Income Tax Law - Income from House Property – Determination of Annual Value – Section 23(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act – Annual Value Held Justified - The Assessing Officer determined the annual letting value of office premises at ₹22,00,000/- by considering comparable rent of similar premises and notional interest on a large interest-free security deposit – Held: The AO is not bound to accept the municipal rateable value if it does not reflect market rent – Tribunal and CIT(A) rightly upheld the AO’s assessment – Notional interest, though not decisive alone, was relevant contextually – No interference called for [Paras 14–20, 24–26, 35–38].

Notional Interest on Security Deposit – Cannot Solely Determine Annual Value – Legal Principle Affirmed – The Court reiterated that notional interest on interest-free security deposits cannot be considered independently to determine fair rent under Section 23(1)(a) – However, such deposits may provide context for assessing tax avoidance attempts through deflated license fees – Findings in Tip Top Typography and Moni Kumar Subba upheld [Paras 17–20, 36].

Municipal Rateable Value – Not Binding – AO’s Independent Enquiry Permissible – The Court held that municipal valuation is not determinative where there is a wide disparity with actual or reasonable market rent – AO is entitled to conduct enquiry and assess ALV based on market comparables – Rateable value of ₹10,200/- held “ridiculously low” and rightly ignored [Paras 21–26, 30].

Standard Rent – Inapplicability Where Rent Control Not Invoked – The argument that standard rent ought to cap the annual value under Section 23 was rejected as premises were not governed by Rent Control Act – No tenancy created in favour of the licensee – Hence, standard rent provisions held inapplicable [Paras 31–34].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Annual value assessed by AO upheld – Tribunal and CIT(A) found to have correctly applied Section 23(1)(a) by considering fair rent and ignoring irrelevant documents and inadmissible claims – Question of law answered against the assessee [Para 39].

Cheque Dishonour – Presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act – Conviction Restored – The trial court had convicted the accused for issuing a dishonoured cheque of ₹30 lakhs, finding that the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Sessions Judge reversed the conviction on the ground of absence of documentary proof of loan and by considering unrelated case records – Held: Sessions Judge committed perversity by relying on extraneous material and inventing a defence not raised by the accused – Since execution of cheque was admitted and there was no rebuttal evidence or cross-examination disputing the debt, the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted – Conviction restored against respondent no.2 only [Paras 1-25].

Cross-examination – Effect of Omission – Section 138, Evidence Act – Defence Not Put to Witness – The accused failed to put any suggestion during cross-examination that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt – Held: In absence of cross-examination, testimony remains unimpeached and must be accepted – Sessions Judge erred in disbelieving such evidence without challenge or contradiction [Paras 17-20].

Personal Knowledge by Judge – Illegality – Judgment Based on Facts from Another Case – Reversal Set Aside – Sessions Judge erred in taking judicial notice of findings from another complaint case between the parties without placing it on record or giving opportunity to the complainant to rebut – Such reliance amounts to grave violation of fair trial principles and resulted in miscarriage of justice [Para 21].

Money Lending without Licence – Presumption Not Rebutted – Accused’s Defence Absent – Though complainant admitted money lending without licence, no question was put to link that the cheque was issued in such context – Held: Without specific plea or cross-examination, court cannot assume cheque was issued in course of illegal money lending – Presumption under Section 139 not rebutted [Para 23].

Final Decision – Acquittal Set Aside – Conviction Restored Against Respondent No.2 – As the other two accused had died and Respondent No.3 was not party to the original trial or appeal, conviction restored only against Respondent No.2 – Acquittal appeal allowed to that extent [Paras 24-26].

Criminal Law - Murder – Section 302/34 IPC – Common intention – Conviction partly upheld – Principal assailants identified by multiple eyewitnesses including injured witnesses – Court finds Moijuddin, Faijuddin and Latif restrained the deceased while Maynul delivered the fatal Ramdao blow on the nape of the neck – Held: Conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC sustained for these accused [Paras 58–61, 80].

Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt – Alleged use of pistol – Absence of recovery or gunshot injury – Witnesses differed whether pistol was placed on chest or neck – Held: Evidence insufficient against Waser Sk. @ Wacher Mayra either for Section 302/34 or 326/34; acquittal directed and bail bonds discharged [Paras 81–82, 88].

Grievous Hurt – Section 326/34 IPC – Eyewitness and medical corroboration – PW2 hospitalized 11 days; PWs 3 & 4 three days – Weapons were sharp agricultural implements – Non‑production of dying declaration immaterial once declarant survived and deposed – Held: Convictions under Section 326/34 IPC upheld for named accused [Paras 84–87].

Inquest Report – Scope under Section 174 CrPC – Investigative lead, not substantive determinative evidence – Court declines to fault investigation for not pursuing “son of Tajer Bere” line recorded by inquest witnesses not present at the scene – Reliance placed on Pedda Narayana (1975) 4 SCC 153 – Held: No infirmity [Paras 42–43].

Minor Discrepancies – Witness Credibility – Variations on who held the deceased’s hands and sequence of blows – Court treats as normal discrepancies in a melee; cites Bharwada Bhoginbhai (1983) 3 SCC 217 and Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752 – Injured eyewitness testimony accorded higher weight; Balu Sudam Khalde (2023) applied – Held: Prosecution version substantially reliable [Paras 41, 49, 51–52, 61–62].

Medical Evidence – Time of last meal and “empty stomach” – PM opinion not conclusive of exact time of death; possibility deceased skipped morning meal – Over‑emphasis on digestion timelines rejected – Held: Argument rejected [Paras 44–47].

Delay/Choice of Medical Facility – Skipping nearer centres for better hospital – Not fatal where deceased likely died on the spot and injuries to others were promptly treated – Defense failed to prove prejudice – Held: No adverse inference [Paras 54, 79].

Non‑Recovery of Weapons/Pistol – Effect – Faulty investigation not a ground for acquittal when ocular and medical evidence are unimpeachable; however, non‑recovery of pistol noted as material omission vis‑à‑vis accused with pistol – Held: Convictions sustained notwithstanding non‑recovery of sharp weapons; pistol non‑recovery underpins Waser’s acquittal [Paras 55, 81–82].

Doctors not told assailants’ names – Whether fatal – In emergency treatment names may not be recorded; not ipso facto exculpatory – Reliance on State of Bihar v. Ramnath Prasad (1998) 9 SCC 49 – Held: Argument rejected [Para 65].

Final Orders – CRA 320/2015 allowed; CRA 283/2015 and CRA 266/2015 dismissed – Surrender directions issued; costs: none [Paras 87–91].

Civil Law - Specific Performance – Nature of Sale Agreement – Agreement Held Sham – Plaintiff sought specific performance of Ex-A.1 dated 29.01.2014, claiming payment of ₹10 lakhs out of ₹15 lakhs as advance – Defendant contended it was executed only as security for a loan of ₹5 lakhs – Held: Long period of 4 years for performance despite 2/3rd advance, omission of house details in schedule, and corroborating witness testimony showed the agreement was not meant for actual sale – Document found to be sham and nominal [Paras 12–18].

Evidence – Oral Evidence Admissibility – Sections 91 and 92 of Evidence Act – Bar Does Not Apply to Sham Transaction – Defendant's oral claim that Ex-A.1 was a security for loan not barred by Section 91 or 92 – Cited Supreme Court rulings in Roop Kumar and R. Janakiraman – Held: Oral evidence is admissible to show that contract was never intended to be acted upon – Defendant’s plea legally tenable [Paras 19–22].

Refund of Advance – Entitlement Established – Plaintiff claimed ₹10 lakhs as advance – Defendant did not deny execution of Ex-A.1 but claimed only ₹5 lakhs was loan – No proof adduced for alternate amount – Held: Plaintiff entitled to refund of ₹10 lakhs with 9% p.a. interest from date of suit – Charge created on suit property to secure recovery – Trial Court decree for specific performance reversed [Para 23–24].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Trial Court’s decree for specific performance set aside – Defendant directed to refund ₹10 lakhs with 9% simple interest p.a. from date of suit till realization – Plaintiff entitled to withdraw deposited amount and recover costs incurred at Trial Court – No costs in the appeal [Para 24].

Rape Conviction – Deaf and Dumb Witness – CrPC S.164(5-A); Evidence Act Ss.118–119 – Interpreter was prosecution witness; denial of effective cross-examination – Trial vitiated – Conviction set aside without remand; guidelines issued for vulnerable witnesses.

Rape Conviction – Deaf and Dumb Witness – Section 376(2)(l) IPC; Section 164(5-A) CrPC – Conviction Set Aside – Statement under S.164 recorded using PW2 (first informant/prosecution witness) as interpreter; held impermissible under law; violation of principles in Alavi and Darshan Singh; denial of effective cross-examination – Trial vitiated; conviction and sentence set aside without remand [Paras 8, 11-16].

Evidence – Competency of Witness – Section 118 Evidence Act – Magistrate must ascertain competence of deaf and dumb witness to depose before recording statement; failure to assess capacity and reliance on PW2 (interested witness) to interpret renders statement inadmissible [Paras 11-13].

Interpreter – Legal Requirement – Section 119 Evidence Act – Services of trained interpreter/special educator mandatory; if interpreter unable, court may use familiar person, but not one who is an interested or prosecution witness; safeguards emphasized [Paras 12-13].

Cross-examination – Effective Right Denied – Victim’s deposition treated as examination-in-chief under S.164(5-A)(b) CrPC; absence of proper interpretation and inability of defence to cross-examine vitiates trial [Para 16].

Guidelines – Vulnerable Witnesses – High Court issues mandatory directions supplementing 2024 Notification; courts must record satisfaction on competence of witness and interpreter, ensure videography, avoid use of interested witnesses, and mandatorily record demeanour under S.315 BNSS [Paras 17-18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence in S.C. No.184/2021 set aside – No remand directed due to incurable defects – Appellant released forthwith [Paras 16-18].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Conviction – Accused No. 2 to 6 convicted under Sections 147, 323/149, 342, 304(ii)/149 IPC – Trial Court sentenced them to various terms including 7 years RI under Section 304(ii)/149 IPC – High Court found that the prosecution proved the unlawful assembly and assault that led to the death of the victim Ram Ratan – Medical and postmortem evidence corroborated with eyewitness accounts of PW-1 (Krishna Devi, wife of deceased) and PW-2 (Suman Devi, daughter) – Conviction upheld [Paras 1, 8-10, 15-17, 22-26, 28].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – PW-1 and PW-2, wife and daughter of the deceased, respectively, witnessed the incident – Despite minor inconsistencies, their testimonies remained consistent regarding the role of the accused – Their statements corroborated with medical reports and postmortem findings – Court found them reliable and truthful – Contradictions not sufficient to discard entire prosecution case [Paras 13-14, 18-20].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Postmortem revealed multiple ante-mortem injuries including blunt force trauma leading to coma and death – Doctor (PW-5) confirmed cause of death as coma due to head injury – Medical evidence supported the prosecution version of group assault using lathis and sticks – Injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death [Paras 23-26].

Defence – False Implication – Defence witnesses claimed the deceased fell from the motorcycle and died from accidental injuries – Alleged that victim had land disputes and used to intimidate people – Defence witnesses were found untrustworthy and inconsistent – Motive of political rivalry and prior enmity not proved by defence – Court rejected the theory of accidental fall [Paras 29-34].

Investigating Officer’s Testimony – Procedural Lapses – IO admitted not inspecting motorcycle or collecting blood-stained clothes – Did not verify hut ownership or exact location of occurrence – However, such lapses did not overshadow the overwhelming evidence of guilt – Defence could not prove deliberate tampering or fabrication [Paras 27-28].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 147, 323/149, 342, 304(ii)/149 IPC upheld – No case made out for interference in the findings of the Trial Court.

Bail  – Illegal Quarrying – Sections 447, 427, 379 r/w 34 IPC, Section 3 PDPP Act, Sections 21(1), 21(4) MMDR Act, Sections 120-B, 109, 290, 506 IPC, Sections 3 & 5 Explosive Substances Act, and SCs & STs Atrocities (PoA) Act – Bail Granted with Conditions – The appellant, former Minister and MLA, was implicated in large-scale illegal extraction of quartz and feldspar minerals based primarily on co-accused confessions and statements of political opponents – Investigation revealed alleged conspiracy, use of explosives, and loss of Rs.138 crores to the exchequer – However, initial FIR and reports did not name the appellant, and no direct overt acts or caste-based intent under SCs & STs (PoA) Act were established – Court held that co-accused confessions are weak evidence, no prima facie role was shown under Atrocities Act, and investigation was substantially complete – Bail granted subject to stringent conditions including restriction from entering Nellore district, surrender of passport, weekly attendance before IO, and prohibition on media statements – Held: Bail is the rule, jail the exception; continued custody not justified [Paras 21–28, 41–49, 53–55].

Family Law - Divorce – Cruelty & Desertion – Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act – Irretrievable Breakdown – Marriage dissolved – Appellant sought divorce alleging cruelty and desertion—Trial Court dismissed citing wife’s dowry complaint and suppression of earlier restitution proceedings—Appellant and family later acquitted in criminal case; parties lived apart for 18 years; wife ex parte and disinterested in appeal—Held: Continuing the marital tie serves no purpose; irretrievable breakdown amounts to cruelty; divorce decree granted [Paras 6–10].

Inherent Powers – Section 151 CPC & Section 482 CrPC – Ends of Justice – Courts may grant relief to prevent abuse of process – Supreme Court precedents in B.S. Joshi, Gian Singh, V. Bhagat, Ashok Hurra, Naveen Kohli, and Shilpa Shailesh distinguished – Though High Court lacks Article 142 powers, inherent jurisdiction under CPC/CrPC permits intervention where continuation of marriage causes injustice – Divorce granted [Paras 7–9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of Family Court dated 26.06.2013 set aside – Marriage dated 20.04.2006 dissolved – Divorce granted [Para 10].

Civil Law - Money Lending – Exorbitant Interest – Applicability of TN Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act – Borrower filed O.P. seeking to restrict interest on ₹75 lakhs mortgage loan to 9% p.a. under Tamil Nadu Money Lenders Act and Act 38 of 2003 – Respondent contended loan was via cheque, based on commercial agreement, and petitioner was not eligible for benefit under said Acts – Held: Loan disbursed by negotiable instrument exceeding ₹10,000 is excluded from definition of “loan” under TN Money Lenders Act – No evidence of kandu vatti, daily/hourly interest, or informal lending practices – Act 38 of 2003 does not apply – Petition rightly dismissed by Trial Court [Paras 8–21]

Jurisdiction – Suit under Order 34 CPC – Mortgage-based dispute – Trial Court noted respondent had already filed mortgage recovery suit under Order 34 CPC – Held: Original Petition under Act 38 of 2003 misconceived and not maintainable when parallel mortgage suit is pending – Remedy lies within civil suit framework, not under special statutes [Paras 13, 22]

Contractual Interest – Limitation of Statutory Cap – Petitioner argued that interest above 9% p.a. is usurious – High Court reiterated settled law that contractual terms between parties govern when loan is outside scope of Money Lenders Act – Petitioner must contest such terms in civil suit, not by invoking inapplicable statutory remedies [Paras 4–6, 22]

Decision – No perversity in Trial Court order – Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Petitioner permitted to raise defences in pending mortgage suit – Principal District Judge, Thiruvallur directed to dispose suit by 31.12.2025 [Para 23]