Civil Law - Succession – Scheduled Tribe – Application of Indian Succession Act – Appeal Dismissed – The appellants challenged judgments declaring the plaintiff/respondent as the successor to agricultural land formerly owned by Tulsabai (widow of Gamna), asserting absence of adoption and claiming title based on ancestral gift and possession – Held: No exemption under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 was proved to exclude Bhil tribe – Therefore, succession rightly governed by Sections 24, 28, and 32 of the Act – Plaintiff, as nephew of deceased, was closest kindred entitled to succeed – Second appeal dismissed as no substantial question of law arose [Paras 13-21, 26-30].

Adoption – Custom Not Proved – Succession Upheld on Basis of Kindred – Plaintiff's adoption was not accepted by the courts below for lack of evidence – However, concurrent findings held him to be the nearest surviving relative of the deceased couple – Courts rightly relied on statutory succession principles rather than unproven adoption or custom – Adoption plea immaterial to final outcome [Paras 12-15, 21].

Customary Law – Inapplicability Due to Lack of Exemption – Hindu and Indian Succession Acts Apply – Appellants contended that Bhil tribe is governed by custom and not general succession laws – Court held that without notification under Section 3 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, no exemption applies – Indian Succession Act validly governs devolution of property – Appellants' reliance on Madhu Kishwar distinguished [Paras 18-19].

Mutation and Compensation – No Independent Right Created – Sale by Defendants Invalid – Mutation in favour of defendants and subsequent sale to State under Mahi Canal Project did not create valid title – Original sale deed from 1966 in favour of Gamna remained unchallenged – Courts rightly declared mutation and sale-deed null and void – Compensation declared payable to rightful heir i.e. plaintiff [Paras 5-8, 22-23].

Substantial Question of Law – Not Made Out – Concurrent Findings Not Interfered With – Appellants failed to show any perverse findings or misapplication of law – Legal issues raised regarding adoption, mutation, and compensation did not satisfy threshold under Section 100 CPC – Appeal dismissed in limine [Paras 13, 26-30].

Final Decision – Second Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law arose – Plaintiff/respondent declared rightful successor and owner – Defendants’ mutation and sale of land declared invalid – Compensation awarded to plaintiff – Costs not imposed [Paras 29-30].

Company Law – Challenge to Sale Transactions – Validity of Board Resolutions – Appellant disputed the execution of sale deeds in favour of 36 purchasers alleging lack of authority and fraudulent resolutions – Court found that the board resolutions dated 12.01.1996, 10.02.1996, and 27.11.1999 were validly passed – Appellant was signatory to key resolutions and raised no timely challenge – Sales upheld as valid and binding [Paras 16–24, 28–30].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 10F Companies Act – Scope – Court reiterated that appeals under Section 10F lie only on substantial questions of law – Factual findings by Company Law Board cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse – Cited decisions in V.S. Krishnan, Purnima Manthena, Dale & Carrington, and others – No legal infirmity found in CLB findings [Paras 28–33].

Oppression and Mismanagement – Winding Up – Appellant sought winding up on grounds of ceased business and mismanagement – Court held mere lack of business does not warrant winding up where substantial assets remain – Findings of Company Court that oppression not proved upheld – No just and equitable ground for winding up made out [Paras 25–27, 34–40, 54].

Indoor Management Rule – Siblings as Directors – Appellant claimed ignorance of company affairs – Court rejected invocation of Turquand's rule – All directors had knowledge and participated in decisions – Cannot disclaim responsibility for valid acts of the board [Paras 41–44].

Sale Consideration – Verification by Chartered Accountant – Chartered Accountant appointed by Company Law Board and again by Court confirmed receipt of sale consideration by the company – Minor discrepancies noted but no evidence of misappropriation – No basis to direct deposit or surrender by directors [Paras 45–48, 56–57].

Specific Performance Suit – Mrs. Jayaraj – Suit filed for specific performance based on alternate board minutes dismissed – Minutes III disavowed – Title conferred only to 36 purchasers under registered sale deeds – No recognition of other alleged agreements [Paras 18–19, 52–53].

Decision: All appeals (O.S.A. Nos. 430 & 431 of 2001, C.M.A. No.403 of 2007, Company Appeal No.17 of 2009, C.M.P. No.2007 of 2025) dismissed – Sale deeds to 36 purchasers upheld – Winding up refused – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 51, 54, 58].

Income Tax – Section 14A Disallowance – Mandatory Recording of Satisfaction – Disallowance Deleted – The Assessing Officer disallowed ₹5,07,04,000 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D – Held: AO failed to record any dissatisfaction with assessee’s claim of no expenditure incurred in earning exempt income – In absence of proper satisfaction as mandated under Section 14A(2), invocation of Rule 8D not justified – Disallowance liable to be deleted [Paras 9–12].

Rule 8D – Precondition of AO’s Satisfaction – Procedural Safeguard – Not Optional – The court reiterated that Rule 8D can be invoked only after AO records dissatisfaction with assessee’s computation of expenditure – Satisfaction must be based on objective analysis, not merely a ritual formality – Lack of such satisfaction renders the disallowance unsustainable in law [Paras 9–11].

Precedent – Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment – Decision Followed – The Court relied on Supreme Court judgment in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT, (2017) 394 ITR 449 (SC) – Held: AO’s mechanical application of Rule 8D without recording reasons violates settled law [Para 11].

Decision – Disallowance under Section 14A Deleted – Appeal Allowed – The impugned order confirming disallowance set aside – Appeal of assessee allowed with no order as to costs [Para 13].

Real Estate – Pre-Deposit Requirement – Section 43(5) of RERA Act – Appeals Dismissed – Petitioners challenged REAT’s dismissal of their appeals due to non-compliance with pre-deposit condition – High Court upheld the validity of the statutory mandate requiring promoters to deposit the determined dues before appeal is entertained – Held: The condition is mandatory and not violative of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of Constitution – REAT acted within jurisdiction in dismissing the appeals [Paras 19-25].

Deemed Occupancy Certificate – Rejection by DDA – Petitioners claimed deemed OCC under 1983 Bye-Laws – High Court noted discrepancies in documents and delay in compliance – Fire Safety Certificate and OCC fee were dated post the claimed application – DDA had rejected OCC application in 2021 – Held: No deemed grant of OCC can be presumed – RERA Act applicable as no valid OCC was in existence [Paras 14-18].

Jurisdiction of RERA Authorities – Applicability Justified – In the absence of a valid OCC at the time of RERA’s enforcement, RERA authorities had jurisdiction to entertain homebuyers’ complaints – Petitioners’ reliance on deemed OCC theory rejected – Held: REAT rightly assumed jurisdiction [Para 18].

Furnishing Security in Lieu of Pre-Deposit – Not Permissible – Petitioners’ offer to provide immovable property security in place of pre-deposit was rejected – Held: RERA Act contains no provision allowing substitution of pre-deposit with property security – REAT’s refusal valid [Para 26].

Constitutional Validity of Pre-Deposit – Section 43(5) Upheld – Reaffirmed that pre-deposit requirement does not offend constitutional rights and is aimed at balancing parties’ rights – Relied on Supreme Court’s decision in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 18 SCC 127 – Held: Pre-deposit is an essential pre-condition for maintainability of appeal by promoter [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Petitioners failed to comply with pre-deposit condition – REAT’s order upheld – Liberty granted to revive appeal upon compliance within 30 days from judgment date [Paras 27-28].

Civil Law - Substitution of Legal Representative – Will Executed by Deceased Plaintiff – Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Substitution Allowed – Original plaintiff Munni Devi filed suit for declaration and partition claiming 1/3rd share – After her death, petitioner (her son) filed substitution application based on a will executed by her in his favour – Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that other legal heirs named in the will were not impleaded – Held: A legatee under a will represents the estate of the deceased and is entitled to be substituted – No allegation of fraud or collusion was made by the respondents – Application wrongly rejected – Order of Trial Court set aside and petitioner directed to be impleaded as plaintiff [Paras 1–10].

Procedural Lapse by Trial Court – Failure to Declare Suit Abated – Judicial Criticism – Trial Court, while rejecting the substitution application, did not declare the suit abated despite no surviving plaintiff – Instead, the matter was posted for plaintiff’s evidence – Held: Such action reflects lack of basic procedural understanding – Presiding Officer requires training – Order to be forwarded to District Judge, Director of JOTRI, and Registrar General for appropriate action [Paras 12–13].

Final Decision – Misc. Petition allowed – Order dated 08/01/2025 in RCSA No. 233/2021 set aside – Petitioner to be substituted as plaintiff – Trial Court directed to proceed with the suit accordingly [Paras 10–11].

Bail – Modification of Conditions – Maintainability – Section 528 BNSS – Petition challenging onerous bail conditions restricting foreign travel and requiring deposit of passport – Respondents argued modification impermissible once bail granted – Held: Bail order interlocutory; conditions not final judgment; Court retains inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to alter conditions to secure ends of justice [Paras 12-16].

Right to Travel Abroad – Article 21 – Petitioner, business head engaged in international tyre trade, required frequent travel – Family and residence in India, no flight risk – Held: Right to travel abroad part of personal liberty; restrictions must be reasonable; conditions modified to balance liberty with fair trial [Paras 18-20, 23].

GST Offence – Bail Conditions – Regulation not Deletion – Court distinguished Barun Chandra Thakur and Aparna Purohit cases – Noted petitioner’s case involved GST evasion triable by Magistrate; not grave crimes like POCSO or conspiracy – Conditions for foreign travel regulated with affidavits, disclosures and additional security; not deleted [Paras 21-22, 24].

Modified Conditions – Passport & Travel – Condition requiring prior permission for each trip substituted with requirement to file affidavit before Trial Court disclosing travel details; prohibition on foreign travel after case fixed for final arguments – Passport deposit condition relaxed; passport to be returned – Additional security of Rs.5 lakhs directed [Para 24].

Decision – Application Allowed in Part – Bail conditions modified to regulate international travel and relax passport deposit requirement – Additional security imposed – Application disposed of [Paras 24-25].

Permanent Injunction – Lawful Possession Under Registered Lease – Protection Granted – Plaintiff obtained a mining lease under G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 25.02.2012 for pyrophyllite mineral excavation – Registered lease deed and mining work orders established lawful possession – Held: Possession under lease being lawful, plaintiff is entitled to protection from interference by State authorities through a decree of permanent injunction [Paras 3–4, 16–20].

Forest Land Dispute – Government Lease Overrides Forest Department Objection – No Evidence Led by Defendants – Defendants claimed mining occurred in reserved forest (Madhavaram block), but failed to produce oral or documentary evidence – Held: Mere pleading without proof is insufficient – Defendants did not enter witness box or rebut plaintiff’s evidence – Forest officials’ claims of illegality unsubstantiated [Paras 6–7, 17–18].

Section 80 CPC – Objection Raised for First Time in Second Appeal – Waiver Inferred – Defendants argued lack of notice under Section 80 CPC – Held: No such plea was raised in the written statement or first appeal – Trial court had dispensed with notice under Section 80(2) CPC – Such objection cannot be entertained for the first time in second appeal [Para 19].

Second Appeal – No Substantial Question of Law – Concurrent Findings Upheld – Held: Both trial and first appellate courts rightly decreed the suit – Appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law as required under Section 100 CPC – Mere reappreciation of evidence or alternate view not permissible – Second appeal dismissed at admission stage [Paras 13–23].

Decision – Second Appeal Dismissed – Concurrent Decrees Affirmed – The High Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings in favour of the plaintiff – Suit for injunction upheld based on lawful possession – No costs awarded – Pending applications closed [Para 23].

Civil Law – Ex-Parte Order Passed Without Service of Summons – Recalled Subject to Cost – The petitioner-defendant challenged an ex-parte order passed in a suit where no summons was served on him under Order 5 Rule 1 CPC – Despite entering appearance via caveat and participating in injunction proceedings, the court had not recorded his appearance or fixed a date for filing written statement – Held: Mere appearance in interim application does not imply waiver of formal summons – Ex-parte order against petitioner liable to be recalled [Paras 1, 7–10, 12–15].

Appearance via Caveat – Not Equivalent to Service of Summons – Order 5 Rule 1 Mandatory – The defendant had lodged a caveat under Section 148A CPC and appeared in the injunction proceedings – Held: In absence of a recorded appearance and fixed date for written statement, service of summons remains mandatory – Time limit for filing written statement cannot begin without such recording – High Court distinguished cases where service was waived voluntarily or by conduct [Paras 8–12, 15–16].

Doctrine of Waiver – Inapplicable When Court Fails to Fix Date for Written Statement – The trial court failed to fix a date for filing written statement or to treat appearance as effective under Order 5 – Held: Waiver must be explicit or inferred from conduct along with court direction – Absence of such record precludes implication of waiver – Trial court’s refusal to recall the ex-parte order was procedurally flawed [Paras 11, 15].

Delay Tactics vs Procedural Fairness – Negligence of Defendant Acknowledged but Court’s Role Also Criticised – Though the High Court noted the petitioner’s inaction and intent to delay proceedings, it held that procedural fairness required proper service and recording of appearance – The trial court erred by not issuing or recording summons before treating the defendant as ex-parte – Balance of procedural compliance and fairness maintained [Paras 13, 16].

Decision – Revisional Application Allowed – Ex-Parte Order Set Aside – Written Statement Permitted – High Court set aside the trial court’s order refusing recall – Directed petitioner to pay ₹25,000 as cost to the plaintiff and file written statement within 15 days – Failure to comply would entitle trial court to proceed ex-parte – Urgent certified copy permitted [Paras 17–19].

Civil Law - Rejection Of Plaint  - Order VII Rule 11 CPC  - Maintainability of Suit – Tenant Seeking Cancellation of Sale Deed – No Locus Standi – Plaintiff-tenant filed a suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed executed by landlord in favour of a third party, claiming peaceful possession since 2008 – Held: Tenant, not being the owner, cannot challenge the validity of the sale deed merely on the basis of possession – The plaint discloses no cause of action for cancellation of sale deed [Paras 10–14].

Rejection of Plaint – Application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Allegation of Illegal Transfer Not Sustainable – Trial court allowed defendants’ application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC rejecting the plaint – Held: As per Supreme Court ruling in Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., a caretaker or tenant cannot claim ownership or challenge title based on long possession – The suit was rightly dismissed without trial as the plaint failed to disclose a maintainable cause [Paras 12–17].

Pending Litigation – Concealment of Facts – Effect on Maintainability – It was revealed that proceedings between parties were already pending before a Commercial Court and the tenant failed to disclose the same – Held: Material suppression of pending litigation coupled with lack of ownership disentitles plaintiff from equitable relief – Suit not maintainable [Paras 5–6, 12].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – No Interference Warranted – Appellate court upheld trial court’s decision rejecting the plaint – Suit found to be barred by law and not maintainable – First Appeal dismissed, trial court judgment sustained [Paras 18–19].