Company Law - Company Winding Up – Inability to Pay Debt – Section 433(e) of Companies Act – Winding Up Confirmed – Appeal dismissed - The appellant challenged the winding up order on grounds of disputed liability and acquittal under Section 138 NI Act – Held: Execution of demand promissory note admitting debt, absence of timely dispute, and decree passed in Summary Suit against appellant demonstrated liability and inability to pay – Belated disputes raised only in winding up reply were not bona fide – Court upheld winding up in public interest to prevent misuse of corporate status against creditors [Paras 14-39].

Criminal Acquittal vs Civil Liability – Distinct Standards of Proof – No Effect on Civil Proceedings – The Court held that acquittal in criminal proceedings based on proof beyond reasonable doubt does not absolve civil liability determined on preponderance of probability – Mere acquittal under Section 138 NI Act does not nullify acknowledged debt or decree obtained in civil court – Civil liability established through decree and demand promissory note prevails [Paras 30-31].

Late Raising of Disputes – Absence of Prior Denial of Liability – Conduct Indicative of Inability to Pay – The Court observed that disputes regarding debt quantum were raised for the first time after issuance of winding up notice, with no prior objection despite several communications – Such conduct was held to be an afterthought and an attempt to evade legitimate dues, justifying the winding up under Section 433(e) [Paras 22-24, 28].

Effect of Summary Decree – Conclusive Evidence of Liability – Appeal Dismissed – The Court noted that appellant did not challenge or satisfy the decree passed in Summary Suit based on same transactions – Existence of decree is decisive of indebtedness and inability to pay – Reiterated principle that companies unable to pay their debts should be wound up to protect future creditors [Paras 31-33].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Winding Up Confirmed – Court found no merit in appeal – Decreed debt remained unpaid, appellant had ceased business activities and had no assets – Winding up confirmed to prevent further creditor prejudice – Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs [Paras 39-40].

Criminal Law - Quashing of Fir and Proceedings – Section 498A IPC – Vague and General Allegations Against Husband’s Relatives – Proceedings Quashed – Petitioners, relatives-in-law residing separately, challenged FIR and charge-sheet under Section 498A IPC – Allegations against them found to be vague, omnibus, without specific details of cruelty or harassment – Complainant herself restricted allegations under Domestic Violence Act only against husband, no mention of petitioners therein – Held: Continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law, quashing warranted [Paras 5-18].

Omnibus Allegations – Absence of Specific Role – No Prima Facie Case – Quashing Justified – FIR and Section 161 CrPC statements lacked specific incidents or roles attributable to petitioners – Injury report did not implicate petitioners – Held: Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained in absence of specific, concrete allegations; continuance of trial against petitioners unjustified [Paras 12-17].

Abuse of Process – Invocation of Inherent Powers – Application of Bhajan Lal Guidelines – Court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC applying Bhajan Lal categories (1, 3, and 5) where allegations even if taken at face value did not constitute offence against petitioners – Held: Exercise of inherent power justified to prevent miscarriage of justice [Paras 19-20].

No Prejudice to Husband’s Trial – Proceedings Against Husband Unaffected – Court clarified that quashing order applies only to present petitioners; proceedings against husband to continue independently on merits before the trial court [Para 23].

Final Decision – Criminal Proceedings Quashed – Charge-sheet and all proceedings arising out of Amdanga P.S. Case No. 160/2020 quashed against petitioners; CRR allowed [Paras 21-22].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reopening of Assessment – Applicability of Amended Provisions – Partial Reopening Permitted – The writ appeal arose from the quashing of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148A, 148 of the Income Tax Act against the respondent-company for AY 2017-18 – The Court held that the amended provisions of Sections 148A and 149 apply even to past assessment years, and limitation has to be reckoned accordingly – Observing that the reassessment was initiated within six years of the end of the assessment year, the Court held the proceedings were not barred by limitation – However, only limited heads relating to processing charges and professional charges were validly backed by statutory 'information' under Section 148A – Reassessment permitted only to this limited extent [Paras 7-9, 20-22].

Reopening of Assessment – Scope of Judicial Review Post-Amendment – Restricted Interference Permissible – The Court distinguished the scope of judicial review under the new regime post-01.04.2021 – Held that unlike the earlier regime requiring ‘reason to believe’, the amended provisions rely on ‘information suggesting escapement’ and judicial review is limited to verifying the existence of such information – The Court clarified that earlier precedents like Kelvinator (change of opinion doctrine) do not directly apply after the amendments [Paras 11-18].

Audit Objection – Validity as Information – Limited Scope – The Court held that audit objection can qualify as 'information' under Section 148A only if it conclusively opines that the original assessment was not in accordance with the Act – In the present case, the audit objection justified reassessment only regarding disallowance of processing and professional charges – Reassessment confined to this head alone [Paras 16-19, 22].

Jurisdiction of Writ Court – Challenge at Notice Stage – Permissible Where Jurisdictional Error Exists – The Court reiterated that writ petitions are maintainable to challenge reopening notices where jurisdictional errors exist – The impugned reassessment was partly quashed since beyond the permissible heads no valid information existed to reopen the assessment [Paras 6, 22-23].

Decision – Reassessment Order Partly Quashed – Fresh Notice Permitted for Limited Issue – The impugned order and notice were quashed, and matter remitted to the Assessing Officer to issue fresh notice under Section 148A within four weeks limited to the disallowance of processing and professional charges – Writ appeal partly allowed with modification of the Single Judge's order [Paras 23].

Matrimonial Law  – Maintenance - Nullity of Marriage – No Entitlement to Interim Maintenance – Sections 12, 23 of Domestic Violence Act – Orders Set Aside – The revisionist challenged interim maintenance awarded to opposite party-2 under the Domestic Violence Act after the marriage was judicially declared null and void – The Court held that following the declaration of nullity, the opposite party-2 could not claim benefits under the Domestic Violence Act as no domestic relationship subsisted under Section 2(f) – Orders granting maintenance were held to be unsustainable [Paras 1, 24].

Effect of Declaration of Marriage as Void – Legal Consequences – The Court reiterated that a decree declaring marriage void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act relates back to the date of marriage – Consequently, there remains no legal relationship between the parties to attract provisions of the Domestic Violence Act – Therefore, maintenance cannot be awarded when the foundational domestic relationship is legally extinguished [Paras 24-25].

Presumption of Marriage – Withdrawal of Appeal Reinforces Nullity – The opposite party-2 had withdrawn her appeal against the nullity decree, making the decree final – The Court held this withdrawal reinforces the conclusion that no valid marriage existed, rendering the subsequent maintenance claim unsustainable [Paras 13, 24].

Illegal Continuation of Proceedings – Orders Passed Without Jurisdiction – The Court found that both the Trial Court and Appellate Court erred by ignoring the legal status of the relationship – Held: When the marriage is void ab-initio, no protection under the Domestic Violence Act survives, and proceedings under Section 12 or Section 23 could not be validly continued [Paras 14-16, 24].

Final Decision – Revision Allowed – Maintenance Order Quashed – The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the orders granting interim maintenance, and held that the opposite party-2 was not entitled to any maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act following the nullity of marriage [Paras 26-27].

Criminal Law - Prevention of Corruption Act – Forensic Examination & Voice Sample – Sections 45A, Indian Evidence Act & 349 BNSS – Revision Allowed – Accused Electrical Inspector facing trial for alleged demand and acceptance of ₹8,000/- illegal gratification sought forensic examination of defence audio/video recordings and securing of complainant’s voice sample – Trial court rejected on grounds of delay, non-examination of persons in video, and possibility of tampering – Held: Such grounds speculative; delay alone not fatal, and possibility of tampering strengthens case for expert analysis – Magistrate empowered under Section 349 BNSS (and as per Ritesh Sinha) to order voice sample even from non-accused – Right to privacy under Articles 20(3) & 21 not absolute; may be curtailed for compelling public interest – Order set aside, forensic examination and voice sample collection directed under judicial supervision – Trial to be expedited [Paras 1-4, 8-21].

Criminal Trial – Forensic Examination of Defence Evidence – Section 45A, Indian Evidence Act – Delay in recording or speculative possibility of editing not valid grounds to deny expert analysis – Expert opinion necessary to determine authenticity – Refusal amounts to curtailing defence rights [Paras 8-11, 20-21].

Voice Sample – Power to Compel – Section 349 BNSS; Ritesh Sinha v. State of U.P. – Magistrate has authority to order voice sample from any person, including witness – Privacy right not absolute – Judicial safeguards ensure fairness – Refusal unjustified in present case [Paras 12-18, 21].

Right to Fair Trial – Denial of scientific comparison of defence evidence restricts accused’s opportunity to rebut prosecution – Contrary to settled principles – Order liable to be set aside [Paras 11, 19-20].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Trial court order dated 01.02.2025 set aside – Forensic examination of pen drive (Ex-D6) and video by Government Forensic Lab ordered – Voice sample of PW-2 to be taken for limited expert comparison – Trial to proceed expeditiously [Paras 20-21].

Attachment Before Judgment – Existence of Prima Facie Claim and Threat of Alienation – Order 38 Rule 5 & 6 CPC – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant, a landowner and developer, challenged the order of the Special Commercial Court making absolute an attachment before judgment of 2.5 acres of land – The plaintiff/respondent, a marketing agent, filed the suit claiming recovery of ₹3,19,75,543/- based on an MoU alleging payments made and wrongful conduct by the defendant in diverting project funds and violating marketing rights – The High Court upheld the Special Court’s finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case through substantial documentation and correlation statements and established a threat of alienation as the defendant had begun independent marketing and sale of the property in violation of the MoU – Held: Special Court correctly exercised discretion in attaching property to secure the suit claim and to prevent the decree from becoming infructuous – Appellate interference was unwarranted as no perversity or arbitrary exercise of discretion was shown [Paras 39-50].

Scope of Appellate Interference – Limited Power of Appellate Court under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC – Appeal Rejected – The High Court reiterated that appellate courts should not substitute their discretion unless the trial court’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or perverse – The Special Court's decision was found reasoned, based on material on record, and compliant with judicial principles, leaving no ground for interference under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC – Appeal dismissed with liberty to appellant to seek modification before the trial court if circumstances change [Paras 53-57].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal dismissed with liberty to appellant to apply before trial court for variation or modification of attachment if so advised – No order as to costs [Paras 59-60].

Service Law – Rights of Persons with Disabilities – Discrimination in Employment – Violation of Sections 20 and 33 of RPwD Act – The petitioner, a bus driver, suffered a 40% locomotor disability during service and sought allocation of light duties – Despite repeated medical certifications and judicial orders, the respondent Corporation rejected his claim citing non-availability of light duties – Held: Denial of light duties violates Section 20 which prohibits discrimination against disabled employees and Section 33 which mandates identification of suitable posts – Impugned order set aside and directions issued to reinstate the petitioner with light duties and pay salary arrears [Paras 2-19, 22-23].

Equal Opportunity Policy – Mandatory Compliance Under Section 21 RPwD Act – Corporation’s Omission to Frame and Implement Equal Opportunity Policy – The Court held that non-identification of posts and failure to provide alternative duties is a direct violation of Section 21 of the RPwD Act which mandates equal opportunity measures in every establishment – Respondent’s omission resulted in denial of the petitioner’s lawful rights and perpetuated systemic discrimination [Paras 15, 18].

Inalienable Right of Disabled Employees – Allocation of Alternative Duties – Non-Compliance Cannot Justify Denial of Rights – The Court held that failure to implement mandatory statutory duties cannot be used to curtail the rights of disabled employees – The respondent Corporation’s defence of non-existence of light duty posts was rejected – Held: Employers cannot take advantage of their own default in failing to identify suitable posts for persons with disabilities [Paras 17, 21].

Reinstatement and Financial Relief – Directions for Payment of Salary Arrears with Interest – Institutional Reforms Mandated – The Court directed the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner with light duties, pay full salary arrears from March 2022 with 7% interest, and issued further directions to sensitize officers and conduct regular audits to enforce compliance with RPwD Act – Additional penalty of ₹50,000 imposed for non-compliance [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned Order Set Aside – Full Relief Granted to Petitioner – The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned rejection order, directed payment of salary arrears with interest, and ordered systemic reforms within six months to ensure compliance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the respondent Corporation [Paras 22-24].

Criminal Law - Successive Bail Petition – Maintainability Before High Court After Earlier Rejections – Concurrent Jurisdiction – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner, accused of grave offences including sexual assault, sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite prior dismissal by Sessions Court, High Court, and Supreme Court – Held: Though Sessions Court and High Court have concurrent jurisdiction, judicial discipline mandates initial approach to Sessions Court unless exceptional circumstances exist – Petitioner failed to plead or prove compelling circumstances for bypassing trial court – Following established precedents, High Court refused to entertain petition without prior trial court recourse [Paras 3-23].

Judicial Discipline – Bypassing Sessions Court – Exceptional Circumstances Requirement – Affirmed – Citing authoritative judgments, the Court reiterated the principle that High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should not be invoked directly when the trial court has previously declined relief unless there are fresh developments or special reasons justifying deviation – As no such factors were demonstrated, petition was relegated to trial court [Paras 10-22].

Roster Allocation and Judicial Consistency – Clarification Applied – In light of Supreme Court's direction on listing of bail applications under the same FIR before the same judge where possible, the Court clarified that due to roster changes and absence of prior judge, present bench could entertain the matter, but on merits, relief was declined [Paras 6-8].

Relief and Directions – Petitioner Relegated to Trial Court – Expeditious Consideration Ordered – Considering judicial custody since May 2024 and to avoid prolonged incarceration, High Court directed the trial court to decide the bail application within ten days if moved by petitioner – Liberty granted to approach High Court thereafter if necessary [Paras 23-24].

Civil Law – Revision - Execution of Permanent Injunction Decree – Conversion into Mandatory Injunction – Impermissible – The Executing Court ordered demolition of a compound wall in execution of a permanent injunction decree without examining whether the wall was erected before or after the decree – Held: The Executing Court acted mechanically, without determining the timeline of the alleged construction – The conversion of a decree of permanent injunction into a mandatory injunction after a significant lapse of time is impermissible – Set aside the execution order [Paras 4-7].

Ownership of Suit Property – Property of Central Government – Decree Passed Without Proper Scrutiny – Admitted position that suit property belongs to the Central Government – Suit decreed ex parte without adherence to Order 20 Rule 4 & 5 CPC – Held: Decree passed suffers from procedural infirmity; direction given to consider the application to set aside ex parte decree [Paras 2-4, 7].

Limitation for Mandatory Injunction – Application of Article 135 of the Limitation Act – Enforcement of a mandatory injunction has a limitation period of three years – Held: Attempt to enforce demolition through execution is barred by limitation principles applicable to mandatory injunctions [Para 6].

Right to Execute Permanent Injunction – No Limitation for Execution but Subject to Scope – Although no time limit exists to enforce a permanent injunction, its scope cannot be expanded to mandatory relief without appropriate decree modification – Held: Execution proceedings restricted to the terms of the decree granted [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – Order of Executing Court set aside – Application to set aside ex parte decree pending before Trial Court directed to be considered expeditiously [Paras 7-8].