Civil Law - Partition Suit – Married Daughter’s Succession Right – Hindu Succession Act Prevails – 1/3rd Share Granted - The appellant, daughter of the original propositus, filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in properties granted as occupancy rights – Trial Court dismissed the suit stating married daughter not a member of family under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act – Held: Succession is governed by Hindu Succession Act, not KLR Act – Plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share – Purchasers from co-sharer held to be entitled only to vendor's limited share – Appeal partly allowed and decree of partition passed [Paras 1, 22-34].

Partition and Succession – Right of Married Daughter – Hindu Succession Act Overrides KLR Act – 1/3rd Share Decreed - Trial Court erred in holding that plaintiff was not entitled to share in agricultural land due to exclusion from “family” under Section 2(12) of KLR Act – Held: Hindu Succession Act governs intestate succession and overrides restrictive definition under KLR Act – Married daughter has equal right to inherit ancestral property – Plaintiff entitled to 1/3rd share [Paras 22-30].

Adoption – Validity of Adoption Deed – Adoption of Defendant No.1 by Propositus Upheld - Adoption of Defendant No.1 by the propositus Basagouda supported by registered deed and oral evidence – Court accepted adoption as valid – Defendant No.1 held entitled to 1/3rd share as adopted son [Paras 31-32].

Joint Family Property – Grant of Occupancy Rights – Devolution Among Legal Heirs - Agricultural land granted under KLR Act in favour of father continues to be joint family property unless otherwise provided – All Class I legal heirs including daughters inherit equally – Held: Right of partition survives in favour of married daughter [Paras 25-28].

Bonafide Purchaser – Sale of 1/3rd Share by Adopted Son – Rights of Purchasers Protected - Defendants who purchased property from Defendant No.1 admitted they bought only 1/3rd share – Held: Purchasers are bonafide purchasers of co-sharer’s limited right – Cannot affect rights of other heirs – Their remedy lies against vendor alone [Paras 33-34].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Judgment and Decree Set Aside - Judgment and decree of Trial Court dismissing suit set aside – Plaintiff granted 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties – Purchasers from co-sharer directed to work out remedy without affecting partition – No costs awarded [Para 34].

Taxation Law - Section 9(1)(vii), Explanation 2; Section 147, Section 144C, Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - DTAA Interpretation – ‘Make Available’ Condition – No Transfer of Technical Knowledge – Non-Taxability under Article 13 – The Court held that receipts from GIPL for providing access to an e-invoicing platform do not qualify as Fees for Technical Services under Article 13(4)(c) of the India-UK DTAA – Services rendered by the Assessee did not result in transfer of technical knowledge, skill, or know-how to GIPL – GIPL did not acquire any ability to independently use or exploit the e-invoicing technology – Held: Payments received by the Assessee are not taxable under Article 13 of the DTAA [Paras 31-62].

Nature of E-Invoicing Services – License to Use Platform vs Transfer of Technology – Business Receipts Not FTS – The Assessee merely provided a non-exclusive license to use its proprietary platform to GIPL for generating e-invoices for GSK, without transferring source code or proprietary technology – Provision of such services, despite involving technological processes, did not involve transfer of technical knowledge or capability to GIPL – Held: The nature of services was not technical services under Article 13(4)(c) of DTAA [Paras 13-25, 50-55].

Training and Ancillary Services – Use-Based Training Does Not Satisfy ‘Make Available’ Criteria – The training provided to GIPL employees was limited to operational use of the platform and did not result in transfer of technical know-how or capability to independently render services – Mere operational training does not qualify as ‘making available’ technical knowledge – Held: Training clause in the agreement did not transform business receipts into FTS [Paras 54-61].

Overriding Effect of DTAA over Income Tax Act – Beneficial Treaty Provisions Applicable – The Court reaffirmed that under Section 90 of the Act, DTAA provisions prevail over domestic law if more beneficial to the assessee – Hence, the restrictive definition of FTS under the India-UK DTAA overrides the broader definition in Explanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act – Held: Since services do not make technical knowledge available, no tax liability arises under domestic law or DTAA [Paras 28-30, 62].

Decision of the Court – Appeals Allowed – Tribunal and Lower Assessments Set Aside – The Court set aside the ITAT order and final assessment orders taxing receipts from GIPL as FTS, holding such receipts not chargeable to tax in India under the DTAA – Held: Appeals allowed, assessments quashed [Paras 62-63].

Civil Law - Katha Cancellation – Jurisdiction and Validity – Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act – Quashing of Cancellation Order – Writ Petition Allowed - The petitioner, holder of a registered gift deed, challenged the order cancelling katha by the Deputy Commissioner based on allegations of ancestral property and pending compromise decree – Court held that Deputy Commissioner, while exercising limited supervisory revisional powers under Section 322, had no authority to adjudicate disputed title especially when civil litigation was pending – Cancellation of katha held to be beyond jurisdiction, in violation of procedural safeguards, and amounted to pre-judging ownership rights – Writ Petition allowed and katha ordered to be restored [Paras 1-17].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope Limited to Rectification of Municipal Records – Civil Title Disputes Outside Scope – Court reiterated that Section 322 provides only limited supervisory jurisdiction to rectify errors in municipal records and does not empower Deputy Commissioner to adjudicate complex civil title disputes – Interference with katha based on unadjudicated title claims set aside [Paras 12, 16].

Limitation – Delay in Filing Revision Not Condoned – Procedural Irregularity – Court held that revision under Section 322 must be filed within 30 days – In absence of an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, the Deputy Commissioner could not have entertained the revision petition – Impugned order quashed on this ground also [Para 13].

Civil Suit Pending – Non-Interference Principle – Revenue Authorities Barred from Adjudicating Title – Where title dispute is pending in civil court, revenue authorities must refrain from adjudicating or altering records based on disputed ownership claims – Katha cancellation in this case held impermissible and unsustainable [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Cancellation of katha by the Deputy Commissioner quashed – Direction issued to restore petitioner’s katha within six weeks – All consequential actions nullified – No costs awarded [Para 17].

Writ – Tenancy Law - Mutation Entries – Delay in Challenge – Jurisdictional Defect – RTS Appeal Filed after 33 Years Without Condonation – Order of SDO Cancelled – Court held that challenge to Mutation Entry No.1201 dated 14.07.1962 by Gaikar family after lapse of 33 years without condonation of delay rendered the entire proceedings before SDO void ab initio – SDO assumed jurisdiction without first condoning delay, violating basic principles of law – Order dated 20.12.2001 passed by SDO is a nullity and was rightly set aside by the Additional Commissioner in Revision – Writ Petition of Gaikar family dismissed [Paras 10-12].

Effect of Mutation on Title – Mutation Entry is Not Conclusive of Ownership – Mutation Entry made for fiscal purposes – Determination of substantive ownership requires adjudication by Civil Court – Court reiterated settled principle that Mutation Entries cannot confer title – Gaikar family did not institute any civil proceedings for declaration of ownership and attempted to misuse RTS process – Appropriate remedy is by way of civil suit and not RTS appeal after inordinate delay [Paras 11, 14].

Tenancy Rights – Section 32G Proceedings Vitiated – Entire Proceedings Emanating from Nullified RTS Order Invalid – Section 32G purchase proceedings initiated by Gaikar family in 2002 based on the void SDO order dated 20.12.2001 are vitiated – Consequently, Section 32M certificate issued to Gaikar family set aside – MRT orders declining to condone delay rightly upheld – Mutation Entries 2473, 2474, 2475 directed to be deleted – Writ Petition of Adurkar family allowed [Paras 16-17].

Public Acquisition – Entitlement to Allotment Under 12.5% Scheme – CIDCO Directed to Allot Plot to Landlord Family – Court directed CIDCO to hand over earmarked plot and other acquisition benefits to Adurkar family, being recorded owners at the time of acquisition, within four weeks as per law [Para 18].

Future Remedy – Right to Civil Remedy Reserved – Court kept open liberty of parties to institute civil proceedings for declaration of rights if advised – RTS and tenancy orders not determinative of title – Civil Court jurisdiction preserved [Para 20].

Decision – Writ Petition No. 2547 of 2006 filed by Gaikar family dismissed – Writ Petition No. 10280 of 2023 filed by Adurkar family allowed – CIDCO to process allotment in favour of Adurkar family – Interim Applications disposed – Four-week stay on judgment granted to Gaikar family for approaching higher court [Paras 15-23].

Criminal Law - Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC – Conviction Upheld – Appeal arose from conviction of the appellant for triple murder of his parents and married sister – Multiple prosecution witnesses including relatives, neighbours, and medical personnel testified to extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant – Post-mortem findings corroborated the confessions – The convict failed to offer any plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC regarding injuries sustained or circumstances of the crime – Held: Prosecution established guilt of the convict beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld [Paras 1-45].

Death Sentence – Rarest of Rare Doctrine – Death Sentence Commuted – Though Trial Court awarded death penalty considering aggravating circumstances, the High Court re-assessed on the touchstone of the ‘rarest of rare’ principle – No prior criminal antecedents, age of convict (41 years), reputation as a private tutor, and absence of evidence indicating beyond reformation considered as mitigating factors – Held: Death sentence not warranted – Sentence commuted to life imprisonment [Paras 46-52].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Reliability and Corroboration – Extra-judicial confessions made to multiple persons including P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6, P.W.7, and P.W.10 were consistent, corroborated each other, and aligned with medical and post-mortem evidence – Convict did not deny making such confessions under Section 313 CrPC – Held: Extra-judicial confessions found credible and admissible, forming a significant part of the conviction [Paras 39-44].

Burden under Section 106 of Evidence Act – Failure to Explain Circumstances – Convict was found at crime scene with self-inflicted injuries alongside deceased family members – Convict failed to discharge burden under Section 106 Evidence Act to explain incriminating circumstances especially being present at crime scene – Held: Adverse inference drawn against the convict in absence of plausible explanation [Paras 41, 44].

Investigation Lapses – No Benefit to Defence – Defence highlighted lapses such as absence of recovery of weapons under Section 27 Evidence Act, no forensic tests, and faulty sketch map – Held: Such lapses did not dilute overwhelming direct and corroborative evidence proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction not vitiated on account of these lapses [Paras 2-8, 36].

Sentencing Principles – Reformative Approach – Following Supreme Court decision in Manoj & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, Court held that life sentence is appropriate where possibility of reformation exists – Convict directed to undergo life imprisonment with set-off of pre-trial custody period under Section 428 CrPC [Paras 46-53].

Decision – Conviction Affirmed, Death Sentence Commuted – Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld – Death penalty commuted to life imprisonment – Time already served to be set-off – Death reference and appeal disposed of accordingly [Paras 54-55].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal  – Cheque Dishonour Acquittal – Section 138 NI Act – Appeal Transferred to Sessions Court – The appellant sought leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against acquittal in a dishonoured cheque complaint – High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, which clarified that a victim under Section 138 NI Act has an unqualified right to appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court without seeking leave from the High Court – Held: The present application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. is to be treated as an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C., and matter transferred to Sessions Court for disposal on merits [Paras 3, 5].

Prospective Overruling – Applicability of Judgments – Right to Appeal Clarified – Supreme Court’s ruling in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Raj Kumar Arora, Crl. A. No. 1319 of 2013, decided on 17.04.2025 applied the doctrine of prospective overruling and reiterated that judicial pronouncements on interpretation of law have retrospective effect unless specified otherwise – Held: Interpretation of Sections 372 and 378 Cr.P.C. by Supreme Court applies retrospectively, entitling the complainant to appeal before Sessions Court [Paras 4-5].

Victim’s Right of Appeal – Distinction Between Victim and Complainant – The Court emphasised the enhanced right of appeal conferred upon victims by the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., distinguishing it from the limited rights under Section 378(4) – Held: A payee or holder of cheque under Section 138 NI Act qualifies as ‘victim’ under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C., entitled to file appeal directly before Sessions Court [Paras 3, 5].

Decision – Matter Transferred to Sessions Court – Leave Application Treated as Appeal – The High Court directed that the appeal be treated under Section 372 Cr.P.C. and entrusted to Sessions Judge, Ambala for adjudication on merits – Complete record directed to be transferred to Sessions Court [Paras 5-6].

Civil Law - Section 2, 3 and 17 of the Indian Stamp Act  - Stamp Duty – Valuation Date – Market Value on Date of Sale Deed Relevant – Divergence Resolved – The Division Bench answered the reference on the issue of stamp duty valuation under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Held that for purposes of determining the stamp duty on a conveyance/sale deed, the relevant market value is that prevailing on the date of execution of the sale deed, and not the date of agreement to sell – Judgment in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case held not good law – Reference answered accordingly [Paras 1, 10-12].

Interpretation – Charging Section vs. Transaction – Stamp Duty Payable on Instrument, Not Transaction – Section 3 of the 1899 Act makes stamp duty chargeable on the “instrument” and not on the underlying transaction – The nature of transaction may be relevant only for determining the type of instrument, but the charge is on the instrument itself [Para 5].

Binding Precedents – Harvinder Pal Singla Overruled – Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association’s Case Distinguished – The Court held that the view taken in Harvinder Pal Singla’s case is not valid since it relied on a precedent that was inapplicable to conveyance deeds – Held: Judgment in Residents’ Welfare Association's case pertained to assignment of lease, not conveyance of ownership [Paras 7-9, 11].

Supreme Court Authority – Khandaka Jain Jewellers Followed – Prevailing Market Rate at Time of Sale Deed Controls – The Division Bench relied upon the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, where the Supreme Court held that stamp duty is to be computed on the basis of market value as on date of execution of sale deed – Also followed Shanti Bhushan v. State of U.P. reaffirming this position [Paras 6, 10].

Final Decision – Reference Answered – Market Value on Date of Execution Relevant – Division Bench held that the correct legal position is that market rate applicable at the time of execution of the sale deed governs the stamp duty – Reference disposed of accordingly [Para 12].

Criminal Procedure – Proclamation and Attachment – Validity – The petitioner challenged the order of the trial court declaring him a proclaimed person and issuing a notice under Section 83 Cr.P.C. for the attachment of his property. The petitioner contended that the trial court conducted the proceedings in haste and did not adhere to the prescribed procedures under Section 82 Cr.P.C.​​.

Exemption from Personal Appearance – The petitioner had moved applications for exemption from personal appearance, which were initially allowed but later declined, leading to the issuance of warrants of arrest and subsequently proclamation warrants. The petitioner argued that he was never served with the said warrant as he was not residing at the address, and the issuance of the warrant was furnished to an unrelated person​​.

Issuance of Proclamation – The court emphasized that the proclamation process must strictly adhere to the procedures laid down in Section 82 Cr.P.C., which include public reading, affixation to the person's house, and publication in a local newspaper. The trial court's reliance on information from an unknown person without verifying the petitioner's current address was deemed insufficient​​.

Decision: The order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram, in case No. NACT/77022/2023, was found to be flawed and not in compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. The order was quashed, and the petition was allowed​​.

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Conviction – Dismissal for Non-Prosecution – Section 138 NI Act – Dismissal Set Aside - The petitioner challenged the order dismissing his appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act for non-appearance – The High Court held that appeal against conviction must be decided on merits even if the appellant is absent – Relying on binding precedents, the Court emphasized the doctrine of audi alteram partem and the necessity to avoid arbitrary orders – Held: Order of dismissal unsustainable and set aside [Paras 1-4, 7-9].

Principle of Natural Justice – Right to Be Heard – Remand for Fresh Consideration – The Court reiterated that no person should be condemned unheard, and the failure of counsel or absence of the accused should not lead to dismissal without adjudication on merits – Held: Matter remanded to appellate court for fresh decision after hearing petitioner [Paras 5-9].

Judicial Duty – Speaking Order Requirement – Appellate Court Failed to Record Reasons – The High Court criticized the mechanical and non-reasoned order of the appellate court, observing that every judicial decision must be supported by reasons reflecting due application of mind – Held: Appellate court directed to pass reasoned and speaking order after hearing all parties [Paras 8-9].

Cited Precedents – Appeal Cannot Be Dismissed in Default – The Court relied on Bani Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1996 SC 2439, and Sakunthala v. State, Cr. Appeal No. 474/2020, to hold that appellate courts must decide conviction appeals on merits, irrespective of presence of parties – Held: Dismissal without hearing violates settled law [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Order Dismissing Appeal Set Aside – Revision Petition Allowed – The impugned dismissal order dated 23.08.2022 set aside – Case remanded for hearing and fresh adjudication on merits – Petitioner directed to appear before appellate court on 04/08/2025 [Para 9].