Taxation Law – Income tax - Reassessment Notices – Limitation Period and Effect of TOLA – Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Petitioners challenged reassessment notices issued under Section 148 on the ground that they were beyond the permissible limitation period – Supreme Court in Rajeev Bansal v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693 held that the period from 20 March 2020 to 30 June 2021 must be excluded due to COVID-19 extensions under TOLA – Held: Assessing Officers must verify the surviving limitation period in light of Rajeev Bansal and Ram Balram Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8140 before proceeding with reassessments [Paras 18-24].

Faceless Reassessment – Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer – Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Petitioners argued that only the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) could issue reassessment notices and that jurisdictional AOs lacked authority – Court referred to T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and held that faceless assessment does not oust the jurisdiction of the AO completely – Held: AO retains concurrent jurisdiction to initiate reassessment under Section 148, even after introduction of faceless assessment – Notices issued by AOs are valid [Paras 3, 85-90].

Approval for Reassessment – Compliance with Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Petitioners contended that approvals for reassessment post-01 April 2021 must be obtained from the Principal Commissioner, not the Joint Commissioner – Court followed Abhinav Jindal HUF v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6585 and held that approvals granted by Joint Commissioners post-01 April 2021 are invalid – Held: AOs must review approvals and quash reassessment notices where approvals were obtained from unauthorized officers [Paras 4, 30-41].

Search-Based Reassessment – Whether Sections 153A/153C Exclude Section 148 – Petitioners argued that if reassessment is based on material from a search, proceedings must follow Section 153A/153C and not Section 148 – Court referred to Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. Naveen Kumar Gupta, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8140 and held that AO can proceed under Section 147/148 if conditions for Section 153C are not met – Held: Reassessment based on search information is valid even if proceedings under Section 153C were not initiated [Paras 5-6, 38-61].

Issuance of Reassessment Notices Without Digital Identification Number (DIN) – CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 – Petitioners argued that notices issued without DIN were invalid – Court declined to examine this issue, noting that Commissioner of Income Tax v. Brandix Mauritius Holdings Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6481 had already ruled in favor of petitioners, but the matter was under appeal before the Supreme Court – Held: Issue of non-DIN notices left open for adjudication in pending cases [Paras 7-9].

Definition of “Information” Under Section 148 – Scope of Explanation 1 – Petitioners challenged the validity of information used to initiate reassessment under Explanation 1 to Section 148 – Court noted that a separate batch of writ petitions was considering this issue – Held: Issue left open for future adjudication [Para 9].

Binding Effect of Supreme Court’s Judgment in Rajeev Bansal – Computation of Surviving Time for Reassessment – Court directed AOs to determine the validity of reassessment notices in light of Rajeev Bansal – Held: If surviving time for issuing a notice expired before actual issuance, reassessment notice must be quashed – Petitioners allowed to submit written submissions within three weeks before AOs complete verification [Paras 25-31].

Decision: Reassessment notices upheld, subject to verification of surviving time limits – Assessing Officers directed to review individual cases within three weeks – Interim orders to continue until final orders are passed – Petitioners granted liberty to challenge adverse findings.

Defamation – False and Malicious Publication – Freedom of Press Not Absolute – The plaintiff alleged that two articles published in Junior Vikatan falsely accused him of misusing public funds in the Sethusamudram Project and making derogatory remarks about a senior political leader – The Court held that while the press has freedom under Article 19(1)(a), it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) – Held: The article published on 22.12.2013 was defamatory, as it falsely attributed statements to the plaintiff without verification, damaging his reputation [Paras 16-19].

Limitation in Defamation Suits – Time-Bound Filing – The defendants contended that the suit regarding the 28.03.2012 article was barred by limitation under the one-year limitation period for defamation suits – The Court upheld this contention, holding that the suit was filed in 2014, beyond the permissible time limit – Held: The defamation claim regarding the 28.03.2012 article was dismissed on limitation grounds [Para 15].

Journalistic Responsibility – Verification of Facts Before Publication – The defendants failed to verify the authenticity of the statements attributed to the plaintiff in the 22.12.2013 article, falsely claiming that he referred to a senior political leader as a "small boy" – Held: Press freedom does not extend to publishing unverified allegations or fabricated statements, and defamatory reporting cannot be shielded under the right to free speech [Paras 16-18].

Right to Privacy and Reputation – Constitutional Safeguards – The plaintiff invoked Article 21, arguing that the defamatory publications violated his right to dignity and privacy – The Court held that even public figures have a right to reputation, and defamatory articles intended to tarnish one's public image without factual basis are actionable – Held: The publication caused mental distress and reputational harm, entitling the plaintiff to damages [Para 19].

Permanent Injunction Against Future Publications – Denied – The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing any future defamatory content – The Court rejected this request, ruling that future publications must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and a blanket injunction would violate press freedom – Held: Damages granted, but no preemptive restriction on future publications [Para 20].

Decision: Suit Partly Allowed – Damages – Compensation Awarded for Reputational Harm – The defamatory article dated 22.12.2013 was found to have tarnished the plaintiff’s public image and caused mental distress – The Court held that defendants had acted irresponsibly by publishing unverified and defamatory content – Held: Plaintiff awarded Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for reputational damage, to be paid within one month [Para 20].

POCSO Act – Serious Nature of Allegations – Bail Rejected – The petitioner was accused of multiple offenses under the IPC and POCSO Act, including sexual assault, conspiracy, and intimidation – The prosecution argued that the victim had committed suicide under mysterious circumstances, further complicating the case – Held: Given the gravity of allegations and potential impact on trial proceedings, bail was denied [Paras 1-6].

Prior Criminal History – Impact on Bail Consideration – The petitioner was previously involved in multiple criminal cases, including cases registered under Sections 120B, 406, 420, and 498A IPC – The Court considered the petitioner’s past record as a relevant factor in denying bail – Held: Repeat involvement in serious offenses diminishes the credibility of the bail plea [Paras 7-9].

Supreme Court Precedents – Bail Not to be Granted Mid-Trial – The Court relied on X v. State of Rajasthan, SLP (Criminal) No. 13378/2024, where the Supreme Court emphasized that bail should not ordinarily be granted in serious offenses once trial has commenced – Held: Since trial was underway and prosecution witnesses were being examined, bail was not justified [Paras 10-12].

Bail Application Rejected – No Infringement of Speedy Trial Rights – The petitioner argued that he had been incarcerated since 15.06.2024, but the Court noted that trial was proceeding and had not been unduly delayed – Held: The right to a speedy trial had not been violated, and bail was denied at this stage [Paras 13-15].
 

Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case Made Out – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 354D, 509, 504, and 506(2) IPC, alleging that the complaint was a counterblast to an earlier case filed by him – The Court observed that the FIR detailed specific allegations, including stalking, obscene gestures, and threats of revenge using occult practices – Held: Since the FIR disclosed a cognizable offense, the Court refused to interfere at this stage and dismissed the petition [Paras 5.1-5.5].

Plea of Counterblast FIR – No Merit – The petitioner contended that the FIR was a retaliatory action due to an earlier complaint filed by him – The Court held that even if there were previous disputes, the allegations in the present case had to be independently examined – Held: Mere existence of prior litigation does not automatically render a subsequent FIR false [Paras 5.2-5.3].

Judicial Precedents on Quashing – FIR Cannot Be Quashed Based on Disputed Facts – The Court referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, which establish that quashing of FIRs should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases – Held: Since the allegations in the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offense, the Court could not quash it at this stage [Paras 5.5-5.6].

Stage of Criminal Proceedings – Court Cannot Interfere Before Trial – The investigation had already resulted in the filing of a charge sheet, and trial proceedings were at an advanced stage – The Court reiterated that interference at this stage would be inappropriate – Held: Petitioner should contest the charges in trial; quashing petition dismissed [Para 6].
Decision: Petition dismissed – The Court refused to quash the FIR, holding that a prima facie case existed, and the petitioner should contest the allegations during trial – No interim relief granted.
 

Execution Proceedings – Lok Adalat Award – Maintainability of Execution Petition – Fresh Registered Lease Deed – Decree holder sought eviction by filing execution petition on the basis of Lok Adalat award – Judgment debtor contended that subsequent registered lease deed superseded compromise decree – Trial Court held execution petition not maintainable – Held: Though Lok Adalat award is deemed to be a decree, where parties enter into a fresh registered lease deed governing their rights, execution cannot be sought contrary to its terms – Remedy lies by filing a suit for eviction and not by execution – Order upheld [Paras 1–4, 17–19].

Section 47 CPC – Scope and Limits – Executing Court’s Jurisdiction – Objections raised by judgment debtor under Section 47 CPC regarding executability of decree – Held: Executing Court can examine whether decree has become inexecutable due to subsequent events – Executing Court cannot go behind decree but can determine questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction – Execution rightly dismissed as compromise decree stood worked out and superseded [Paras 10–16].

Lok Adalat Award – Nature and Enforceability – Section 21, Legal Services Authorities Act – Award of Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree and is executable – However, execution must conform to subsequent binding contracts entered into by parties – Award cannot be executed mechanically ignoring fresh registered lease deed – Finality of award does not override subsequent lawful agreements [Paras 11–13].

Lease Deed – Registered Document – Supersession of Compromise Decree – Section 92 Evidence Act – Fresh registered lease deed executed after Lok Adalat award – Oral or implied variation of registered document impermissible – Registered lease deed governs relationship of parties – Compromise decree stood extinguished upon execution of fresh lease deed – Execution petition not maintainable [Paras 13, 17–18].

Eviction – Due Process of Law – Execution vs. Suit for Eviction – Tenant in settled possession cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law – Where lease deed provides procedure for termination, eviction must be sought by filing a suit – Execution proceedings cannot be used as substitute for eviction suit – Trial Court correctly directed parties to follow due process [Paras 14, 18].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed – Order of Trial Court dismissing execution petition upheld – No costs – Miscellaneous applications closed.

Civil Law - Summary Suit – Unconditional Leave to Defend Required When Defence is Plausible – The High Court ruled that under Order 37 CPC, if the defendant raises a triable issue or plausible defence, unconditional leave must be granted – The trial court erred in holding the defence plausible but improbable while imposing a 50% bank guarantee requirement, contrary to Supreme Court precedent [Paras 9-10].

Legal Principles – Failure to Follow Supreme Court Guidelines on Leave to Defend – The trial court ignored the well-settled law laid down in Mechelec Engineers & Manufacturers v. Basic Equipment Corporation, (1976) 4 SCC 687, which categorically states that conditions of security can only be imposed if the defence is sham or illusory – The Court reiterated this principle, emphasizing that once a plausible defence is shown, the defendant must be granted unconditional leave [Paras 8-9].

Misapplication of Law – Conditional Leave with Bank Guarantee Held Invalid – The Court found that the trial court misapplied the law by requiring the defendant to furnish a 50% bank guarantee, despite accepting that the defence was plausible – Such a condition was arbitrary and legally unsustainable, leading to a failure of justice [Paras 10-11].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Petition Treated Under Article 227 – Since the trial court’s order resulted in a miscarriage of justice, the Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to correct the error – The respondent’s preliminary objection on maintainability was rejected [Para 10].

Decision – Conditional Leave Set Aside – Defendant Granted Unconditional Leave to Defend – The High Court quashed the trial court’s condition requiring a bank guarantee and granted the defendant unconditional leave to defend the suit – Trial court directed to proceed further in accordance with law [Paras 11-12].
 

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Standard of Proof – The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, requiring a complete chain of evidence pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused – The Court held that the chain was incomplete, as there was a time gap of nearly 9-10 hours between the accused being last seen with the deceased and the discovery of the body – Held: Circumstantial evidence must exclude all other hypotheses except guilt, which was not established in this case [Paras 31, 36].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Reliability – Weak Evidence – The prosecution relied on extra-judicial confessions made to PW15, PW17, and PW18 – The Court reiterated that extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence and must be corroborated – Held: Confession made to interested parties (father and uncle of the complainant) and not corroborated by independent evidence cannot be the sole basis for conviction [Paras 32-34].

Last Seen Theory – Substantial Time Gap – Guilt Not Established – The prosecution relied on PW12's testimony, who allegedly saw the accused and deceased together at 10 PM, while the body was discovered at 8 AM the next day – The Court held that the 9-10 hour gap left room for the possibility of another person committing the crime – Held: ‘Last seen’ evidence must be closely linked in time to the crime for it to be reliable [Paras 35-36].

Motive – Weak or Non-existent – Crucial in Circumstantial Cases – The prosecution alleged that the accused committed the murder due to taunts by the deceased calling him "Budha" and "Lichar" – The Court found this motive far-fetched and unconvincing, especially as the supporting testimony of PW19 (Sudesh) was recorded after a year and lacked credibility – Held: Absence of strong motive further weakens the prosecution case in circumstantial evidence cases [Paras 37-38].

Recovery of Incriminating Articles – Highly Doubtful – The prosecution claimed that the accused recovered a piece of rope used for strangulation and the victim's wallet – The Court found the recovery suspicious and unreliable, as:
(i) It was unlikely the accused would retain such incriminating items.
(ii) The knife allegedly used in the crime was found at the scene but not linked to the accused.
(iii) The key prosecution witness for recovery (PW11) was a close relative of the deceased.
(iv) The investigating officers had been subject to departmental inquiries for irregularities in the case.
Held: Recovery evidence failed to strengthen the prosecution's case [Paras 38-39].

Forensic & Medical Evidence – Gaps in Investigation – The forensic report confirmed the presence of a stupefying substance (Lidocaine) in the deceased’s body, supporting the theory that he was drugged – However, the complainant (PW17) did not undergo medical examination, no samples were taken, and no stupefying substance was recovered from the accused – Held: Failure to collect and corroborate forensic evidence further weakens the case [Paras 41].

Fingerprints and Other Crucial Evidence Not Presented – The police lifted fingerprints from the car, where the prosecution claimed the murder occurred, but the fingerprint report was not exhibited in court – The Court held this omission suspicious and detrimental to the prosecution case – Held: Failure to present crucial forensic evidence raises doubts about the fairness of the investigation [Paras 40].

Lie Detector Test – Accused’s Refusal Not Evidence Against Him – The accused refused to undergo a lie detector test, but the Court held that such a refusal cannot be treated as evidence of guilt, as it is a constitutional right under Article 20(3) of the Constitution – Held: Lie detector tests cannot be used as substantive evidence and are merely investigative tools [Paras 42].

Decision: Conviction Set Aside – Guilt Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances, motive was weak, last seen theory was inconclusive, extra-judicial confessions were unreliable, and recoveries were doubtful – Held: Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted [Paras 43].
 

Labour Law – Right to Legal Representation in Domestic Enquiry – Permissibility under Standing Orders – Clause 25(4) of the Model Standing Orders does not provide for engagement of an Advocate as a defence representative – Held: Legal representation is permissible only if the employer is represented by a legally trained mind – Industrial Court’s order allowing an Advocate for the employee without evidence of the employer’s representative being legally trained is erroneous – Order set aside [Paras 14-16, 33-34].

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Fair Representation – Legally Trained Mind Concept – Precedents establish that an employee can seek legal representation when pitted against a legally trained mind – Held: Mere post-graduate degree in Human Resource Management does not make an employer’s representative a legally trained mind – No pleadings or evidence established that the employer’s representative had legal expertise or handled multiple domestic enquiries – Order granting an Advocate to represent the employee is unsustainable [Paras 17-19, 32-33].

Enquiry Officer’s Legal Background – Whether Sufficient for Granting Legal Representation – Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi University held that a legally trained Enquiry Officer does not automatically entitle an employee to legal representation – Held: Enquiry Officer's legal background alone does not justify permitting an Advocate for the employee – Industrial Court’s reasoning is contrary to settled law [Paras 16-18, 27].

Employer’s Representative – Qualification and Experience – Legal Training Not Established – Industrial Court assumed that the employer’s representative was legally trained without factual basis – Held: Absence of pleadings proving that the management representative had legal expertise or had conducted multiple domestic enquiries – Granting an Advocate to the employee was improper and against judicial precedents [Paras 19-22, 33].

Precedents Relied Upon – Applicability and Interpretation – Supreme Court in Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Nadkarni and J.K. Aggarwal v. Haryana Seeds Development Corp. held that denial of legal representation violates natural justice when an employer’s representative is legally trained – Held: These cases do not apply where no evidence shows that the management representative was legally trained – Industrial Court erred in its application of these judgments [Paras 26-30].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Industrial Court’s Order Set Aside – Industrial Court’s decision permitting legal representation for the employee is unsustainable – Held: Employee can nominate a defence representative as per Clause 25(4) of the Model Standing Orders – Petition allowed and rule made absolute [Paras 34-35].

Bail - NDPS Act – Prolonged Incarceration – Right to Speedy Trial – Bail Granted Despite Section 37 Bar – Petitioner was in custody for 1 year and 6 months – Trial Court reported that the case would take another six months for completion – Held: Prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution – Supreme Court precedents establish that when trial delay is attributable to prosecution, statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed – Bail granted with conditions [Paras 8-9].

Bail Jurisprudence – Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception – Constitutional Considerations – Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India emphasized that bail should not be withheld as punishment – Held: Courts should not mechanically reject bail under stringent laws – Bail must be considered if statutory conditions are met – Denial of bail in deserving cases violates Article 21 – Petitioner entitled to bail [Paras 10-11].

Order of Sessions Court – Trial Delays Justify Bail – Balancing Liberty and Public Interest – Trial Court stated that framing of charges was completed on 26.12.2024, but 38 witnesses were yet to be examined – Case disposal expected to take six more months – Held: Delay not attributable to petitioner – Supreme Court has held that liberty under Article 21 overrides statutory bar in cases of unreasonable trial delays – Bail granted with strict conditions [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Bail application allowed – Petitioner released on bail with strict conditions ensuring trial participation and non-interference with witnesses