Service Law – Selection Grade – Calculation of Cadre Strength – Plaintiffs claimed Selection Grade based on total cadre strength of 430 posts, while defendants argued cadre strength was 264 – Evidence showed sanctioned strength was 384 as admitted by defendants' witness – Held: 20% of 384 posts (i.e., 76 employees) were entitled to Selection Grade – Findings of Trial Court & First Appellate Court upheld [Paras 8-9].

Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Pendency of Writ Petition – No Bar – Defendants contended that grant of Selection Grade was linked to pending CWP-4194-1986 before High Court – Held: No bar on Civil Court’s jurisdiction as no stay was granted in writ petition – Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide claim [Para 11].

Concurrent Findings of Fact – No Interference in Second Appeal – High Court found no illegality or perversity in judgments of Trial Court & First Appellate Court – No substantial question of law raised – Second Appeal dismissed [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error found in concurrent findings of lower courts – 76 employees rightfully entitled to Selection Grade – No interference warranted.

Rent Law - Eviction – Bona Fide Personal Necessity – Landlord’s Right to Choose Property Use – The landlord sought eviction for constructing a common room, canteen, and parking area for a PG accommodation – The tenant contended that the landlord possessed other vacant properties suitable for the same purpose – Held: The landlord is the best judge of his requirements – The tenant failed to prove that the landlord had alternative suitable premises – Eviction upheld [Paras 12-15].

Death of Landlord During Pendency of Appeal – Effect on Bona Fide Need – The tenant argued that the eviction petition should abate due to the landlord’s death – Held: The bona fide need of the landlord is assessed at the time of filing the petition – Legal heirs are entitled to continue the eviction proceedings – Eviction decree remains valid despite the landlord’s death during appeal [Paras 16-21].

Admissibility of Evidence – Site Plan and Guest House Records – The tenant claimed that the landlord failed to provide municipal records or site plans of the guest house – Held: The tenant had admitted the existence of the guest house in prior litigation – The evidence produced by the landlord, including photographs and site plans, was sufficient to establish bona fide necessity [Paras 11-12].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Scope of High Court’s Review – The tenant sought reappreciation of evidence – Held: The High Court’s revisional power is confined to examining errors of law and perversity in findings – There was no illegality in the concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority – No interference warranted [Paras 22-23].

Decision: The revision petition is dismissed – The tenant is granted two months to vacate the premises and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent – Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of [Paras 24-25].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Right of Private Defence – Reduction of Conviction to Section 304 Part II IPC – The accused, while in possession of agricultural land, inflicted multiple injuries on the complainant and the deceased when the latter attempted to assert possession – Held: Though the accused had a right to private defense, they exceeded the same by inflicting excessive injuries – The conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside and modified to Section 304 Part II IPC with a sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine imposed by the trial court remained unaltered [Paras 25-27, 32-33].

Criminal Law – Common Intention – Vicarious Liability Under Section 149 IPC – The appellants contended that only specific injuries were attributed to them – Held: Since the accused acted collectively, they were vicariously liable for the injuries leading to the death of the deceased – Conviction altered from Section 302/149 IPC to Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 31-32].

Criminal Law – Self-Defence – Justification and Limits – The accused claimed they acted in self-defence while protecting their possession of the disputed land – Held: The right of private defense did not extend to causing death, as the complainant and deceased were unarmed and outnumbered – The injuries inflicted were disproportionate to the perceived threat, exceeding the limits of private defense [Paras 27-28, 30].

Criminal Law – Section 313 CrPC – Accused’s Right to Raise Plea of Self-Defence at Any Stage – The appellants argued that the plea of self-defense was not raised during trial – Held: A plea of self-defense can be considered even if not explicitly raised under Section 313 CrPC, as long as the circumstances support it – The Supreme Court’s rulings affirming this principle were followed [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Law – Sentence Enhancement – Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – The complainant sought enhancement of sentence and conviction of acquitted co-accused – Held: The sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC was found to be appropriate – No interference warranted in revisional jurisdiction – Criminal revision dismissed [Paras 34].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment of Fictitious Income – Powers of CBDT under Section 119 – Held: The petitioner, formerly Satyam Computer Services Ltd., suffered due to financial fraud committed by its ex-management – The company was made to pay income tax on inflated and non-existent income – Despite multiple judicial findings confirming the fraud, CBDT rejected the petitioner’s plea for reassessment – The court held that CBDT’s refusal was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution – The impugned order was set aside, and reassessment directed based on the revised financial statements for AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09 [Paras 64-72].

Fraud and Taxation – Effect of Fraud on Assessments – Principles of Real Income – Held: Fraud vitiates all legal proceedings – The assessments made on fictitious income were null and void – Real income doctrine mandates that tax can only be levied on actual earnings – The petitioner was entitled to rectification of its tax liabilities based on true financial records, excluding fraudulent entries [Paras 66-68].

Reassessment and Procedural Fairness – Power of High Court under Article 226 – Held: The rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 119 of the Income Tax Act was arbitrary – The High Court has jurisdiction to intervene and direct reassessment in cases where fundamental tax principles and natural justice are violated – Petition allowed, and reassessment ordered [Paras 71-75].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Reassessment Directed – Held: The impugned CBDT order dated 11.07.2011 quashed – Respondents directed to conduct fresh assessments for AYs 2003-04 to 2008-09 based on revised financial statements – No tax recovery permitted until reassessment is completed – Petitioner voluntarily waived refund claims on excess tax paid [Paras 72-76].

Civil Law - Court Fees – Suit for Rescission of Agreement to Sell – Liability to Pay Ad Valorem Court Fees – The petitioners filed a suit under Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act for rescission of an agreement to sell due to non-performance by the respondent – Trial Court directed payment of ad valorem court fees on the total sale consideration – Petitioners contended they were only seeking rescission and forfeiture of earnest money, not cancellation of title – Held: A plaintiff seeking rescission of an agreement to sell is required to pay ad valorem court fees only on the forfeited earnest money, not the total sale consideration – Decision: Trial court order set aside [Paras 25-27].

Court Fees – Applicability of Ad Valorem Fee – Agreement to Sell vs. Registered Sale Deed – Agreement to sell does not confer title but merely creates an obligation – Only a registered sale deed transfers ownership – Petitioners seeking rescission due to breach by the defendant cannot be burdened with ad valorem court fees on the total sale consideration – Held: Suit for rescission does not attract ad valorem court fees on the sale consideration, only on earnest money if forfeiture is claimed – Decision: Impugned order quashed [Paras 30-32].

Estoppel Against Defendant – Failure to Seek Specific Performance – No Right to Demand Ad Valorem Fees from Plaintiff – Defendant argued he was ready and willing to perform his obligations – Court noted that he never filed a suit for specific performance within the limitation period – Held: Defendant is estopped from contesting rescission when he himself failed to enforce the contract – Decision: No ad valorem court fees required on total sale consideration [Paras 16-17].

Legal Precedents – Conflicting Views on Ad Valorem Fees – Larger Bench Interpretation – Various High Court decisions had conflicting views on whether ad valorem court fees apply to rescission suits – Larger Bench reconciled the differences – Held: The correct position is that ad valorem court fees apply only to the forfeited earnest money, not the total sale consideration – Decision: Reference answered accordingly [Paras 20-21].

Decision: The High Court held that the petitioners were not required to pay ad valorem court fees on the total sale consideration. Instead, they were only liable for ad valorem court fees on the earnest money sought to be forfeited. The order of the trial court directing the petitioners to affix ad valorem court fees on the full sale consideration was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the judgment.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Abetment of Suicide – Essential Ingredients – Mens Rea Required – Section 306 IPC – Proceedings Quashed – The applicants were accused of abetting the suicide of their elder brother due to their alleged refusal to repay a loan taken by the deceased – The FIR was lodged by the deceased’s brother-in-law after a delay of several days – The prosecution failed to establish any direct or indirect act of instigation or abetment by the applicants – Held: For an offence under Section 306 IPC, a clear mens rea, active act, or direct incitement to suicide is required – Mere refusal to repay the deceased’s loan does not constitute abetment under Section 306 IPC – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 8, 9, 20, 21].

Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings – Application in Abetment Cases – Not Applicable – The petitioners contended that the charge sheet was based on conjectures and vague allegations, lacking substantive evidence – The prosecution relied on statements from the deceased’s wife regarding the loan dispute – Held: The principles of res judicata do not apply in criminal cases, and each case must be determined based on its individual facts and legal merits – Proceedings quashed due to absence of legal evidence supporting the charges [Paras 7, 10, 11].

Mens Rea – Requirement for Conviction Under Section 306 IPC – No Evidence Found – The Supreme Court precedents emphasize that abetment involves a mental process of instigating or aiding suicide – The accused must have actively instigated or compelled the deceased to commit suicide – Held: There was no evidence of instigation, coercion, or any active role played by the applicants in driving the deceased to suicide – Mere financial disputes or familial disagreements do not constitute abetment – Petition allowed, and proceedings quashed [Paras 12, 19, 20].

Judicial Precedents – Reliance on Supreme Court Rulings – Principle of Instigation Clarified – The court relied on various judgments, including Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628, Amalendu Pal vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, M. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) 4 SCC 633, and Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SCC) – Held: The absence of direct incitement or proximate causation negates the charge of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC – Proceedings quashed [Paras 14-18, 20].

Decision: The court found no active act or direct instigation by the applicants that could amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC – The deceased had independent ownership of his agricultural property, and his financial liabilities were solely his responsibility – Mere non-payment of a debt by family members does not constitute abetment – Continuation of criminal proceedings against the applicants was held to be an abuse of the legal process – Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed – Criminal Case No. 5450 of 2016 quashed in its entirety [Para 21].
 

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Rule Against Reopening Same Issue Twice – The petitioner’s income for AY 2017-18 was previously reassessed under Section 147 read with Section 144B based on allegations of undervaluation of shares – The assessment order passed on 29.03.2022 accepted the petitioner’s explanation and made no additions – The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated fresh reassessment proceedings on 28.03.2024, relying on the same facts and assumptions – Held: Reopening the assessment for the same issue is impermissible – The impugned order and notice are quashed [Paras 1-7, 19-21, 24-25].

Income Tax – Reassessment Based on New Information – Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – The AO claimed that fresh information was received indicating that the petitioner had transferred the entire Friends Colony property through a sale of shares – The petitioner demonstrated that TREPL, the company in question, owned only two floors and not the entire property – No new material was provided by the AO to contradict the petitioner’s position – Held: In absence of new tangible material, reopening of assessment is invalid [Paras 16-22].

Income Tax – Requirement to Consider Assessee’s Reply Before Passing Reassessment Order – Section 148A(d), Income Tax Act – The petitioner provided detailed replies to both the earlier and latest reassessment proceedings, explaining that TREPL owned only two floors of the Friends Colony property – The AO disregarded this explanation and proceeded with reassessment – Held: Failure to consider the assessee’s reply before passing an order under Section 148A(d) renders the reassessment order unsustainable [Paras 23-24].

Decision: The impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) and the impugned notice dated 22.04.2024 issued under Section 148 are set aside – Reassessment proceedings for AY 2017-18 quashed as they were based on the same issue previously adjudicated – Court refrains from examining the limitation issue [Paras 25-27].
 

Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 NI Act – Compounding of Offence Permissible at Any Stage – The petitioner, an exporter, had issued a cheque in favor of the respondent for Rs. 43,73,398/- towards settlement of outstanding dues—On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement ‘Account Closed’—Legal notice was issued, but the petitioner failed to make payment—The trial court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and imposed a compensation of Rs. 53,73,398/-—The conviction and sentence were upheld by the appellate court—During the pendency of the revision before the High Court, parties amicably settled the dispute and filed a Joint Compromise Memo—Held: Section 147 of the NI Act permits compounding of offences at any stage, and the High Court has inherent powers to secure the ends of justice by allowing the compromise [Paras 9-15].

Jurisdiction of High Court – Power to Compound Offences under Section 147 NI Act – Overriding Effect on Section 320 Cr.P.C. – The respondent opposed the compounding, arguing that the conviction had already been confirmed by the appellate court—The Court held that Section 147 of the NI Act, being a special provision, overrides the restrictions in Section 320 Cr.P.C.—Even at the revisional stage, the offence can be compounded if both parties agree—Relied on Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1328 and M/s. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta (2017) 7 SCC 558—Held: The inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked to permit compounding, even after the appellate court’s confirmation of conviction, to uphold the objective of NI Act, which is primarily compensatory rather than punitive [Paras 26-38].

Legal Recognition of Mediation Settlements in Criminal Cases – Courts Encouraged to Uphold Amicable Resolutions – The parties voluntarily settled the dispute in mediation, and the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 32,50,000/- as full and final settlement—The Court noted that in cheque dishonour cases, courts must encourage settlements to reduce litigation and ensure financial restitution to the complainant—Held: The settlement is legally valid, and the conviction is set aside in view of the compromise [Paras 45-50].

Decision: The Criminal Revision Case is disposed of in terms of the Joint Compromise Memo dated 30.01.2025. The conviction and sentence passed in C.A. No. 421 of 2019, dated 18.03.2022, by the XXI Additional Sessions Judge at Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C. No. 6549 of 2017, dated 08.11.2019, by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track No.I, Allikulam, Chennai, are modified. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner stand annulled. The petitioner, Agamadou Ibraguime Shuaid, shall be treated as acquitted on account of compounding of the offence with the complainant/respondent.
 

Civil Law - Permanent injunction - Land Assignment – Cancellation of DKT Patta – Validity of Cancellation Process – Procedural Irregularity – Rejection of Claim – The Plaintiff challenged the cancellation of a DKT Patta and sought a permanent injunction against dispossession – The First Appellate Court found that the cancellation was done after due notice and that the Plaintiff failed to cultivate the land as per the conditions – Held: Substituted service of cancellation notice was justified as the Plaintiff was not residing in the village – No legal infirmity in the cancellation process [Paras 19-21].

Possession Rights – Injunction Suit Without Declaratory Relief – Maintainability – The Plaintiff sought a permanent injunction without challenging the cancellation of the patta – The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to prove possession at the time of filing the suit – Mere past possession and kist receipts until 1980 did not establish possession in 1987 – Injunction suit without a declaratory relief challenging patta cancellation is not maintainable – Held: Plaintiff had no possessory rights as of the suit date, and an injunction could not be granted [Paras 22-24].

Jurisdiction – Authority of Mandal Revenue Officer to Cancel Assignment – Board Standing Order No. 15 – The Plaintiff contended that the Mandal Revenue Officer lacked the authority to cancel the assignment after 20 years – The First Appellate Court rejected this argument, holding that the Plaintiff violated conditions of the assignment and was not cultivating the land – Held: Cancellation was within jurisdiction and followed due process – Plaintiff failed to take legal steps to challenge the cancellation order in proper forums [Paras 17-18].

Substituted Service – Validity of Notice – Awareness of Cancellation Proceedings – The Plaintiff argued that substituted service of cancellation notice was impermissible under Board Standing Orders – The Court held that as the Plaintiff’s whereabouts were unknown, substituted service was justified – Evidence indicated that the Plaintiff was aware of the cancellation but failed to challenge it in a timely manner – Held: No procedural irregularity in the service of notice [Paras 19-20].

Burden of Proof – Plaintiff's Failure to Prove Possession – Adverse Findings by First Appellate Court – The Plaintiff relied on kist receipts from 1962 to 1980 but failed to show continuous possession beyond that period – The First Appellate Court observed that revenue records did not support possession after 1980, and the Plaintiff failed to pay kist after that year – Held: Inference drawn by the First Appellate Court that the Plaintiff was not in possession at the time of suit was correct – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-23].

Findings of First Appellate Court – No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The High Court held that the First Appellate Court properly appreciated evidence and found that the Plaintiff was neither in possession nor had challenged the patta cancellation in appropriate legal forums – No substantial question of law was involved in the Second Appeal – Held: Second Appeal dismissed, and injunction relief denied [Paras 24-26].