Section 138 of the NI Act - Cheque Dishonour Case – Statutory Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act – Acquittal Upheld – The complainant advanced a loan of ₹10,00,000/- to Respondent No. 2 who issued a post-dated cheque which was dishonoured for insufficient funds – The trial court acquitted Respondent No. 2 on the ground that he had raised a probable defence by proving repayment of the loan amount – Held: As per settled law, once accused raises a probable defence, the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 ceases to operate and burden shifts on complainant to prove enforceable debt, which he failed to establish, hence acquittal justified [Paras 1-7, 14-19].

Scope of Appellate Review – Principles of Interference in Appeal Against Acquittal under NI Act – Restricted Interference – The appellate court noted that while general restraint applies in interfering with acquittal, the NI Act allows consideration of presumptions and burden-shifting – Held: No perversity or legal infirmity was found in the trial court’s judgment which was based on evidence and correct application of law, therefore appellate interference not warranted [Paras 11-13, 20-21].

Contradictory Defence – Impact on Rebuttal of Presumption – Contradictions Not Fatal – The complainant highlighted contradictions in accused’s defence about issuance of cheque and loan transactions – Held: Despite contradictions, Respondent No. 2 successfully raised a probable defence showing repayment, shifting burden back to complainant who failed to prove liability, hence contradictions did not invalidate defence [Paras 17-19].

Decision of the Court – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court found no perversity in the findings of the trial court and upheld the acquittal of Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act – Appeal dismissed [Para 22].

Commercial Law - Trademark and Copyright Dispute – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Suit Barred – The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants alleging infringement of trademark and copyright, and passing off, in respect of the mark ‘PADAN’ – The Court held that the plaintiff, Coromandel Indag Products India Ltd., had no locus standi to institute the suit since all alleged use and proprietary rights were with Coromandel Agrico Pvt. Ltd. (CAPL), a distinct corporate entity under insolvency – Held: The plaintiff was not a licensee or owner of the mark or artistic work and could not claim the benefit of CAPL’s rights – The plaint failed to disclose a cause of action and was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 11–13, 18, 34, 37–38].

Corporate Personality – Group Company Cannot Espouse Cause – No Legal Standing – The Court reaffirmed that a company cannot represent group entities or subsidiaries in legal proceedings – Each corporate entity is distinct and must assert its own claims – Merely being the parent of CAPL did not entitle the plaintiff to sue on its behalf, especially when CAPL was under insolvency and only its Resolution Professional could sue – Held: The plaintiff’s suit was legally unsustainable on this ground alone [Paras 11–13].

Non-Disclosure of Documents – Deliberate Suppression – Cause of Action Found Illusory – The plaintiff failed to file key documents relied upon in the plaint, including the Distribution and Trademark Agreements, which clearly showed that the rights were vested in CAPL – Held: The plaintiff suppressed material documents to fabricate a false cause of action – Rejection of plaint warranted [Paras 19–25, 37].

Copyright Claim – Assignment Expired – No Right in Plaintiff – The plaintiff claimed copyright ownership in packaging artwork via assignment to CAPL – The Court held that the assignment was in favour of CAPL, and in absence of a defined term, deemed to have expired after five years under Section 19(5) of the Copyright Act – Held: Plaintiff had no subsisting right or claim under copyright law [Paras 26–27].

Passing Off – Use by Licensee Inures to Licensor – No Goodwill Established – The plaintiff failed to show any use of the mark PADAN on its own behalf – All evidence related to use by CAPL – The Court held that as CAPL was a licensee of the defendant, any goodwill accrued to the defendant – The plaintiff’s passing off claim was rejected [Paras 28–34].

Fabricated Evidence – Agreement Claiming Ownership Unsupported – The plaintiff’s reliance on an agreement claiming it was a registered proprietor of PADAN was found false – The Court noted that the defendant was the registered owner, and no proof of registration in plaintiff’s name existed – Held: The document appeared fabricated and could not support the suit [Paras 35–36].

Final Decision – Suit Held to be Vexatious – Plaint Rejected – The Court found that the plaint was based on false assumptions, misleading representations, and failed to disclose any real cause of action – The suit was declared vexatious and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 37–38].

Taxation Law - Income Tax – Reassessment under Section 147 – Full and True Disclosure – Reopening Beyond Four Years Invalid – The petitioner, BPCL, challenged reassessment notices issued under Section 148 for AYs 2013-14 and 2014-15 – Revenue alleged failure to disclose facts regarding dividend income received from BPCL Trust and wrong deduction under Section 32AC – Held: The Court found all relevant facts were fully disclosed in original scrutiny assessments under Section 143(3), including investment in BPCL Trust and dividend income – The reopening beyond four years without specific failure of disclosure was held to be without jurisdiction – Reassessment quashed [Paras 25-30, 34-35].

Reassessment – Change of Opinion – Impermissible Ground – Mere Re-evaluation of Existing Facts Not Sufficient – Assessing Officer reopened assessment based on existing records and submissions made during original assessment proceedings – Court held that such reopening amounted to a change of opinion, which is not a valid reason for invoking Section 147 – The reasons recorded lacked specificity and did not disclose any new material – Held: Reassessment invalid and notices liable to be quashed [Paras 31, 35].

Exempt Income – Section 10(34) – Income Received from Trust Holding Shares – Trust a Sole Beneficiary Structure – Income Already Considered – BPCL had received dividend from a trust holding shares for its benefit – Revenue argued that since the Trust is not a company, dividend cannot be exempt – Held: Petitioner had disclosed this structure during original assessment – Income from the Trust was acknowledged and considered in disallowance under Section 14A – No failure to disclose found – Exemption claim not ground for reassessment [Paras 28-30].

Deduction under Section 32AC – Eligibility of LPG Cylinders as Plant & Machinery – Disclosure Fully Made – Court held that BPCL had disclosed all relevant details regarding claim under Section 32AC, including asset-wise investment – Assessment records clearly reflected those details – Reassessment on this issue was also held invalid as it lacked any failure of disclosure and was a mere reanalysis of same data – Held: Reassessment on this ground also quashed [Paras 34-35].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Reassessment notices and rejection orders for AY 2013-14 and AY 2014-15 quashed – Held: No failure to disclose material facts and reopening was impermissible change of opinion – Rule made absolute [Paras 37-38].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Continuation Despite Acquittal in Criminal Trial – Scope Clarified – Petitioner, a Junior Language Teacher, challenged disciplinary proceedings on the ground of acquittal in criminal trial involving POCSO charges—Court held that departmental proceedings are governed by preponderance of probabilities and not by strict criminal law standards—Held: Acquittal due to hostile witnesses does not preclude disciplinary action, and such proceedings are valid and distinct from criminal trials [Paras 5-11].

Misconduct by Teacher – Fiduciary Duty Breach Established – Serious Allegations of Sexual Abuse – Despite acquittal in criminal court, domestic inquiry found the petitioner guilty of grossly unbecoming behaviour, corroborated by school teachers and victim’s initial statements—Held: Teacher, being in a fiduciary position, failed in his duty; conduct amounts to grave misconduct justifying disciplinary proceedings [Paras 4, 10-12].

Premature Challenge to Disciplinary Proceedings – Interference Not Warranted – Court noted that petitioner approached court at show cause notice stage prior to imposition of penalty—Held: Premature interference in disciplinary process unjustified, writ petition dismissed without prejudice to petitioner’s right to contest final order [Para 13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Departmental Proceedings Upheld – High Court declined to quash disciplinary action against petitioner, upholding manager’s authority to proceed with proposed punishment of compulsory retirement despite criminal acquittal—Writ Petition dismissed with observations supporting independence of disciplinary proceedings from criminal prosecution [Paras 13-14].

Matrimonial Law - Domestic Violence – Requirement of Domestic Relationship – DV Act – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of Trial and Appellate Courts which held that no domestic relationship existed between her and Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 since 2013 – Held: The petitioner was residing in a separate household since 2013 and no present or continuing threat of domestic violence existed – No specific allegations against Respondents 5 and 6 and complaint filed after 21 years of marriage without new incidents – Petition dismissed [Paras 4–6, 12–15, 23–25].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Scope Limited – No Perversity Found – Petition Dismissed - High Court reiterated that interference under Section 482 CrPC is limited to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Held: No perversity or abuse of process found in the impugned concurrent orders – Complaint lacked specific, timely and credible allegations against Respondents 3, 5 and 6 – Petition dismissed [Paras 13, 24].

Allegations Against Relatives – General Allegations Insufficient – Supreme Court Precedents Applied – Petition Dismissed - Allegations against in-laws were vague, stale, and unsupported by material particulars – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, such omnibus allegations cannot form basis for criminal prosecution under DV Act – Criminal process not to be used as pressure tactic – Petition dismissed [Paras 15–22].

Right of Residence – Misplaced Reliance on Supreme Court Ruling – Petition Dismissed - Petitioner relied on Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi to sustain complaint against in-laws – Held: No claim of shared household or residence sought against in-laws; prayer limited to alternate accommodation – Reliance misplaced – Petition dismissed [Para 22].

Criminal Proceedings – Need for Specificity – SC Guidance in Geddam Jhansi and Kamal Cases – General Allegations Quashed - Court emphasized that domestic violence complaints must contain specific allegations supported by material facts – Held: Bald claims and delayed filing after years of separation cannot justify issuance of summons – Criminal proceedings rightly quashed [Paras 17, 19–21].

Final Order – Petition Dismissed – No Cost – Petition lacked merit and failed to show legal infirmity in lower court orders – Proceedings already abated against deceased Respondent No. 4 – Petition dismissed in entirety [Paras 10, 25].

Civil Writ - Challenging the suspension of authorization of Fair Price Shop – Violation of Control Order – Suspension Without Inquiry – Suspension Set Aside – Petitioner’s authorization to run Fair Price Shop No.0119013 was suspended by order dated 13.09.2024 – Respondents failed to complete the inquiry within 90 days as mandated by Clause (vii) of the Control Order, 2018 – High Court held the suspension unsustainable in light of binding precedent and Control Order provisions – Suspension order quashed and supply of commodities directed to resume [Paras 2, 5–6].

Natural Justice – Mandatory Enquiry Before Suspension – Clause (vi) Control Order – Burden on Authority – Held: No Enquiry Conducted – Respondents suspended the shop without considering petitioner’s explanation or proving charges through a fair enquiry – Clause (vi) of the Control Order imposes a duty to conduct enquiry where charges are denied – Held: Failure to adhere to this requirement renders the action arbitrary and violative of natural justice [Paras 2–5].

Time-bound Enquiry – Clause (vii) of 2018 Control Order – Suspension Cannot Continue Beyond 90 Days Without Completion of Enquiry – Court relied on Joint Collector, Kurnool v. A. Neelima to reiterate that suspension cannot continue indefinitely – As 90-day period from 13.09.2024 expired on 12.12.2024 without completion of enquiry, suspension was liable to be set aside [Paras 5–6].

Precedent Followed – Suspension Without Compliance Quashed – Consistent View Taken – Court followed binding precedent in C. Durga Srinivas Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh where procedural safeguards under the Control Order were strictly enforced – Held: Authority’s failure to conduct a timely and fair enquiry vitiates the suspension action [Paras 3, 5–6].

Final Relief – Suspension Set Aside – Supply to Resume – No Costs Awarded – Impugned suspension order dated 13.09.2024 quashed – Respondents directed to resume supply of essential commodities to the petitioner’s Fair Price Shop on due payment – Miscellaneous petitions closed – No order as to costs [Para 6].

Service Law – Dismissal from Service – Domestic Enquiry – Writ Petition Dismissed – The petitioner challenged the dismissal order and subsequent Labour Court award rejecting his claim – Alleged embezzlement of ₹500 proved in enquiry – Court held it is not within its scope under Article 226 to reassess sufficiency of evidence – Only “no evidence” can invite interference – Labour Court’s conclusion upheld [Paras 1-8].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Limited Scope of Judicial Review – Court Refused to Reassess Merits – Following Supreme Court rulings, the Court reiterated that sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is not grounds for interference – Interference under Article 226 only permissible where findings are perverse or based on no evidence – None found in present case [Paras 6-7].

Punishment – Proportionality – Embezzlement Proven – Dismissal Held Justified – Petitioner argued that returning the embezzled sum negated need for harsh punishment – Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to hold that refund does not nullify misconduct – Dismissal not shockingly disproportionate to the proven charge [Paras 9-12].

Final Decision – No Interference Warranted – Labour Court Award Affirmed – Writ petition dismissed – No perversity or legal infirmity found in Labour Court’s evaluation or award [Paras 13-14].

Tenancy Law - Eviction Suit – Bona-fide Requirement – Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act – Eviction Allowed – The petitioners, NRIs residing abroad since the 1970s, sought eviction of tenants from properties in Delhi Cantonment to start a food-related business in India – The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petitions holding that the premises were too small for a restaurant and the petitioners being well-settled abroad did not require the premises for subsistence – Held: The Rent Controller’s view was erroneous – It is settled law that the landlord is the best judge of how to use the premises – A food take-away or delivery outlet qualifies as legitimate use – Requirement cannot be discounted merely because the petitioners are NRIs or financially well-off – Eviction petitions allowed [Paras 6-9, 28-32].

Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Challenge to Ownership – Not a Bar to Eviction – The respondents contended that the petitioners were not owners due to disputes over a family settlement – Held: Once landlord-tenant relationship is admitted and rent was paid to the landlord or their predecessor, challenge to ownership is immaterial in eviction proceedings – The landlord needs only better title than the tenant – Objection dismissed [Paras 38-40].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 25B(8) DRC Act – Misapplication of Law by Rent Controller Correctable – While revisional jurisdiction is limited, interference is justified when findings are based on misapplication of legal principles or misreading of evidence – High Court rightly interfered where the ARC imposed irrelevant standards regarding the viability of the landlord’s proposed business and the NRI status of the landlord [Paras 25-27].

Alternate Accommodation – No Evidence by Tenant – The Rent Controller failed to examine the aspect of alternative accommodation – Held: In absence of any specific plea or proof from tenants about the existence of alternative accommodation with the landlord, the petition cannot fail on this ground – This is not a fatal defect [Paras 34-37].

Final Decision – Eviction Allowed – Impugned judgments dated 25.07.2013 set aside – Eviction petitions allowed – Petitioners entitled to obtain vacant physical possession of the subject premises from the respondents in accordance with law [Para 42].

Cheque Dishonour – 138 of the NI Act - Presumption under Negotiable Instruments Act – Rebuttal of Presumption – Acquittal Upheld – The complainant alleged loan transaction and issuance of cheque in discharge of debt – Accused produced evidence (Ex.D4) obtained under RTI showing operation of unregistered finance business by complainant, which was denied by complainant – Trial Court disbelieved complainant’s version and acquitted accused – Held: In appeal against acquittal, unless findings are perverse, interference unwarranted – In this case, complainant’s suppression of material facts and failure to produce promissory note weakened prosecution – Acquittal upheld as trial Court’s reasoning found just and based on evidence [Paras 4, 8-10].

Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Rebutted by Preponderance of Probability – The presumption of debt under Section 139 stands rebutted where the accused demonstrates, through credible defence, that cheque was issued as security and not in discharge of legally enforceable debt – Total denial of finance business by complainant, despite contrary evidence, erodes the credibility of prosecution – No perverse approach by trial Court in accepting defence version [Paras 8-9].

Promissory Note Non-Production – Adverse Inference – Complainant claimed execution of promissory note for loan with interest but failed to produce the same during trial – Held: Non-production of primary documentary evidence critical to the loan claim further weakens prosecution case – Trial Court rightly considered this lapse in assessing complainant’s credibility [Paras 9].

Appeal Against Acquittal – Interference Principles Reiterated – The High Court reiterated well-settled principle that appellate Court should not interfere with acquittal unless findings are unreasonable, illegal, or perverse – Findings based on appreciation of evidence, cross-examination, and defence material – No grounds for reversal of acquittal [Paras 8-10].

Decision of the Judgment – Appeal dismissed, acquittal confirmed – Trial Court’s order acquitting accused in cheque bounce case upheld – Appeal devoid of merit [Para 10].