Civil Appeal - Probate Proceedings – Burden on Propounder to Establish Valid Execution of Will – The appellant sought a letter of administration based on an unregistered Will dated 26.01.1990—The trial court rejected the petition, citing suspicious circumstances and unreliable testimony of the attesting witness—Held: In probate cases, the propounder must establish the Will’s execution beyond suspicion—Mere admission of signatures does not establish a valid Will—Appeal dismissed [Paras 6-10].

Suspicious Circumstances – False Testimony of Attesting Witness – The attesting witness, Malkiat Singh, gave contradictory statements regarding the execution and typing of the Will—He was confronted with prior testimony from civil proceedings, revealing inconsistencies—Held: Attesting witness must be trustworthy and consistent—Unreliable testimony justifies rejection of probate—Findings of lower court upheld [Paras 11-12].

Effect of Prior Civil Suit – Settlement Contrary to Will’s Terms – One of the properties mentioned in the Will was the subject of a civil suit settled in 2015—The settlement distributed property contrary to the Will’s terms—Held: Conduct of parties in agreeing to natural succession negates reliance on the Will—Probate cannot be granted when beneficiaries themselves disregard its contents [Paras 5-7].

Final Decision – Appeal dismissed – No probate granted due to suspicious circumstances—Testamentary court must be satisfied that the testator executed the Will with full knowledge—Attesting witness’s credibility found lacking [Paras 13-14].
 

Taxation Law  – Withholding Tax under Section 197 Income Tax Act  – Assessing Officer must consider previous years' tax treatment – The Court held that under Rule 28AA of the Income Tax Rules, the Assessing Officer (AO) is required to consider the past four years' tax history before issuing a withholding tax certificate – Since in the previous assessment year (AY 2024-25), the petitioner was granted Nil withholding tax under similar circumstances, the AO’s decision to impose 2% TDS for AY 2025-26 was arbitrary and unjustified [Paras 24-26].

Income Tax – Permanent Establishment (PE) – No prima facie evidence of PE under DTAA – The Court ruled that for business profits to be taxable in India under Article 7 of the India-Ireland DTAA, the petitioner must have a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India – The AO failed to establish a PE and merely speculated that SFDC India acted as a dependent agent – Held: Since no new facts were presented, the AO’s reasoning was erroneous and contrary to past assessments [Paras 40-42].

Tax Treaty Interpretation – Reseller Agreement – Principal-to-Principal Relationship – The Court examined the Amended and Restated Reseller Agreement between SFDC Ireland and SFDC India – Held: The agreement clearly defined SFDC India as an independent reseller operating on a principal-to-principal basis, without authority to bind SFDC Ireland – SFDC India’s involvement in pricing and contract negotiations was insufficient to establish a Dependent Agent PE (DAPE) under Article 5 of the DTAA [Paras 31-35].

Income Classification – Business Profits vs. Royalty/FTS – No Tax Liability in India – The AO incorrectly rejected the petitioner’s request for Nil withholding tax based on uncertainty regarding taxability – Held: The Court had previously ruled that payments from SFDC India to the petitioner do not constitute Royalty or Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12 of the DTAA – The AO did not dispute this classification, making the withholding tax order legally unsustainable [Paras 36-39].

Judicial Precedent – Prior High Court Judgment Binding on AO – The Court emphasized that in the previous year (AY 2024-25), the High Court quashed a similar order imposing withholding tax on SFDC Ireland – The AO failed to distinguish the current assessment year from the previous one – Held: The AO cannot arbitrarily change tax treatment without clear legal justification [Paras 37-39].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Withholding Tax Order Quashed – The Court set aside the order dated 09.07.2024 and the withholding tax certificate, directing the AO to issue a fresh certificate with Nil withholding tax in line with past assessments – No costs imposed [Para 43].
 

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Co-Ownership Established – Appeal Dismissed – The respondents sought partition of 1/3rd share in 2 kanals of gair mumkin land, claiming ownership through sale deeds – The appellant contended that she had exclusive possession based on an unregistered writing from 1985 – The lower courts found that the appellant failed to prove her exclusive ownership and held that all parties were co-owners – Held: The property was jointly owned, and the appellant was not entitled to claim exclusive possession; partition decree upheld [Paras 9-10].

Unregistered Writing – No Legal Basis for Ownership Claim – The appellant claimed to have purchased 14 marlas of land in 1985 through a writing, but no registered sale deed was produced – The courts rejected this claim, holding that unregistered documents cannot confer ownership rights in immovable property – Held: In the absence of a registered sale deed, the claim of exclusive ownership is unsustainable [Paras 9].

Sale Deeds of Respondents – No Challenge Filed – The appellant argued that the sale deeds executed in favor of the respondents were invalid – The courts noted that the appellant never formally challenged these sale deeds in legal proceedings – Held: Without a legal challenge, the validity of the sale deeds cannot be questioned [Paras 10].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The Court reaffirmed that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is maintainable only if a substantial question of law arises – Since both lower courts correctly applied legal principles and factual findings, no interference was warranted – Held: No substantial question of law; appeal dismissed [Paras 10].
 

Criminal Procedure – Application under Section 311 CrPC – Power of the Court to Summon Witnesses – The CBI sought to summon 22 additional witnesses at the final stage of trial – The trial court rejected the application, citing delay and potential prejudice to the accused – Held: While Section 311 CrPC provides wide discretionary powers to summon witnesses at any stage, the discretion must be exercised judiciously – The prosecution cannot use this provision to fill gaps in its case – However, material witnesses essential for adjudicating the matter must be allowed [Paras 14-16, 27].

Fair Trial – Balancing Speedy Trial and the Right to Present Evidence – The accused opposed the application on the grounds that it was the fourth such request and amounted to an abuse of process – Held: Speedy trial is a fundamental right, but it must be balanced with the prosecution’s right to present relevant evidence – If additional evidence is necessary to ensure justice, procedural technicalities should not prevent its admission – The Court allowed summoning of certain crucial witnesses while rejecting others [Paras 20-21, 30].

Electronic Evidence – Production of Section 65-B Certificate – The prosecution sought to recall PW-42 to produce a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act – Held: As per Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, and State of Karnataka v. T. Naseer, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 965, a Section 65-B certificate can be produced at any stage before trial concludes – The trial court erred in rejecting the application on grounds of delay [Paras 26-27].

Judicial Precedents – Permissibility of Recalling Witnesses – The Court relied on Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158, which emphasized that courts must actively seek the truth and not act as passive spectators – Further, in Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2013) 14 SCC 461, it was clarified that seeking additional evidence is permissible if it is essential for a just decision and not merely to fill lacunae [Paras 17-19, 25].

Decision – Petition Partially Allowed – The Court permitted the summoning of specific key witnesses, including:
(i) The officer who granted sanction for prosecution,
(ii) Nodal officers of telecom companies to authenticate call records,
(iii) CBI officers involved in seizure memos,
(iv) Special Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to clarify deposition ambiguities,
(v) Registrar General’s Office representative to prove official correspondence – The remaining witnesses were not deemed necessary, and their summoning was denied – The trial court directed to conclude witness examination within four weeks without unnecessary adjournments [Paras 28-30].
 

Service Law – Assistant Teacher Recruitment – Termination – Inflated Marks – Petitioners appointed pursuant to ATRE 2019 later terminated on ground of having entered higher marks in their application forms – Respondents contended such entries were deliberate and altered merit position – Held: Candidates who gained undue advantage by inflating marks were rightly terminated as their appointments were void ab initio – No estoppel against the State in cases of misrepresentation [Paras 31-37]. 

Service Law – Human Error vs. Misrepresentation – Petitioners contended errors were inadvertent or rectified later through affidavits – Court held that procedural opportunity for rectification does not cure falsification of merit-related data – Human error defence rejected for petitioners who gained advantage by incorrect entries – Held: Entry of inflated marks is a material misrepresentation, not a trivial lapse [Paras 33-36]. 

Principles of Equity – Estoppel – Delay in Termination – Petitioners argued that length of service (5 years) precludes termination and triggers estoppel – Court held that fraud vitiates all solemn acts – Appointment secured by deceit cannot be regularised, and no estoppel or delay can validate an illegal appointment [Paras 32, 34, 35]. 

Relief – Differentiation between Advantageous and Disadvantageous Errors – Petitioners Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur, Rinku Singh, and Sweety Shokeen were found to have either disclosed marks as per outdated mark-sheets or disclosed marks that placed them at a disadvantage – Their appointments upheld as no undue advantage was gained – Termination orders against them quashed [Paras 24, 38, 40-41]. 

Recruitment Process – Judicial Scrutiny – Court reiterated settled legal position that public employment obtained by misrepresentation warrants cancellation regardless of delay or prior appointment – Reiterated principles laid down in Jyoti Yadav, Rahul Kumar and other precedents [Paras 25-30, 36]. 

Decision: Writ petitions partly allowed – Termination orders quashed only for Preeti, Manish Kumar Mahaur, Rinku Singh and Sweety Shokeen – Writ petitions dismissed as to remaining petitioners – No order as to costs.

Parole – Right of Convicts – Arbitrary Rejection Not Permissible – The petitioner, convicted under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, sought parole for eight weeks, which was denied on the grounds that he might engage in drug smuggling and disrupt elections – Held: Mere apprehensions without supporting material cannot justify denial of parole – No credible evidence was provided by authorities to substantiate their claims – Parole granted for eight weeks [Paras 8-10, 14].

Administrative Discretion – Parole Decisions Must Be Based on Material Evidence – The respondents relied on a report stating that the petitioner could pose a threat to public order during elections – Held: The report was based on assumptions without input from local authorities, responsible individuals, or community members – Such speculative reasoning cannot form the basis for denying parole – The decision of the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate was quashed [Paras 9-11].

Election Commission Guidelines – No Absolute Prohibition on Parole – The respondents cited Election Commission of India’s 2019 guidelines, which allegedly prohibited parole in NDPS cases during elections – Held: These guidelines applied to Parliamentary Elections 2019 and were not shown to be applicable to the 2024 elections – No fresh circular prohibiting parole in such cases was produced before the Court – The reliance on outdated instructions was misplaced [Paras 10-12].

Judicial Scrutiny – Parole Matters Must Be Decided Based on Law – The Court condemned the arbitrary exercise of power in parole decisions – Held: The petitioner was forced to approach the Court unnecessarily, warranting imposition of costs – However, costs were waived based on the State's assurance that future parole matters would be decided on merits [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Parole Granted – The impugned order dated 09.05.2024 was quashed – The petitioner was granted parole from 20/02/2025 to 17/04/2025, subject to furnishing surety bonds – Directed to surrender on 18/04/2025 at 11:00 AM [Paras 13-15].
 

Rent Law - Eviction Proceedings – Ex Parte Order – Procedural Irregularities – The Rent Control Court passed an eviction order without assessing the merits of the case – The ex parte nature of the proceeding does not relieve the court from its duty to examine the sufficiency of the evidence – Held: The eviction order was mechanically passed solely because the evidence was unrebutted, without an independent evaluation of the landlord’s claim – Such an order is a nullity and unsustainable in law [Paras 8-10, 12-13].

Condonation of Delay – Principles of Justice and Equity – The petitioner sought condonation of a 1535-day delay in filing a petition to restore the appeal – The Rent Control Appellate Authority refused on the ground of lack of reasonable justification – Held: Though delay is generally condoned unless mala fides are apparent, the petitioner's failure to contest the eviction diligently weighed against him – Court allows restoration but imposes costs as a condition for relief [Paras 7, 15].

Ex Parte Proceedings – Judicial Responsibility – Duty of Court to Assess Evidence – Even when a case proceeds ex parte, the court must still ensure that the plaintiff/landlord establishes his right to relief – Held: The Rent Control Court’s order failed to demonstrate satisfaction regarding the landlord’s bona fide claim, rendering the eviction order legally unsound – Matter remanded for reconsideration [Paras 9, 14].

Tenant’s Right to Contest – Condition for Restoration – Court grants the petitioner an opportunity to contest the eviction proceedings on merit – Held: Petitioner permitted to rejoin proceedings, subject to depositing Rs.15,000 as costs – If the petitioner fails to comply, the Rent Control Court can proceed afresh from the stage at which the petitioner was set ex parte [Para 15].

Decision: The ex parte eviction order dated 31.01.2015 was set aside due to procedural irregularities – The petitioner was permitted to contest the matter on merit, subject to depositing Rs.15,000 as a cost condition – The matter was remanded to the Rent Control Court for fresh adjudication, with a direction to dispose of the case by 11/04/2025 [Paras 14-15].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonor of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 – The petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 4,90,000/- towards repayment of a loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- with accrued interest – The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds – Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment and compensation payment – Appellate Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court while retaining the compensation order – Held: Conviction justified as petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act [Paras 2, 4, 7].

Rebuttal of Presumption – Signed Blank Cheque Defense – Petitioner contended that the cheque was given as a signed blank cheque to the bank manager in connection with a chitty transaction and was misused – Held: Mere claim of cheque misuse is insufficient without cogent evidence – Petitioner did not initiate any legal action against the alleged misuse, weakening his defense – Once the signature is admitted, the burden to prove manipulation shifts to the accused – No plausible explanation provided by the petitioner to displace the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act [Paras 6, 7].

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Concurrent Findings – Petitioner sought interference with concurrent factual findings of the Trial and Appellate Courts – Held: Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397-401 CrPC is limited to correcting gross miscarriage of justice – High Court will not interfere unless the findings are perverse, arbitrary, or based on no material – No glaring legal error found in the lower court judgments, warranting interference [Paras 8-10, 12].

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 138 NI Act was upheld – The judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thrissur, in Crl.A. No. 206/2017 was confirmed – The petitioner was directed to comply with the compensation order as imposed by the Appellate Court [Paras 11, 12].
 

Condonation of Delay – Section 5 of Limitation Act – Litigant’s duty to be vigilant – Appellants sought condonation of delay of 565 days in filing the appeal, alleging professional misconduct of their previous counsel – Held: Mere blaming of counsel without taking any action against them is insufficient to establish sufficient cause for condonation of delay – Litigants, particularly educated and organizational entities, are expected to remain vigilant about their cases and cannot entirely shift responsibility onto their counsel – No interference warranted as the appellants failed to show due diligence in prosecuting their appeal [Paras 5.2, 6, 7].

Fair Hearing – Right to be Heard – Appellants contended they were deprived of a fair hearing before the Trial Court – Held: Record shows that the Trial Court granted adjournments and further liberty to the appellants’ counsel to address arguments on any working day before the final order – Failure to avail this opportunity amounts to waiver of the right to be heard – Argument of lack of fair hearing is meritless [Paras 4, 4.1].

Limitation – Purpose and Public Policy – Delay of 565 days in filing appeal – Held: Laws of limitation serve the purpose of ensuring finality and preventing prolonged litigation – A successful litigant has the right to treat a decree as binding once the limitation period expires – Courts cannot condone delay in the absence of a credible and reasonable explanation [Paras 5.6, 9].

Professional Misconduct of Counsel – Blame on Advocate – Appellants alleged their previous counsel did not inform them about the decree – Held: No action was taken by appellants against the previous counsel, making the allegations unsubstantiated – Court cannot assume misconduct of an advocate in the absence of a formal complaint or legal action against them – Delay condonation application dismissed [Paras 5.9, 6].

Decision: The application for condonation of delay was dismissed as the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause for the delay – The appeal was consequently dismissed as barred by limitation – The court held that the successful litigant had the right to treat the decree as final, and condoning such a colossal delay would be unjust – No interference warranted in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court [Paras 9, 10, 11].