remedies explicitly provided under CrPC – Held: The petitioner’s attempt to challenge part of the order while seeking to retain certain directions was legally impermissible, leading to outright dismissal of the petition [Paras 11-13].

Decision: The petition was dismissed as legally unsustainable, reaffirming that bail cancellation must follow proper legal procedures under CrPC [Para 14].
 

Taxation Law - Fixed Place Permanent Establishment (PE) – Business Connection – No Fixed Place PE Established – Test of Disposal Not Satisfied – The Revenue contended that Nokia OY had a Fixed Place PE in India through its subsidiary, NIPL – The Court examined whether a fixed place of business was at the disposal of the assessee for conducting its business – Held: Mere use of administrative support facilities such as telephone, fax, and car for visiting employees does not establish a Fixed Place PE – Further, the liaison office (LO) did not conduct any core business activities of Nokia OY, and its functions were preparatory and auxiliary in nature, falling under Article 5(4) of the DTAA – No Fixed Place PE was established [Paras 26-28].

Fixed Place PE – Test of "At the Disposal of" – No Fixed Place PE Established – The Revenue argued that Nokia OY had a Fixed Place PE in India due to administrative support provided by NIPL, such as access to telephones, faxes, and conveyances – The Court held that these services did not meet the "disposal test" as established in Formula One World Championship Ltd. v. CIT and e-Funds IT Solutions – There was no evidence that any physically located premise was at the disposal of Nokia OY in India – Held: NIPL did not constitute a Fixed Place PE of Nokia OY in India [Paras 25-28, 36-38].

Dependent Agent PE (DAPE) – No Authority to Conclude Contracts – No DAPE Established – For a DAPE to exist under Article 5(5) of the DTAA, it must be shown that NIPL had the authority to conclude contracts on behalf of Nokia OY – The Court found that NIPL was conducting independent business with Indian telecom operators, and there was no evidence of it binding Nokia OY to contracts – The revenue earned by NIPL from installation activities was independently taxed in India and was not attributable to Nokia OY – Held: NIPL did not qualify as a DAPE of Nokia OY in India [Paras 27-28, 40-42, 48].

Vendor Financing – Notional Interest Cannot Be Taxed – No Real Income Accrued – The Revenue sought to tax notional interest on vendor financing under the contracts signed between Nokia OY and Indian cellular operators – The Court held that taxation under the Income Tax Act applies only to real income and not hypothetical accruals – No evidence was presented to show that Nokia OY had actually charged or received interest from Indian customers – Held: The addition of notional interest was unsustainable and was deleted [Paras 29-30, 60-61].

DTAA Interpretation – Business Connection vs. Permanent Establishment – Subsidiary Not Automatically a PE – The Revenue relied on the business connection test to assert that NIPL constituted a PE – The Court emphasized that under Article 5(8) of the DTAA, a subsidiary does not automatically become a PE of its parent – The “virtual projection” test was rejected in favor of an evidence-based approach – Held: Mere business connection is insufficient to establish a PE unless the specific conditions under Article 5 of the DTAA are satisfied [Paras 44-46].

Preparatory and Auxiliary Services – No Fixed Place PE Due to Limited Business Activities – The Tribunal correctly classified the administrative and support services provided by NIPL as preparatory and auxiliary under Article 5(4) of the DTAA – The Court held that activities like telephone access, conveyance, and office support did not constitute core business functions of Nokia OY in India – Held: Such ancillary functions do not result in a Permanent Establishment [Paras 26, 39, 98-102].

Minority Opinion – Business Connection Theory and Alter Ego Doctrine Rejected – The minority opinion argued that NIPL was an alter ego of Nokia OY and should be deemed a PE based on its deep business integration – The majority rejected this view, clarifying that business connection alone does not establish a PE and that the alter ego doctrine is not applicable where the subsidiary operates as an independent legal entity – Held: The minority opinion was unsustainable in law [Paras 49-57].

Arm’s Length Principle – No Income Attribution to Nokia OY – The Court noted that NIPL was compensated for its services at arm’s length and no transfer pricing adjustment had been made – The absence of any profit shifting meant that there was no basis to attribute NIPL’s income to Nokia OY – Held: The Tribunal’s findings on arm’s length pricing were upheld [Paras 58-59].

Precedents – Taxability of Offshore Sales – Settled Law Under Ishikawajima-Harima Case – The taxability of offshore supply contracts was already settled in Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT – Since Nokia OY’s offshore contracts were executed on an FOB (Free on Board) basis from Finland, no portion of the revenue could be attributed to India – Held: Offshore supply contracts of Nokia OY were not taxable in India [Paras 48, 58].

Taxability of Software – Covered by Supreme Court Decision in Engineering Analysis Case – The Revenue conceded that the issue of software taxation was covered by the Supreme Court ruling in Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT – Held: No additional tax liability on software transactions [Para 61].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Permanent Establishment of Nokia OY in India – The Tribunal’s order was upheld – The Court found no Fixed Place PE, no DAPE, and no justification for notional interest taxation – Held: Appeals dismissed, ruling in favor of Nokia OY [Para 62].
 

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Cruelty – False Allegations Against In-Laws – Suicide Threats – Divorce Decree Upheld – Wife alleged that her father-in-law outraged her modesty without filing any complaint – She also threatened suicide and made attempts to implicate husband and in-laws – Trial Court held these acts amounted to cruelty – Appellate Court confirmed findings – Second Appeal dismissed as findings based on evidence and not perverse [Paras 3–8].

Family Law – Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Reappreciation of Evidence Not Permissible – Court held that High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in second appeal unless findings are perverse or a substantial question of law arises – No such perversity or legal error found – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 8].

Conduct of Litigant – Avoidance of Cross-Examination – Indicative of Suppression – Court noted wife avoided cross-examination on suicide attempt and appeared with mehendi on hands to frustrate proceedings – Such conduct considered while affirming Trial Court’s conclusions [Para 7].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce upheld – No substantial question of law or perversity found – Civil application also dismissed as infructuous [Para 9].
 

Criminal Law – Rape – POCSO - Appeal against conviction – Conviction Based on Child Witness – Whether Reliable – The appellant was convicted for raping a 4½-year-old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life—Held: The minor victim’s testimony was clear, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence—Child witnesses are competent if they understand and respond rationally—Conviction upheld [Paras 10-16].

Medical Evidence – Whether Corroborates Penetrative Sexual Assault – The defence argued that the intact hymen disproved penetration—Held: Explanation 1 to Section 375 IPC clarifies that "vagina" includes labia majora—Medical findings of abrasions and redness on the genital area substantiate the victim’s testimony—Penetrative sexual assault established [Paras 14-17].

Scope of "Penetration" – Definition Under IPC and POCSO Act – The appellant contended that lack of complete penetration negates rape—Held: Even the slightest penetration into the vulva or labia majora constitutes rape—POCSO Act aligns with IPC’s broad definition—Legal position reaffirmed [Paras 18-22].

Modification of Sentence – Whether Life Imprisonment for Natural Life Justified – Trial court imposed life imprisonment until death under Section 376AB IPC—Held: While the offence is grave, a fixed-term rigorous imprisonment of 25 years is sufficient—Sentence reduced from natural life imprisonment to 25 years RI, fine of ₹25,000 maintained [Paras 25-26].

Final Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction confirmed—Sentence reduced to 25 years rigorous imprisonment with ₹25,000 fine—Default of fine to result in two years RI [Paras 26-27].
 

Civil Writ - Medical Admission – Arbitrary Allotment of Seat – Violation of Merit-Based Selection – The petitioner, who was eligible under the NCC-Female Open Category, was denied admission to the MBBS course despite being higher in merit than the 4th respondent – The University failed to produce any record showing that the seat was properly vacated before allotment to the 4th respondent – Held: The allotment was illegal and in violation of merit-based selection principles [Paras 2-8].
Failure of University to Justify Seat Allocation – No Documentary Evidence Produced – The University claimed that the seat was vacated by a candidate who moved to another college, but no documentary proof was provided despite repeated opportunities – The Court inferred that the candidate had never taken the seat, making the subsequent allotment to the 4th respondent unlawful – Held: The University's failure to justify its actions rendered the seat allotment unsustainable [Paras 6-8].
Award of Compensation – Petitioner Lost Opportunity to Pursue MBBS – The petitioner had since joined a dental course and lost the chance to pursue a medical career due to the University’s arbitrary action – The Court awarded Rs. 7 lakhs in damages and Rs. 25,000 in costs to be paid by the University – Held: Compensation awarded for the irreparable loss suffered by the petitioner [Paras 9].