Advocates Act, 1961 – Section 26 – Fraudulent Enrolment – Power to Remove Name from Roll – Petitioner’s licence suspended by Enrolment Committee on suspicion of misrepresentation regarding date of birth and production of unrecognized educational certificate – Contention that only Bar Council of India is competent to remove name from roll – Held: Proviso to Section 26(1) enabling power of Bar Council of India does not denude State Bar Council of its regulatory authority – State Bar Council, being authority to enrol, has incidental power to regulate and pass prohibitory/interim orders in cases of alleged fraud – Impugned order treated as recommendation for removal coupled with interim suspension – Matter directed to be referred to Bar Council of India for final decision [Paras 13, 15, 17].

Enrolment Committee – Jurisdiction – Interim Suspension – Proceedings pertain to alleged fraudulent enrolment and not professional misconduct under Section 35 – Disciplinary Committee jurisdiction under Sections 35 and 36 distinct from fraudulent enrolment cases – Enrolment Committee competent to examine propriety of enrolment and to pass interim prohibitory orders pending decision by Bar Council of India – Suspension not per se without jurisdiction but subject to expeditious reference to BCI [Paras 13, 15, 17, 18].

Interpretation of Proviso – Scope and Effect – Proviso to Section 26(1) cannot be read in isolation so as to nullify main provision conferring enrolment power on State Bar Council – Enabling provision empowering Bar Council of India to remove name does not exclude inherent or incidental power of State Bar Council to regulate its roll – Power to enrol includes power to regulate and recommend removal in case of fraud [Paras 14, 15].

Writ Jurisdiction – Equitable Directions – Considering prolonged suspension without final adjudication – Court directed State Bar Council to refer matter to Bar Council of India within specified time – Directed petitioner to surrender enrolment certificate and ID card – Provided that failure to refer matter within stipulated time would result in automatic revocation of interim suspension [Paras 17, 18, 19].

Decision: Petition disposed of – Impugned order treated as recommendation for removal with interim suspension – State Bar Council directed to refer matter to Bar Council of India – Petitioner directed to surrender enrolment certificate and ID card – Interim suspension to stand revoked automatically if reference not made within stipulated period.

Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – Land Reserved for Public Park under Town Planning Scheme – Six-Month Limitation under Section 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act – Scope and Applicability – Appellant raised construction without sanction on land forming part of Town Planning Scheme No. 13 reserved as green park – Notice for demolition issued under Sections 195, 195-A and 172 of the Act – Trial Court decreed suit holding notice time-barred and construction condoned by grant of water and sewerage connections – First Appellate Court reversed decree – Held: Six-month limitation under Section 195 applies to procedural irregularities on land otherwise capable of lawful construction and does not legalise construction raised in violation of statutory reservation under Section 192 – Efflux of time cannot validate encroachment on land reserved for public purpose – Appeal dismissed [Paras 14-18, 24-25].

Town Planning Scheme – Reservation of Land for Green Park – Statutory Duty of Municipal Committee – Construction raised without sanction on land earmarked for public open space under sanctioned scheme (Ex. D6) – Appellant admitted no site plan submitted under Section 189 – Held: Construction fundamentally illegal and contrary to statutory scheme – Municipal Committee duty-bound to protect public land and invoke Section 195 – Public interest in preserving green spaces overrides individual claim [Paras 13, 16-18].

Limitation – Section 195 Punjab Municipal Act – Distinction between Procedural Violation and Substantive Illegality – Six-month period for issuance of demolition notice cannot be treated as sacrosanct where construction violates town planning reservation – Provision presupposes lawful underlying right to build – Where land reserved for public purpose, limitation does not confer legitimacy – Reliance placed on Raghbir Singh v. State of Punjab and Municipal Committee v. Om Parkash [Paras 14-16].

Grant of Municipal Amenities – Effect – Provision of water and sewerage connections – Whether amounts to regularisation – Held: Grant of civic amenities is administrative facilitation and does not amount to sanction, condonation or regularisation of illegal construction – Regularisation must flow from statutory authority and not by implication or acquiescence [Para 20].

Injunction – Public Property – Stricter Equitable Test – Appellant merely co-sharer in undivided khasra without sanctioned plan – Suit land part of notified scheme reserved for park – Held: In cases involving public property, Court must consider public interest in addition to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury – Public interest paramount – No injunction can be granted to protect unauthorized construction on reserved public land – Trial Court erred – First Appellate Court rightly reversed decree [Paras 21-23].

Second Appeal – Scope in Punjab and Haryana – Appeals governed by Section 41 of Punjab Courts Act and not Section 100 CPC – No substantial question of law required to be framed – Findings of First Appellate Court neither perverse nor illegal – No ground for interference [Para 10, 24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 17.04.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur upheld – Municipal Committee at liberty to proceed in accordance with law – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of [Paras 25-26].

Education Law – Amendment of Examination Bye-Laws – Requirement of Publication – CBSE Governing Body resolved on 26.12.2024 to discontinue “additional subject” category for private candidates – Approval granted by Controlling Authority on 22.01.2025 – Minutes uploaded under “Governing Body Minutes” tab on 27.02.2025 – No distinct notification or publication of amendment under Examination Bye-Laws – Held mere uploading of minutes not reasonable mode of publication – Amendment cannot be said to have come into force without proper promulgation – Subordinate legislation must be published in reasonable manner to bind affected persons [Paras 13-18].

Subordinate Legislation – Promulgation – Effectiveness – Relying on B.K. Srinivasan v. State of Karnataka, (1987) 1 SCC 658 – Law must be made known to those governed by it – Where parent statute or rules are silent, publication must be through reasonable and recognised mode – Posting minutes under obscure website tab not sufficient – Amendment held effective only from 15.09.2025 when formally notified [Paras 16-19].

Legitimate Expectation – Substantive Right – Clause 43(i) of unamended Bye-Laws permitted additional subject within two years of passing – Students of 2024 and 2025 batches prepared for additional subject examination in 2026 – Right founded on existing Bye-Law and consistent past practice – Denial without proper publication arbitrary – Doctrine invoked not on mere hope but on enforceable right – Action violative of Article 14 [Paras 21-24].

Policy Decision – Judicial Review – Though educational policy changes ordinarily left to experts – Court can intervene where implementation is arbitrary and violates principles of fairness – Amendment not struck down – Only held inapplicable to students who passed prior to valid publication – No necessity to challenge amendment itself [Paras 20, 25-26].

Arbitrariness – Educational Career – Insistence on applying unpublicised amendment to students who had already invested one or two years in preparation held unreasonable – Grave prejudice caused – State instrumentality under Article 12 bound by fairness and non-arbitrariness [Paras 1, 15, 26].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed – Judgment of learned Single Judge directing CBSE to permit registration of students (who passed Class XII in 2024 and 2025) for “additional subject” examination upheld – Amendment to Bye-Laws held effective only from date of proper publication – CBSE directed to make necessary arrangements within three working days – No order as to costs.

Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Suit for Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction of Son and Daughter-in-law from Self-acquired Property of Mother – Concurrent Findings of Courts Below – Dismissal of Second Appeal

Hindu Law – Self-acquired property of female Hindu – Section 14, Hindu Succession Act – Property purchased under registered sale deed in name of mother and recorded exclusively in her name – Plea that property was purchased from joint family income rejected – Held: When property stands in name of female Hindu, she becomes full owner by virtue of Section 14 – Claim of joint family right by sons untenable in absence of proof – Suit property held exclusive property of Plaintiff [Paras 16, 17].

Benami/Jt. Family Plea – Burden of proof – Defendants alleged purchase out of joint family fund and contribution by sons – No documentary evidence adduced – Mere assertion insufficient to dislodge registered title deed and R.O.R. entries – Concurrent findings upheld [Paras 8, 16, 17].

Shared Household – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Whether daughter-in-law can claim right of residence in self-acquired property of mother-in-law – Held: Where property exclusively belongs to mother-in-law and is not joint family property, it cannot be treated as “shared household” against her wishes – Provisions of D.V. Act do not create proprietary rights in self-acquired property of senior citizen – Defendants not entitled to resist eviction on that ground [Paras 13(iii), 17, 19].

Senior Citizens – Eviction of son and daughter-in-law – Right of aged parents to peaceful possession of self-acquired property – Plaintiff aged more than 75 years alleged mental and physical torture – Held: Son, whether married or unmarried, has no legal right to reside in self-acquired property of parents against their wishes – Courts must adopt purposive approach in favour of senior citizens – Decree for eviction and permanent injunction justified [Paras 18, 19].

Mandatory and Permanent Injunction – Eviction from residential house – Plaintiff proved exclusive ownership and unlawful interference – Defendants failed to establish any legal right to remain – Decree directing Defendants to vacate within one month and restraining re-entry upheld [Paras 9, 19].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed on contest without cost – Judgments and decrees passed in C.S. No.20 of 2019 and R.F.A. No.16 of 2023 confirmed – Eviction decree and permanent injunction in favour of Plaintiff upheld [Paras 19, 20].

Commercial Courts Act – Transfer of Pending Suit – Section 15(3) – Suit pending before civil court transferred to Commercial Court – Written statement already filed before transfer – Petitioner contended transferred suit cannot proceed de novo and no fresh written statement/counter-claim permissible – Court noted the suit stood transferred and Commercial Court thereafter granted leave for filing counter-claim – Held: Acceptance of counter-claim treated as permissible under CPC provisions governing subsequent pleadings – No interference warranted [Paras 18-19, 26-28].

Counter-Claim – Stage of Filing – Order VIII Rule 6A CPC – Counter-claim is in addition to written statement – Plaintiff entitled to file written statement to counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A(3) – Defendant sought to file counter-claim after earlier written statement, citing subsequent cause of action – Held: Counter-claim can be permitted with leave as subsequent pleading framework allows raising later grounds [Paras 21-22, 24, 26-28].

New Ground of Defence – Subsequent Cause of Action – Order VIII Rule 8 CPC – Grounds of defence arising after institution of suit or after presentation of written statement may be raised – Held: Defendant’s plea of subsequent cause of action supports permissibility of raising additional defence/counter-claim [Paras 24-25].

Subsequent Pleadings – Leave of Court – Order VIII Rule 9 CPC – No pleading after written statement except by way of defence to set-off/counter-claim unless leave granted – Court may require additional written statement – Held: Commercial Court granted leave under Order VIII Rule 9 – Impugned order in accordance with law [Paras 25-28].

Exclusion of Counter-Claim – Plaintiff’s Remedy – Order VIII Rule 6C CPC – If plaintiff contends counter-claim should be tried in independent suit, application for exclusion can be made before issues are settled on counter-claim – Held: Statutory mechanism available to plaintiff for exclusion, reinforcing that acceptance of counter-claim is not per se illegal [Para 23].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference limited to jurisdictional errors or grave injustice – Since Commercial Court exercised jurisdiction permitted by CPC, no manifest illegality shown – Held: No interference in revision [Paras 27-28].

Direction – Expeditious Trial – Trial Court to proceed expeditiously and permit plaintiff to file written statement to counter-claim within time allowed [Para 29].

Decision: Civil revision dismissed – Connected applications disposed of – Interim order, if any, vacated [Paras 30-32].

Hindu Marriage Act – Divorce – Adultery, Cruelty and Desertion – Appeal against dismissal of divorce petition – Allegation that wife developed illicit relationship and fled with alleged paramour – No specific pleading or cogent evidence of voluntary sexual intercourse – Witnesses gave generalized statements based on suspicion – No proof of continuous desertion for statutory period – Held: Findings of Family Court well-reasoned and not perverse – Appeal dismissed [Paras 32-50, 63-67, 79-81, 82-85].

Adultery – Standard of Proof – Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act – Though matrimonial proceedings governed by preponderance of probabilities, charge of adultery being grave requires high degree of probability – Bald and generalized allegations without specific instances or corroborative evidence insufficient – No proof of adulterous act or continuing adulterous relationship at time of petition – Allegations based on suspicion and surmises – Divorce rightly refused [Paras 35-42, 44-47].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Section 13(1)(i-a), Hindu Marriage Act – Allegation that wife stopped physical relations and frequently left matrimonial home – No specific act of misconduct proved – Ordinary marital discord and quarrels do not amount to cruelty – No evidence that conduct was so grave and weighty as to render cohabitation unsafe or impossible – Finding of no cruelty upheld [Paras 51-62, 64-67].

Desertion – Essential Ingredients – Factum of Separation and Animus Deserendi – Section 13(1)(i-b), Hindu Marriage Act – Petition filed within two months of alleged departure of wife – Statutory requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years immediately preceding presentation of petition not satisfied – Desertion ground not maintainable [Paras 68-76, 79-81].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 19, Family Courts Act – High Court can reappreciate evidence both on facts and law – Interference warranted only if findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law – No perversity found in appreciation of evidence by Family Court – Judgment affirmed [Paras 23-31, 49-50, 83-84].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2022 and 03.11.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda in Original Suit No. 75 of 2021 affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Revenue Law – Mutation Entry – Fraudulent succession entry – Challenge to Entry No.760 mutated in revenue record in 1984 in favour of persons who were not direct lineal descendants of the original owner – Petitioner's father, owner of the land, had died abroad leaving legal heirs including petitioner – Taking advantage of absence of heirs in India, private respondents allegedly obtained mutation by suppressing material facts, showing incorrect place of death and using forged power of attorney – Held: Mutation entry obtained by fraud is void and liable to be quashed – Collector rightly cancelled the entry – Order of SSRD remanding matter set aside [Paras 14–16, 22].

Fraud – Effect on judicial or administrative orders – Court relied on Supreme Court decision in A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. – Held: Any judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on court or authority is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law and can be challenged at any stage – Fraud vitiates all solemn acts [Paras 15–16].

Revenue Proceedings – Delay in challenging mutation entry – Entry challenged after nearly 29 years – Authorities rejected challenge solely on ground of delay – Held: Delay cannot defeat justice where entry was obtained by fraud and petitioner had no knowledge due to residence abroad – Cause of action arises from date of knowledge – Revenue authorities ought to examine merits instead of rejecting claim on technical ground of delay [Para 17].

Bombay Land Revenue Code – Section 135D – Requirement of notice before certification of mutation entry – Court held that mandatory procedure under Section 135D requiring notice to interested parties before certifying mutation entry was not followed – Failure to issue notice vitiates certification of mutation entry – Mutation entry certified without following statutory procedure is illegal [Paras 19–20].

Property Law – Rights of legal heirs – Self-acquired property – Land in question was self-acquired property of petitioner’s father – Only direct lineal descendants were entitled to succeed – Mutation in favour of relatives not forming part of direct lineal descent was illegal and contrary to revenue law principles [Paras 21–22].

Revenue Jurisdiction – Remand by SSRD – Improper remand – Where Collector had already examined entire material and passed a reasoned order cancelling fraudulent mutation entry, remanding the matter for fresh consideration was unnecessary and unjustified [Para 17].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Orders of Special Secretary, Revenue Department dated 19.07.2016 set aside – Order of Collector dated 28.01.2015 restored – Mutation Entry No.760 quashed – Revenue authorities directed to mutate petitioner’s name in accordance with law after following due procedure.

RERA - Maintainability – Special Appeal – Chapter VIII Rule 5, Allahabad High Court Rules – Appeal against order of Single Judge passed under Section 58 of RERA Act – Objection raised that appeal barred by Section 100-A CPC – Held: Where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of Tribunal having trappings of court, no further intra-court appeal lies – Special appeal not maintainable [Paras 14-15, 27, 31].

RERA – Nature of Appellate Tribunal – Trappings of Court – UP Real Estate Appellate Tribunal vested with powers of civil court under Section 53(4) – Proceedings deemed judicial proceedings – Tribunal deemed civil court for limited purposes – Orders executable as decree under Section 57 – Held: Tribunal has all essential trappings of court akin to Company Law Board considered in Kamal Kumar Dutta – Ratio of Supreme Court squarely applicable [Paras 17-20, 25-27].

Section 100-A CPC – Bar on Further Appeal – Supreme Court in Kamal Kumar Dutta held that after amendment of Section 100-A, Letters Patent appeal barred where Single Judge decides appeal from original order of quasi-judicial authority having trappings of court – Appeal under Section 58 RERA is appeal from original order of Appellate Tribunal – Therefore, no further special appeal lies before Division Bench [Paras 14-16, 27, 31].

Distinction Sought from Kamal Kumar Dutta – Reliance on Delhi High Court decision in Promoshirt SM SA – Division Bench distinguished on ground of statutory deeming provision – Held: RERA Act contains deeming provisions similar to Section 10E(4D) of Companies Act, 1956 – Hence distinction in Promoshirt inapplicable – View of Delhi High Court not applicable to present statutory scheme [Paras 28-29].

Tribunals vs Courts – Judicial Character – Reiterating principles in Kihoto Hollohan and Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Bar Association – Tribunal deciding lis under special statute with powers akin to civil court and whose proceedings are judicial in nature may be treated as having trappings of court – Functional similarity decisive factor [Paras 22-24].

Decision: Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 against order of learned Single Judge passed in appeal under Section 58 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 held barred by Section 100-A CPC – Appeal dismissed as not maintainable [Paras 31-32].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Search Assessment – Abatement under Section 158BA(2) – Petitioner contended that assessment for A.Y. 2022-23 was pending on date of search under Section 132 and hence stood abated by operation of Section 158BA(2) – Held, abatement under Section 158BA(2) is attracted only in relation to assessment or reassessment pertaining to “any assessment year falling in the block period” and in context of total undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B – Mere pendency of scrutiny assessment under Section 143 does not ipso facto result in abatement unless statutory conditions are satisfied [Paras 7, 7.10, 8.15].

Block Period – Interpretation of Section 158B – Court analysed definition of “block period” using the expression “means … includes” – Held, definition is exhaustive – Assessment Year 2022-23 falls within six assessment years preceding previous year of search – However, applicability of Chapter XIV-B depends upon assessment of “total undisclosed income” as a result of search – Not automatically attracted to scrutiny of disclosed income [Paras 7.2–7.5, 8.7, 8.10].

Search under Section 132 – Scope vis-à-vis Assessee – Panchnama revealed that search was conducted in respect of certain corporate entities and not specifically against petitioner in his individual capacity – Impugned assessment was based on CASS scrutiny of return filed by petitioner in individual status – No material placed to show that search yielded incriminating material relating to petitioner’s undisclosed income for relevant assessment year – Held, factual foundation for invoking Section 158BA(2) not established [Paras 8.16–8.24, 8.28].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternate Remedy – Entertaining Disputed Questions of Fact – Court reiterated principles in Radha Krishan Industries and Chhabil Dass Agarwal – Held, disputed factual issues regarding existence of undisclosed income, linkage of search material and applicability of Chapter XIV-B cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Petitioner failed to demonstrate jurisdictional error apparent on face of record – Writ petition not maintainable [Paras 8.29–8.31, 9.2].

Statutory Interpretation – Taxing Statute – Court reiterated settled principles that taxing statutes must be construed strictly – Nothing can be read into statute nor implied – Abatement provision cannot be invoked dehors entire scheme of Chapter XIV-B – Legal fiction under Section 158BA must be applied within its statutory contours [Paras 8.13, 8.25–8.27].

Distinction between Section 153A and Section 158BA – Petitioner relied on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 2 SCC 433 – Held, Section 153A (assessment of total income) operates in distinct field from Section 158BA (assessment of total undisclosed income of block period) – Ratio of Abhisar Buildwell cannot be mechanically applied without examining statutory scheme of Chapter XIV-B and factual matrix [Paras 8.5–8.7].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Court declined to interfere with Assessment Order dated 17.03.2025 passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 260 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2022-23 – Petitioner relegated to avail statutory remedies – No order as to costs.