Taxation Law - Income Tax Settlement – Grant of Immunity – Scope under Section 245H – Immunity Upheld – The Revenue assailed the Settlement Commission’s order only to the extent it granted immunity from prosecution and penalty to the assessee company and its directors – Held: The Settlement Commission’s satisfaction on full and true disclosure, manner of deriving the income, and cooperation of the assessee was not challenged by the Revenue – Without such challenge, the Commission’s grant of immunity stands legally sound – Writ petition seeking interference with immunity granted is not maintainable [Paras 1, 12-16]. 
 
Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission – Full and True Disclosure – Conditions for Valid Application – Commission Empowered – The Court observed that once the Commission admits an application under Section 245D(1) and finds it valid under Section 245D(2C), it implies compliance with Section 245C(1) requirements – Held: Where the Revenue did not dispute the Settlement Order itself, the grounds for interfering with the immunity portion do not survive – Application was valid, and jurisdiction was properly exercised [Paras 611, 13-15]. 
 
Judicial Review – Scope and Limitation – No Error in Exercise of Power by Commission – 
Held: The Commission recorded satisfaction that all statutory conditions under Section 245H were fulfilled – In absence of any plea disputing this satisfaction, no case for interference is made out – Petition dismissed as no jurisdictional error or perversity shown [Paras 16-17]. 
 
Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Commission’s order granting immunity from prosecution and penalty sustained – No merit found in Revenue’s challenge [Para 17]. 
 

Civil Procedure – Appointment of Advocate Commissioner – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Discretion Properly Exercised - Petitioner challenged trial court’s appointment of Commissioner in a suit for declaration and injunction—Trial Court limited commissioner’s mandate to noting physical features only—Held: Commissioner’s appointment does not amount to illegal collection of evidence; Court below exercised discretion judiciously [Paras 5, 10–13].

Possession Dispute – Preliminary Recording of Site Features Permissible – Evidence Not Yet Led – Dispute over nature of land use (agricultural vs non-agricultural) and possession justified early local investigation – Held: Preserving state of property at early stage aids fair adjudication, especially when physical features may change over time [Paras 4, 7–9, 12–13].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – No Material Irregularity – Article 227 - High Court found no jurisdictional error or material illegality in trial court’s decision – Petition dismissed as devoid of merit [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Order appointing Advocate Commissioner affirmed – No order as to costs – Miscellaneous applications also closed [Paras 14].
 

Bail - Dowry Death – Suicide at Parental Home – Section 304B IPC – Bail Denied - Accused sought bail on grounds that the deceased committed suicide at her parental home and not matrimonial home, and that no harassment occurred “soon before” her death – Court held: Location of suicide irrelevant for Section 304B IPC—what matters is ongoing matrimonial relationship and harassment – Prima facie material exists for trial to proceed [Paras 6–8, 9].

Interpretation of “Soon Before Death” – Not Synonymous with “Immediately Before” – Relative Expression - Court cited Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Kans Raj v. State of Punjab to emphasize that “soon before” is a flexible term depending on context – Continued telephonic contact, judicial separation proceedings, and a final long call days before suicide suggested a live link between harassment and death [Paras 8.1–8.3].

Case Law Distinguished – Bail Jurisprudence – Delay in Trial Not Sole Ground - Cited SC ruling in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra was held inapplicable, as trial had already commenced and six of forty witnesses examined – Bail in dowry death cases demands stricter scrutiny due to grave societal impact [Paras 4–5].

Judicial Caution in Dowry Deaths – Strong Message from Judiciary – Citing Shabeen Ahmad v. State of U.P., Supreme Court - Court reiterated that judicial approach in dowry death cases must be sensitive to societal impact and reflect seriousness of the crime – Releasing prime accused on bail at early stage may undermine justice and public trust [Paras 5, 8.3].

Decision – Bail Application Dismissed – Court held it is not a fit case for grant of bail considering nature of allegations, ongoing trial, and societal implications – Trial court directed to continue independently [Para 10].

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal Against Conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof Not Met – Acquittal Granted - Appellant convicted for murder of his partner based on last seen evidence and bloodstains on clothing – High Court held prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of circumstances linking appellant to crime – Evidence of last seen was found shaky and inconclusive; no reliable motive established [Paras 1–3, 12–13, 16–22].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Inapplicability Where Chain Incomplete – Failure to Explain Not Sufficient - Conviction was primarily based on appellant’s failure to explain circumstances under Section 106 – Court clarified that where prosecution fails to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, the burden does not shift to the accused – Section 106 can only serve as an additional link, not primary basis [Paras 13–16, 21].

Last Seen Theory – Witness Testimony Unreliable – Witness could not confirm when appellant and deceased returned from market prior to death – Evidence did not establish proximity of accused with deceased at time of incident – Held: No safe conviction can rest on this evidence [Paras 9–13].

Forensic Evidence – CA Report Not Conclusive – Prosecution Failed to Establish Chain - Blood stains on appellant’s clothes matched deceased’s blood group, but chain of custody and time of seizure not clearly proved – Report failed to conclusively link appellant to murder [Paras 18–20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Conviction and Sentence Set Aside – Appellant Acquitted of Offence Under Section 302 IPC – Released forthwith if not required in any other case – Fine to be refunded [Paras 23–24].

Taxation Law – Income Tax Act - Bogus Purchases – Full Disallowance Justified – Tribunal’s 3% Estimation Set Aside - Tribunal had restricted disallowance on bogus purchases to 3% despite finding that purchases were unverified and books not produced – High Court held: Once Tribunal concluded purchases were bogus, restricting disallowance to 3% based on speculative grey market theory unsupported by record was erroneous – Full disallowance of ₹6.15 crore restored [Paras 1–2, 18–21, 29–30, 34].

Failure to Prove Genuineness – Books, Suppliers, and Stock Records Not Produced – Adverse Inference Warranted - Respondent-Assessee failed to produce books, stock registers, or confirmatory evidence—suppliers untraceable and summons returned unserved—held: absence of transactional evidence and inability to establish source made case fit for full disallowance [Paras 6–8, 21–27].

Speculative Grey Market Justification – Rejected as Perversity – Not Pleaded by Assessee - ITAT’s conclusion that goods were bought from grey market was not the case of the assessee before lower authorities—High Court ruled this line of reasoning perverse and unsustainable [Paras 18–20].

No Requirement to Invoke Section 69C Specifically – Substance Over Form - Respondent argued Section 69C not explicitly invoked—Held: Section 69C is enabling and its omission does not affect legality of addition where unexplained expenditure is otherwise proven—Substance of findings prevails [Paras 25–26].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Orders of CIT(A) and ITAT Reversed – Assessment Officer’s Addition Restored – Substantial questions of law answered in favour of Revenue [Paras 34–35].
 

Service Law - Review – Maintainability by Non-Party – Review Application Allowed - Deputy Registrar of CAT, though not a party to the original writ petition, was held entitled to maintain review application as the order affected the statutory powers of the CAT Chairman under Section 5(6) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Held: "Any person aggrieved" includes non-party if substantive right is affected [Paras 2, 13, 16–17, 42].

Administrative Tribunal – Jurisdiction of Single Member – CAT Chairman Empowered - Notifications of 2016 and 2021 issued under Section 5(6) authorized Single Member Benches, including Administrative Members, to decide cases involving minor penalties – Held: Order under review failed to consider these valid statutory instruments and misapplied precedent [Paras 23–27, 36–37].

L. Chandra Kumar – Interpretation Clarified – Bench Constitution Must Reflect Nature of Case - Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar upheld Section 5(6) and permitted Single Member Benches except when constitutional interpretation is involved – Calcutta HC recognized it had incorrectly applied coordinate Bench decisions inconsistent with this precedent [Paras 30–33, 39].

Error Apparent – Grounds for Review – Principles from BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club Applied - Held: Review lies not only for patent error but also for correction of misconception of fact or law – Misunderstanding of legal provisions and non-consideration of binding precedent warranted recall [Paras 40–41].

Decision – Review Allowed – Judgment dated 11/11/2024 Recalled – W.P.C.T 221 of 2024 restored to file and listed for final hearing in April 2025 – Review Application disposed without costs [Paras 41–43].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Copyright Infringement – Section 63 of Copyright Act – Mens Rea Essential – Proceedings Quashed - Accused were directors of a publishing company that printed a book allegedly plagiarizing respondent's blog – Held: To constitute offence under Section 63, publication must be done “knowingly” – No material in complaint indicating petitioners were aware of plagiarism at time of publication – Hence, no criminal liability made out [Paras 6–9].
Mens Rea – Knowledge of Infringement Required – Conduct Shows Bona Fide - Petitioners withdrew book from public domain promptly upon learning about issue and informed complainant – This conduct negates “culpable mental state” – Allegations of deliberate infringement considered perfunctory and unsupported by specific facts [Paras 7–9].
Criminal vs Civil Remedy – Parallel Suit Maintained – No Bar to Civil Proceedings - Court clarified that quashing of criminal case does not impact civil suit pending before District Court for the same copyright violation – Observations limited to criminal liability [Para 9].
Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers to Prevent Abuse – Petition Allowed - High Court exercised power under Section 482 to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Proceedings in C.C. No. 625/2018 quashed against petitioners [Paras 9–10].
Decision – Petition Allowed – Criminal proceedings against Petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 to 5, 7 & 8) in C.C. No. 625/2018 quashed – Civil suit proceedings to continue unaffected [Para 10].
 

Criminal Law - Murder – Appeal against conviction - Circumstantial Evidence – Double Homicide of Couple – Acquittal Granted - Accused convicted of killing a man (Sharafat) and a woman (Soni) due to alleged illicit relationship – High Court found prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Alleged eyewitnesses turned hostile; motive insufficient – Held: Prosecution case not established, benefit of doubt given [Paras 1–5, 23–29, 44–45].

Eyewitness Testimony – Hostile Witnesses – No Corroboration - Key witnesses including the informant and others initially supported prosecution but turned hostile after de novo trial ordered on framing of additional charges – Court held that testimony after contradiction lacks credibility without corroborative support – No reliance could be placed on their statements [Paras 22–27, 33–34].

Post-Mortem Findings – Cause of Death Not Sufficiently Linked – Independent Medical Evidence Inconclusive - Though injuries and cause of death (asphyxia and hemorrhage) were established, no direct nexus with accused proved – Court held medical evidence alone insufficient in absence of cogent eyewitness account [Paras 14–17, 30–32].

Investigation – Defective and One-Sided – Recovery and Arrest Doubtful – Police failed to provide independent witnesses for recovery; procedural irregularities noted in recording statements and recovery memos – Held: Investigation tainted with doubt, cannot form sole basis of conviction [Paras 18–21].

Decision – All Appeals Allowed – Convictions Set Aside – Accused Ibrahim, Sannaur, Mussarat and others acquitted of charges under Sections 147, 302 read with 149 IPC – Bail bonds cancelled; fine amounts directed to be refunded [Paras 44–45].
 

Eviction Petition – Bona Fide Requirement – Additional Evidence – One-Time Opportunity Granted - Tenant sought to lead further evidence by examining neighbors and MCD officials in eviction case filed on ground of bona fide requirement – Respondent landlord agreed to allow one opportunity to avoid further delay – Court permitted tenant to produce witnesses next day, including MCD official if appearing in connected matter – Held: Opportunity allowed in interest of justice, but no further chance to be granted [Paras 3–7].

Delay in Eviction Proceedings – Judicial Balancing of Expediency and Fairness – Court acknowledged that delays in bona fide eviction cases may frustrate statutory remedy – Tenant directed to ensure witness presence without Court’s assistance – Held: Tenant must produce witnesses on next date without default; no more adjournments permissible [Paras 4–7].

Connected Proceedings – Efficient Use of Common Witness – Tenant permitted to examine MCD official appearing in related eviction matter on same day – Court allowed judicial economy without compromising due process [Para 6].

Decision – Petitions Disposed – Limited Permission to Lead Evidence Granted – All other rights and contentions reserved; order to be given dasti [Paras 7–10].