Income Tax Law – Reassessment Notice – Assumption of Jurisdiction Beyond Four Years – Reopening of assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2011-12 was challenged by the petitioner (Discovery Communications India), as the original assessment had already been completed under Section 143(3) – Notice issued after the four-year limitation under the first proviso to Section 147, alleging escapement of income without new tangible material and based on the previous assessment record from AY 2012-13 – Held: Without failure by the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, reopening the assessment constitutes a mere change of opinion, rendering the reassessment notice invalid [Paras 1, 2, 10, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30].

Reassessment Beyond Four Years – Condition for Failure to Disclose – The court observed that reopening under Section 147 beyond the four-year period requires proof of a failure by the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts necessary for the assessment, which was absent in this case – The notice under Section 148 did not specify any undisclosed facts or evidence of nondisclosure by the petitioner – The reassessment was initiated solely based on the same material available during the original assessment [Paras 16, 17, 24, 26].

Change of Opinion – Invalid Ground for Reopening – The court held that reassessment based on a mere change of opinion by the Assessing Officer (AO) is not permissible – When an assessment order is completed under Section 143(3), the AO cannot reopen it merely because of a shift in opinion on previously verified claims – Citing judgments in CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd. and CIT v. Goetze (India) Ltd., the court reiterated that the AO has no authority to review on the same facts under the guise of reassessment [Paras 22, 24, 27].

Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – Reopening Based on AY 2012-13 Records – The reasons provided by the AO for reopening relied on details from the assessment records of AY 2012-13, without any new tangible evidence for AY 2011-12 – The expenses for Discovery Appreciation Plan (DAP) and production and translation costs, which the AO sought to disallow, had already been examined and allowed in subsequent assessments, affirming consistency in the deductions – The court cited A.T. Kearney India Ltd. v. ITO and Ultra Marine Air Aids (P) Ltd. v. IAC to emphasize that reassessment notices lack validity when the foundational reason ceases to exist [Paras 18, 29].

Alternative Remedy – Section 263 Invocation – The court noted that if the AO believed there was an error in the original assessment, the appropriate remedy would have been a revision under Section 263, not reassessment under Section 147 – The AO’s reasoning that the assessment errors were due to mistakes or insufficient verification is insufficient to justify a reassessment [Paras 20, 27].

Decision: Petition allowed – The court quashed the notice issued under Section 148 dated 31.03.2018 and the reassessment proceedings initiated thereunder – No cost order issued [Paras 30, 31].

Civil Law – Partition and Family Property – Corporate Ownership and Ancestral Rights – Plaintiff sought partition of properties purchased in the name of the family-owned company, claiming they were joint family properties managed by the defendant – Court held that property registered under a company, even if family-owned, is not family property in legal terms; shareholder rights are distinct from property ownership – Held: Partition suit not maintainable for corporate assets [Paras 5-8, 55-56].

Company Law – Distinct Legal Entity – Shareholder vs. Company Ownership – Plaintiff contended that family members held all shares and controlled the company, making its assets family property – Relying on Supreme Court precedents, Court reiterated that a company is a separate legal entity, and shareholders have no proprietary rights over company-owned assets – Held: Plaintiff entitled only to share in dividends or profits as per Articles of Association, not direct ownership [Paras 42-44].

Pleading Standards – Requirement for Specificity in Allegations of Fraud – Plaintiff alleged forgery and fraud in transfer of shares by the defendant but failed to provide detailed pleadings or specific relief challenging share transfers – Court emphasized that under Order VI Rule 4 CPC, specific allegations and reliefs are essential to substantiate claims of fraud – Held: Plaintiff barred from relief due to lack of specific pleadings and evidence, with no grounds to challenge share transfers indirectly [Paras 34-36, 48].

Decision:

Suit dismissed. Plaintiff not entitled to partition or ownership claim in corporate assets; reliefs denied due to failure to establish joint ownership or sufficiently plead allegations of fraud [Paras 55-56].

Anticipatory Bail – Scope and Limitations – Severity of Offense and Risk of Public Disorder – Applicants sought anticipatory bail, arguing limited involvement in an alleged assault with general allegations and no prior criminal history – Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is extraordinary relief meant for false or frivolous cases, not a shield for avoiding lawful proceedings in serious crimes – Held: Given the gravity of offense and presence of gunshot injuries among victims, anticipatory bail denied to prevent potential disruption to law and order [Paras 5-11, 18-20].

Criminal Law – Constructive Liability – Applicability of Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC – Despite claims of minor participation, the presence of multiple accused and the assault’s planned nature invoked Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, establishing shared intent – Court held that group assault in a planned midnight attack warranted joint liability under Sections 147, 148, and 149 IPC, ruling out anticipatory bail [Paras 14-17].

Right to Liberty vs. Public Safety – Criteria for Anticipatory Bail – Court referenced recent Supreme Court guidelines, underscoring the need to balance personal liberty with community safety in anticipatory bail decisions – Held: Absence of extraordinary circumstances or evidence of harassment weakens claim for anticipatory bail, especially in violent incidents with collective assault and firearm usage [Paras 21-25].

Decision: The anticipatory bail application is dismissed. The Court held that the applicants failed to show exceptional circumstances justifying relief, and anticipatory bail would adversely affect public safety and rights of the complainant [Paras 26-29].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint – Allegations of Forgery and False Representation in Property Documents – partially allowed - Application under Section 482 of CrPC – Petition filed by Accused Nos. 1 to 13 to quash the complaint in C.C. No. 2/2023 under Sections 465, 468 IPC and Section 82 of the Registration Act, alleging false documentation to depict public pathways and wells as private properties – High Court reviewed whether allegations justified trial for forgery and related charges – Held: Offenses under Sections 465 and 468 IPC not prima facie made out as the requirements for forgery were not met; however, Section 82 of the Registration Act was sufficiently established, warranting trial on that count – Quashing petition partially allowed; charges under IPC quashed, but proceedings under Section 82 of the Registration Act sustained [Paras 1, 4, 16, 24, 30].

Forgery – Elements of a False Document – IPC Sections 465, 468, and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) – Requirement of Intent to Defraud or Deceive – Court analyzed conditions for forgery, noting that false documentation alone does not constitute forgery unless it meets specific criteria, such as intent to impersonate another, unauthorized claims, or deception – Reviewed essentials of forgery under IPC Sections 463, 464 and corresponding BNS provisions, emphasizing that the execution of a document with a false ownership claim, without more, does not amount to forgery – Held: Petitioners’ actions did not meet the conditions for a "false document" under IPC Sections 465, 468, but did meet Section 82 of the Registration Act, which prohibits false statements before registration officials [Paras 18, 19, 23, 24].

Scope of Section 82, Registration Act – False Statements During Registration Process – Applicability in Present Case – Petitioners contended that recitals in a deed do not equate to false statements as defined under Section 82 of the Registration Act – Court examined precedent on what constitutes a "statement" under Section 82, including a Karnataka High Court judgment that excluded false recitals from its ambit – High Court distinguished this reasoning, holding that a false statement in a deed presented to a registrar falls within Section 82’s scope, as it qualifies as an "assertion" or "report of facts" – Held: Allegations of false statements in the registration document were sufficient to proceed under Section 82 of the Registration Act, supporting trial continuation on this count [Paras 25-29, 35-37].

Decision: Petition partially allowed – Quashing granted for offenses under IPC Sections 465 and 468 – Proceedings to continue for alleged offense under Section 82 of the Registration Act – Trial court directed to proceed accordingly – Stay order vacated [Para 30].

Service Law - Promotion – Sealed Cover Procedure – Review Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) – Petitioner contended that his promotion was denied due to sealed cover procedure despite being clear from disciplinary proceedings on the initial DPC date – Held: Adoption of sealed cover when juniors were promoted, absent pending disciplinary proceedings on the original DPC date, violates OMs governing DPC procedures, rendering the CAT order untenable [Paras 3.1-3.4].

Vigilance Clearance – Applicability of DoPT Guidelines – The petitioner argued that later disciplinary actions should not prevent promotion when vigilance clearance was clear at the original DPC date – Held: Under OM dated 23.01.2014, only initial DPC circumstances are relevant for clearance; reliance on post-DPC charges is incorrect and violates applicable guidelines [Para 3.2].

Review DPC – Nomination and Delayed Proceedings – Court observed that the DPC deferred petitioner’s case due to unavailable Appraisal Reports (APARs), but later conducted a review on 31.12.2018 under sealed cover due to a charge memo dated 30.10.2018 – Held: Delay in receiving records does not justify denying promotion if juniors are advanced; the review committee erred in naming it a Review DPC while dismissing the original basis for consideration [Paras 3.1, 3.4].

Final Decision – Writ petition allowed – CAT’s decision quashed – Respondents directed to consider petitioner for notional promotion from date of junior’s promotion without back wages but with other consequential benefits [Conclusion].

Murder Trial – Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal Upheld - The State appealed against the trial court’s acquittal of Kamal Bahadur, contending that circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies supported conviction – The court reviewed the evidence, including alleged bloodstains on the accused's clothing and witness statements, which were found insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Held: In circumstantial evidence cases, proof must exclude all reasonable hypotheses other than the accused’s guilt; strong suspicion alone cannot replace proof [Paras 12-20].

Appellate Review of Acquittal – Standard of Proof – High Threshold for Reversal - The court reiterated that acquittal appeals require a high standard for reversal, especially where the trial court’s view is plausible – Held: The presumption of innocence is reinforced in acquittal cases, and the appellate court will not interfere unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or flawed [Paras 23-25].

Relevance of Witness Non-Examination - The State argued that key witnesses left India, affecting the prosecution case – The court found that the trial court appropriately inferred adversely due to the absence of these witnesses, per established legal standards – Held: An adverse inference against the prosecution is justified if critical witnesses are withheld without valid reason [Para 22].

Decision: The appeal is dismissed as the trial court's acquittal was reasonable and based on a plausible view of the evidence. The court directed the appellant to submit bail bonds of ₹25,000, effective for six months, to ensure presence in case of further appeals.

Service Law – Disability Pension – Entitlement to Service Element – Petitioner, invalided due to disability acquired during military service, was granted only the disability element of pension – Citing Regulation 183, which includes both service and disability elements in disability pensions, petitioner argued entitlement to the service element for life – Held: As per the Pension Regulations, the petitioner is also entitled to the service element from the date of discharge [Paras 2-5, 10].

Rounding-Off of Disability Pension – Applicability of Supreme Court Rulings – Petitioner contended that his disability should be rounded off from 40% to 50% for life starting from 01.01.1996, per the ruling in Ram Avtar and subsequent judgments – Initially granted this benefit from 01.01.2016 only – Held: Entitlement to 50% disability pension for life from 01.01.1996, with arrears payable accordingly, in line with precedents [Paras 6-9].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The Armed Forces Tribunal order is modified to grant the petitioner both the service element of his disability pension from 30.07.1978 for life and rounding off of the disability element to 50% for life from 01.01.1996.
 

Bail - Money Laundering – Scholarship Scam – Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) – Bail Denied - The applicant, Rajdeep Singh, sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, asserting innocence and challenging his continued detention in a case of alleged involvement in misappropriating scholarship funds – The Enforcement Directorate (ED) contended that Singh and accomplices established shell companies, diverted funds using fabricated documents, and violated the Post Matric Scheme meant for economically disadvantaged students – The Court emphasized that the investigation was ongoing, citing the need for custodial interrogation to unearth additional evidence and secure witness statements – Held: Bail denied as the applicant failed to meet the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA, warranting custody to facilitate investigation [Paras 2-12, 15, 17].

Procedural Compliance – Section 19 PMLA – Validity of Arrest – No Relief on Grounds of Arrest Procedure - The applicant alleged non-compliance with procedural safeguards under Section 19 PMLA, asserting non-receipt of ‘reasons to believe’ prior to arrest – The Court noted that the applicant had not formally challenged his arrest and found the Enforcement Directorate had complied with procedural mandates, dismissing this argument as a basis for bail [Para 18].

Delay in Trial – Supreme Court Rulings on Bail Due to Delay – Not Applicable - The applicant referenced Supreme Court rulings on bail based on trial delays – The Court found no undue delay, noting procedural requirements under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita were being followed, with no excessive delay in framing charges – Held: Delay argument inapplicable given current case status [Paras 19-21].

Decision: The application for bail is dismissed, as the applicant did not satisfy the twin conditions required under Section 45 of the PMLA. Observations made do not reflect a view on the merits of the case and are limited to the present bail application.
 

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Minor Victim – Section 3, MTP Act, 1971 – The minor victim sought termination of a 24-week and 5-day pregnancy resulting from rape – Expert medical reports indicated risks to her physical and mental health if the pregnancy continued – Court permitted termination, citing risks of grave injury to her well-being under Explanation-2 of Section 3(2), MTP Act – Held: Right to bodily integrity and reproductive choice allows the victim to terminate the pregnancy [Paras 6-7, 12, 19].

Victim’s Consent – Right to Dignity and Liberty – Article 21, Constitution of India – The victim’s consent, backed by her guardian's, was given primacy – Court upheld her right to reproductive autonomy and personal liberty – Held: Denying the termination would infringe her dignity and liberty [Paras 11-13, 17-18].

Role of Medical Boards – Guidelines Issued – The Court provided specific guidelines for medical boards assessing pregnancy terminations, emphasizing the evaluation of physical and emotional well-being and consideration of risks involved – Held: Medical boards should provide holistic and detailed opinions on the impact of continuing or terminating a pregnancy [Para 27].

Social and Psychological Considerations – Presumption of Mental Health Injury in Rape Cases – As per Section 3(2), Explanation-2 of the MTP Act, anguish caused by rape-induced pregnancy constitutes a grave mental health injury – Held: Victim, aged 16, would face significant trauma and social stigma if pregnancy continued [Paras 16-17].

Decision: The Court permitted the termination of pregnancy. Termination to be carried out by an expert medical team at GG Hospital, Jamnagar. All risks to the victim to be explained to her and her family. Presence of necessary specialists (Pediatrician, Radiologist) and post-operative care ensured. DNA tissue from the fetus to be preserved for forensic analysis. All expenses, including medical care, to be borne by the State. Victim to remain hospitalized until deemed fit for discharge.