Civil Law - Public Land Allotment – Burial Ground for Muslim Community – Petition Dismissed - The petitioners challenged the allotment of 0.16 acres of land in Survey No.138/1 in Chinamushidiwada Village for a burial ground on grounds of health risks and procedural lapse – Court found that the site was adjacent to existing Hindu and Christian burial grounds and allotted following due procedure under the Municipal Corporation Act – Held: Petitioners failed to prove any contamination risk or legal infirmity in the allotment process [Paras 2–8].

Health Hazard Allegations – No Evidence Provided – Petition Dismissed - Petitioners’ claim that the burial ground posed a health hazard, especially in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, was unsupported by evidence – No documented complaints or scientific data submitted – Existing neighboring burial grounds never contested earlier – Court rejected unsubstantiated apprehensions [Paras 6–7].

Alternate Land – Shift Due to Master Plan – Allotment Justified – Petition Dismissed - The earlier burial ground for the Muslim community was affected by 60-0 master plan road widening – The authorities identified alternative land based on feasibility and religious parity, as Hindu and Christian burial sites were already nearby – The administrative decision was found reasonable and legally sound [Paras 3, 7].

Decision – No Grounds for Interference – Writ Petition Dismissed - The Court concluded that the petition lacked merit and the land allotment was lawful and justified – No basis for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Petition dismissed and pending applications closed [Paras 7–8].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Judicial Officer – Validity of Adverse Material Considered – Challenge Rejected - Petitioner, a judicial officer compulsorily retired based on adverse remarks and a censure entry – Contentions regarding uncommunicated vigilance reports and pending representations rejected – Court held that adverse entries and censure, having attained finality, constituted sufficient basis for compulsory retirement without detailed examination of sufficiency – Scope of judicial review limited [Paras 1-3, 7-10, 14-15, 25-26].

Administrative Law – Principles Governing Judicial Officers’ Conduct – Higher Standards Required – Compulsory Retirement Distinguished from Punishment - Court reiterated that judicial officers are held to stricter standards of integrity and conduct – Compulsory retirement based on objective evaluation of entire service record and not punitive in nature – Emphasized public confidence in justice system [Paras 16, 24, 26].

Judicial Review – Scope and Limits – Screening Committee’s Decision – No Interference Warranted - Screening Committee’s recommendation and Full Court’s approval for compulsory retirement based on relevant and sufficient material – No malafide, bias, or arbitrariness shown – Writ jurisdiction confined to checking decision-making process, not reappreciation of merits [Paras 6, 14-15, 25-26].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Court found no grounds to interfere with the compulsory retirement order passed by the State Government and approved by the Full Court of Allahabad High Court [Para 27].
 

Child Custody – Habeas Corpus – Foreign Custody Order – Enforcement Directed – The biological mother sought custody of her Canadian minor child retained by father in India in defiance of Ontario Family Court order dated 13.11.2024 – Held: The retention is illegal, child's Indian VISA has expired, and father's actions amount to forum shopping – Repatriation to Canada ordered in interest of child’s welfare and legal comity [Paras 1–3, 14–27].

Jurisdiction – Writ Maintainable Despite Foreign Nationals – Writ of Habeas Corpus Lies – The petitioner (Brazilian national) and respondent (Canadian national) had a Canadian-born child brought to India under a short visit order – Held: Indian courts can issue writs in such cases if custody violates lawful foreign decrees and child's welfare is compromised – No bar under Article 226 [Paras 15–16].

International Comity – Canadian Court Order Given Effect – Indian Court Upholds Foreign Decree – Respondent failed to disclose Canadian Court’s order while seeking VISA extension – Held: Misuse of Indian jurisdiction and breach of foreign court undertakings cannot be condoned – Indian courts must respect international child custody norms [Paras 17–20].

Best Interest of the Child – Paramount Consideration – Child's Comfort with Mother Noted – Court observed interaction between child and mother as warm and reassuring – Held: Tender age, emotional bonding, and stable upbringing in habitual residence in Canada warrant returning custody to mother [Paras 22–24].

Judicial Discretion – Not a Custody Battle but Illegal Detention – Respondent’s Plea Rejected – Argument that this is a custody dispute not warranting habeas corpus was rejected – Held: Breach of undertaking and expired VISA render continued stay unlawful – Courts must prevent jurisdictional manipulation [Paras 21, 26].

Decision – Repatriation Ordered – Continued custody of child by father declared unsustainable – Child to be repatriated to Canada in custody of mother – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–29].
 

Civil Law - Arbitrability of Land Mutation Disputes – Civil Suit Referred to Arbitration – Challenge Dismissed – Petitioners challenged order of Civil Judge allowing application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act referring mutation dispute to arbitration – Held: Dispute arises from a Memorandum of Settlement containing valid arbitration clause – Subject matter is a private dispute over land title and not an action in rem – Suit properly referred to arbitration [Paras 1–3, 20.1–20.3].

Civil vs. Arbitration Forum – Declaratory Relief in Mutation Disputes – Arbitrable – Argument that mutation challenges are governed by Section 45 of the Haryana Land Revenue Act and fall within civil court jurisdiction was rejected – Held: Arbitrator has jurisdiction over claims in personam even if linked to revenue records – Provisions of Section 127 of the Act allow for arbitration of such disputes [Paras 5, 20.4].

Petitioners’ Conduct – Inconsistent Litigation Strategy – Petitioners Themselves Invoked Arbitration – Court noted that petitioners had filed applications under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration Act and raised same mutation dispute in arbitral proceedings – Held: Petitioners estopped from arguing that dispute is non-arbitrable [Paras 2.6, 20.2].

Principle of Minimal Court Interference – Section 8, 11 Jurisdiction Narrow – Citing Vidya Drolia and Emaar India precedents – Held: Judicial review at referral stage limited to prima facie review of arbitration clause and manifestly non-arbitrable cases – No such circumstance present here – Arbitral Tribunal to decide jurisdiction [Paras 12–16, 20.5–20.6].

Scope of Section 8 Application – Erroneous Mention of Order VII Rule 11 – Clarified – Trial Court mistakenly mentioned plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) despite no such application – Held: Order still valid as only referral to arbitration under Section 8 was granted – No jurisdictional error caused [Para 20.8].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – Impugned order upheld – Civil Suit correctly referred to arbitration – No interference warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution [Para 21].
 

Patent Law – Challenge to Section 53 Patents Act – Appeal Dismissed – Petitioners sought to declare Section 53 unconstitutional for counting patent term from application date despite delays in grant – High Court upheld that Section 53 and Section 11A(7) operate in distinct domains – Section 53 governs term and cessation; Section 11A(7) confers provisional rights without full enforceability until patent is granted [Paras 12–24].

Delay in Grant – No Violation of Constitutional Rights – No Ground for Striking Down Provision – The delay of 7 years in granting the patent, though regrettable, was held not to invalidate the statutory scheme – Representation seeking legislative amendment or compensation was found beyond judicial remit under Article 226 [Paras 6–11, 23–27].

Pre-grant Rights and Enforcement – Limited Scope – Interim Protection Only – Section 11A(7) provides limited privileges but bars infringement proceedings before patent grant – Court reaffirmed statutory rights in patent law are distinct from common law and are enforceable only post-grant [Paras 13–16, 24].

Judicial Review of Legislative Policy – Separation of Powers – Rejected – Court held it cannot direct Parliament to amend legislation or restructure statutory timelines – Reliance on comparative models like the US Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) was held inapplicable in Indian context, as affirmed by expert committee in Nittoo Denko case [Paras 25–26].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Writ Dismissal Affirmed – No conflict found between Sections 53 and 11A(7) – Appellants directed to bear their own costs – Request for certified copy allowed [Paras 27–30].

Civil Law - Probate – Delay in Filing – Not Fatal – Continuous Right Doctrine Applied – Supreme Court precedents in Samir Kapoor and High Court ruling in Achin Ghosh followed – Delay of 19 years explained due to mutual compliance with Will terms and cause of action arising only after partition suit filed by daughters – Held: Probate is a legal sanction to perform a duty created by Will, and not bound by limitation like ordinary suits [Paras 26–33].

Execution and Attestation of Will – Statutory Compliance Proven – Sole surviving attesting witness (P.W.2) confirmed execution and attestation in accordance with Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 of Evidence Act – No counter-evidence or expert testimony filed by appellant – Held: Will duly proved [Paras 34–36].

Suspicious Circumstances – Allegations Unsubstantiated – Claims of interpolation, signature mismatch, unusual spacing, and attesting witness bias not supported by evidence – Court held these as minor discrepancies insufficient to raise valid suspicion – Reiterated that Will must be judged based on prudent person test, not fantasy of doubt [Paras 39–46].

Section 105 Succession Act – Lapse of Legacy – Not Relevant to Probate – Held: Issues of title or lapsed legacy fall outside probate court’s remit – Validity of Will’s execution is sole concern – Post-mortem demise of legatee does not affect validity of Will executed prior [Paras 54–56].

Final Decision – Probate Deemed Decree Upheld – Appeal Dismissed – Probate granted to respondent affirmed by First Appellate Court – Held: Testamentary Court’s role is to honour the last wishes of the deceased in absence of real suspicious circumstances [Paras 60–61].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Interpretation of Agreement – Assessment Based on Receipts, Not Gross Bills – Appeal Dismissed - The assessee contended that 5% infrastructure fee should be computed on gross advertising bills; however, the agreement specified 5% of “total receipts” – The Court upheld the lower authorities’ view that only net receipts disclosed in P&L (₹58.77 lakhs) were relevant – Held: Tribunal rightly rejected higher claim based on gross billing not reflected as income [Paras 1-11].

Commercial Expediency – Reasonableness of Expenditure – Judicial Deference to Business Judgment – Tribunal's View Affirmed - The assessee’s plea that AO erred in questioning business decisions was rejected – The Court reiterated principles from Walchand & Co. and J.K. Woollen Manufacturers that expenses must be real and incurred wholly for business – Disallowance of inflated claim upheld in absence of proof or perversity in findings [Paras 6-8].

Appeal under Section 260A – Limited Interference Permitted – No Perverse Finding – No Substantial Question of Law - Findings of AO, CIT(A), and ITAT were based on record and profit & loss statement – No case of perversity or legal misapplication found – Held: No interference warranted in appeal under Section 260A [Paras 9-12].

Final Decision – Question of Law Answered Against Assessee – Appeal Dismissed - The substantial question of law was answered in favour of revenue – Appeal dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 12-13].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR - Criminal Conspiracy and Forgery – Role of Professional Valuer – FIR Quashed – Petitioner, an empanelled bank valuer, was accused of preparing false valuation reports without physically inspecting properties – Court held petitioner relied on representations made by bank officer and submitted a valuation opinion, not a forged document – No evidence of collusion or meeting of minds to establish conspiracy under Sections 120B or 467 IPC – FIR and proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 8-24, 29-32].

Forgery – Ingredients Not Satisfied – Mere Negligence Not Criminal – Court reiterated that for forgery under Sections 463, 464 IPC, intent to defraud or fabricate must be shown – Petitioner’s report may be based on negligent reliance, but no evidence of intentional fraud or fabrication – No entrustment or inducement proven to attract Sections 406, 409, or 420 IPC – Criminal charges ruled unsustainable [Paras 21-24].

Professional Opinion – Valuation Report as Expert Opinion – No Mens Rea – Court found valuation report to be a subjective professional opinion, disclaiming liability and ownership verification – Bank could independently verify the report before acting – Held: Valuer cannot be criminally prosecuted unless shown to have actively conspired or abetted fraud [Paras 17-18, 30-31].

Decision – Petition Allowed – FIR registered as CR No.11199010210968/2021 with Bharuch ‘A’ Division Police Station and subsequent proceedings quashed qua the petitioner – Court held continuance of trial against petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law [Para 32].
 

Criminal Procedure – Multiple FIRs – Same Incident – Quashing of FIRs - Petitioners challenged registration of multiple FIRs (Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024) arising from the same occurrence as Cr.No.153 of 2024 relating to an alleged attack on government officials – Court held that multiple FIRs for the same incident and cause of action are impermissible and amount to abuse of process – Held: Subsequent FIRs quashed, and related proceedings set aside [Paras 2-7, 32-44].
Unlawful Assembly and Conspiracy – Allegations against Petitioners – Petitioners alleged to have conspired to obstruct public servants and attack them during land acquisition hearing – Court found allegations against Petitioners were identical in all FIRs without specific distinct acts – Held: Allegations insufficient to justify continuation of multiple proceedings [Paras 6, 9-11, 40].
Police Procedure – Registration of FIRs – Commonality in Complaints – Complaints in three crimes prepared by same scribe without specific individualization by complainants – Court observed that multiple FIRs with identical allegations prepared mechanically were impermissible – Held: Abuse of process established [Paras 36-39].
Investigation – Consolidation of Evidence – Statements recorded in subsequently quashed FIRs can be treated as evidence in main FIR – Court permitted Investigating Officer to treat materials from Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 as part of investigation in Cr.No.153 of 2024 [Para 45].
Decision – Criminal Petition Allowed – Remand orders dated 09.01.2025 in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 set aside – Proceedings in Cr.Nos.154 and 155 of 2024 against petitioners quashed – Investigation to proceed in Cr.No.153 of 2024 alone [Paras 47].