Criminal Law - False Affidavit – Whether Cognizance Under Section 340 CrPC Valid – Petitioner challenged cognizance taken by Magistrate under Sections 193/199/209 IPC—Held: Cognizance taken without a preliminary inquiry violates procedural safeguards—Order set aside [Paras 10-13].

Jurisdiction – Whether Application Should Have Been Heard by Original Court – Complaint was originally filed before the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate but was moved before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate—Held: Proceedings must be initiated before the Court where the alleged false statement was made—Cognizance taken by incorrect forum vitiates proceedings [Paras 14-16].

Final Decision – Revision allowed – Impugned order quashed—Respondent granted liberty to file a fresh application before the competent court [Paras 17-19].

Civil Law - Provident Fund – Levy of Damages for Delayed Remittance – Whether Mandatory – The Tribunal set aside damages under Section 14B citing lack of willful default—Held: Mens rea is not required for imposing damages under Section 14B—Authority must consider aggravating and mitigating factors but cannot mechanically waive damages—Tribunal’s order set aside [Paras 7-11].

Interest vs. Damages – Whether Both Can Be Levied – The Tribunal held that interest under Section 7Q sufficiently compensates employees—Held: Interest under Section 7Q compensates for delayed payments, but damages under Section 14B serve a deterrent purpose—Levy of both justified [Paras 12-14].

Final Decision – Writ petition allowed – Tribunal’s order quashing damages set aside—PF authorities directed to re-assess damages with a reasoned order [Paras 15-17].

Income Tax Law - Bogus Purchases – Determination of Profit Rate – Section 69C of Income Tax Act – The Revenue challenged the Tribunal's decision to restrict disallowance to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases instead of confirming the full disallowance – The Tribunal relied on past precedents allowing only a portion of the purchases to be disallowed – Held: If an assessee fails to prove the genuineness of purchases, full disallowance should be made under Section 69C—Tribunal erred in restricting disallowance—Full disallowance for purchases from M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders reinstated [Paras 24-27].

Burden of Proof – Assessee’s Failure to Substantiate Purchases – The assessee failed to furnish bank statements of M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders—Held: Non-furnishing of bank statements and absence of withdrawal details prevent verification—Tribunal’s findings set aside for these transactions—Disallowance confirmed in full [Paras 17-19].

Genuine vs. Non-Genuine Transactions – Revenue’s Independent Verification – For other suppliers, the Revenue independently verified bank statements and found no cash withdrawals—Held: In absence of evidence to the contrary, purchases from these suppliers considered genuine—No disallowance warranted for these transactions [Paras 14-16].

Precedents – Tribunal’s Reliance on Profit Rate Estimation – Revenue contended that Tribunal ignored binding precedents requiring full disallowance of unverified purchases—Held: Approach of estimating profit percentage contradicts settled law in N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs. DCIT—Full addition must be made where purchases remain unproven [Paras 20-23].

Final Decision – Revenue’s appeal partly allowed – Tribunal’s decision upheld for genuine purchases, but reversed for transactions with M/s Neptune Trading Co. and Hari Om Traders—Full disallowance of Rs. 1,00,10,773 confirmed [Paras 27-28].

Criminal Law – Repetitive Complaints by Informant – Pattern of False Allegations – CBI Inquiry Ordered - The petitioners sought quashing of an FIR lodged by the informant, Pooja Rawat, under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2008 – The petitioners argued that the informant had previously filed 11 similar complaints against various persons, all represented by the same counsel – Held: Given the pattern of repeated complaints, the Court directed the CBI to conduct an inquiry and submit a report by 10.04.2025 [Paras 3-6].

Abuse of Process – False FIRs for Extortion – Protection from Arrest Granted - The Court observed that the repeated filing of FIRs suggested a possible misuse of the legal process for personal gain – Directed that the petitioners shall not be arrested unless sufficient and credible evidence is found against them – Held: Until further orders, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners [Paras 6, 10].

Investigative Procedure – Role of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Judicial Oversight - Noting the seriousness of the issue, the Court found it appropriate to entrust the matter to the CBI – Held: The Senior Registrar of the Court shall forward a copy of the order to the CBI Head of Branch at Lucknow for compliance, and the report shall be submitted by 10.04.2025 [Paras 6-9].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Injury Not Grievous – Bail Granted – Petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a case involving an attack with deadly weapons—Prosecution alleged he inflicted a sword blow on the victim’s right arm—Held: Petitioner was not the main accused, and the grievous injury was attributed to co-accused—Considering absence of prior criminal antecedents, bail granted with conditions [Paras 7-11].

Bail Conditions – Protection of Victims – Compliance with BNSS and Indian Evidence Act – Bail granted subject to petitioner complying with conditions, including: (i) Surrender of any firearm, (ii) No entry into victim’s residence or workplace, (iii) Cooperation with investigation—Court relied on Vikram Singh v. CBI, 2018 and Aparna Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 to impose victim protection measures [Paras 16-17].

Pre-Trial Incarceration – Principle Against Prolonged Detention – No Justification for Custodial Interrogation – High Court observed that pre-trial incarceration should not be a substitute for post-conviction punishment—Held: While evidence justified prosecution, it did not necessitate pre-trial detention—Interim protection granted earlier was made absolute [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Petition allowed – Interim bail order dated 13.12.2024 made absolute – Petitioner to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/trial court – Compliance with bail conditions mandatory, failure to do so may result in bail cancellation [Para 24].
 

Constitutional Validity of Section 13 – Right to Legal Representation – Family Courts Act – Upheld

The petitioner challenged Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arguing that it violates the fundamental right of legal practitioners under the Advocates Act, 1961, and restricts litigants' ability to be represented by lawyers in Family Courts – The Court held that Section 13 does not impose an absolute bar on legal representation but allows engagement of lawyers with permission from the court – Judicial discipline requires following the precedent set by the Bombay, Rajasthan, and Allahabad High Courts, which have upheld the provision – The Supreme Court, in Paradip Port Trust v. Their Workmen and Thyssen Krupp Industries v. Suresh Maruti Chougule, reaffirmed that there is no fundamental right to legal representation in all cases except under Article 22(1) of the Constitution – Held: Section 13 is constitutionally valid as it ensures an expeditious and informal resolution of family disputes [Paras 3-11].

Classification of Litigants – No Discrimination – Reasonable Restriction

The petitioner contended that Section 13 is discriminatory as litigants outside Family Court jurisdiction can engage lawyers while those within its jurisdiction cannot – The Court rejected this argument, stating that classification under the Family Courts Act is reasonable and serves the objective of promoting conciliation and speedy resolution of disputes – Further, Section 13 does not create an absolute prohibition but permits representation where necessary – Held: No violation of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution [Paras 5-7].

Judicial Precedents – Family Courts Act – Supreme Court and High Court Decisions Followed

The Court relied on judgments from the Bombay, Rajasthan, and Allahabad High Courts, which upheld the validity of Section 13 – It also cited the Supreme Court ruling in Thyssen Krupp Industries that reaffirmed the principle that legal representation in certain forums can be restricted in the interest of justice – Held: Section 13 of the Family Courts Act remains valid and enforceable [Paras 4-9].

Decision:

The writ petition is dismissed, affirming the constitutional validity of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. No costs imposed.

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar under Section 34 SARFAESI Act – Rejection of Plaint Allowed – Civil Suit Not Maintainable – Plaintiff filed suit seeking recovery or adjustment of goods value post-bank's possession under SARFAESI – Trial Court rejected bank’s application citing late stage – Held: Jurisdictional objection can be raised at any stage – Civil Court’s jurisdiction excluded when DRT is competent to decide the issue [Paras 1–5].

Fraud Allegation – Mere Allegation Not Enough to Confer Jurisdiction – Plaintiff failed to plead specific particulars of fraud – Held: General claim of excessive exercise of power is insufficient to oust jurisdiction of DRT – Cited Electrosteel Castings Ltd. and SBI v. Allwyn Alloys – Proper forum is DRT, not Civil Court [Paras 4–5].

Scope of DRT Jurisdiction – Section 17 SARFAESI – Wide Powers – Court held DRT has jurisdiction to determine if secured creditor’s action is valid, including scope for redress even for excesses or illegalities – Civil suit not maintainable in parallel [Paras 3–5].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trial Court’s order set aside – Plaint rejected for want of jurisdiction – Civil suit declared not maintainable in light of Section 34 of SARFAESI Act [Paras 6–8].

Civil Law - Unregistered Sale Deed – Admissibility under Section 90 Evidence Act – Document Not Proven – Sale Deed Disregarded – Respondents relied on a 1975 unregistered sale deed as basis of title – Lower Appellate Court wrongly presumed genuineness due to age – Held: Document was not 30 years old at time of marking; Section 90 presumption inapplicable – No attesting witness examined; contradictions in witness statements – Document treated as inadmissible [Paras 15–25].

Adverse Possession – No Specific Pleading or Proof – Plea Rejected – Respondents failed to plead or prove date from which possession became adverse – Revenue entries insufficient to prove continuous hostile possession – Trial court correctly rejected claim of adverse possession – Lower Appellate Court erred in accepting vague and contradictory oral evidence [Paras 31–34, 37–38].

Contradictory Defences – Title and Adverse Possession Cannot Co-Exist – Respondents simultaneously relied on sale and adverse possession – Held: These are legally inconsistent – One claiming under sale acknowledges title; adverse possession requires denial of same – Both pleas cannot be sustained together [Paras 32, 39].

Third Party Affidavit – Unmarked and Disputed – Not Admissible – Lower Appellate Court wrongly relied on affidavit allegedly filed in another suit by plaintiff’s father – Affidavit was not proved or marked – Court held: Reliance without marking and cross-examination violates CPC and principles of fair trial [Paras 27–30].

Revenue Records – Mutation Does Not Confer Title – Well-Settled Law – Respondents relied on revenue entries post-1999 – Court reaffirmed that revenue records are for fiscal purposes only and do not confer ownership rights [Paras 40].

Decision: Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of lower appellate court set aside – Judgment of trial court dated 27.01.2004 restored – Suit decreed in favour of plaintiffs for declaration and recovery of possession – No costs [Para 42].
 

Civil Law – Challenge Ex-Parte Order - Service of Summons – Valid Service Through Adult Family Member – Order V Rule 15 CPC – The defendant challenged the service of summons, arguing that notice was served on his wife and not personally on him – The Court held that service of summons on an adult family member is valid when the defendant is unavailable and there is no likelihood of his presence within a reasonable time – Held: Summons served on the wife of the defendant is valid and in compliance with Order V Rule 15 of CPC [Paras 6.6-6.8].

Delay in Seeking Recall of Ex-Parte Order – 16 Years Unexplained – The petitioner sought to reopen the right to file a written statement after 16 years – The Court found no sufficient cause to condone the delay, emphasizing that a party cannot remain negligent and then seek to reopen proceedings at the stage of final judgment – Held: Application rightly rejected by the Trial Court due to the inordinate and unjustified delay [Paras 6.5, 6.15].

Failure to Disclose Date of Knowledge – Conduct of Petitioner Not Bonafide – The petitioner failed to disclose the exact date when he allegedly came to know about the pending suit, raising doubts about his bonafide intentions – The Court noted that the petitioner’s own suit was pending before the same court, making it improbable that he was unaware of the proceedings – Held: Petitioner’s claim of ignorance is untenable and lacks bona fides [Paras 6.14-6.16].

Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was validly served, remained negligent for 16 years, and failed to disclose material facts. No interference under Article 227 was warranted as there was no jurisdictional error in the Trial Court’s decision.