Taxation Law - Admissibility of Additional Evidence – Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Tribunal's Action Justified – The appellant challenged the ITAT's refusal to admit additional evidence regarding a Will that was not presented during the assessment or CIT(A) stages – Held: Rule 46A conditions were not met, as no application for admitting new evidence was filed, rendering the Tribunal's refusal valid [Paras 9-14].

Family Settlement and Registration – Not Compulsorily Required – The court affirmed that family settlements intended to resolve disputes within a family do not require compulsory registration if they merely record an already reached oral agreement – Held: The memorandum of family settlement, even if unregistered, remains valid for determining ownership and rights in property [Paras 27-31].

Indexed Cost of Acquisition – Section 49(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Relating Back to Original Acquisition Date – The appellant's claim that the cost of acquisition should relate back to the date when the previous owner acquired the property was upheld – Held: The cost indexation should be calculated from the date of the original acquisition by the previous owner (01/04/1981), not the date of the family settlement (02/09/2003), in accordance with Supreme Court and High Court precedents [Paras 16-25, 32-37].

Capital Gains Calculation – Transfer Under Will or Family Settlement – The court reiterated that transfers under a Will or a family settlement do not constitute a "transfer" under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, negating the imposition of capital gains tax at the time of settlement – Held: The indexed cost must be computed using the original acquisition date as per Section 49(1) [Paras 20-26].

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The ITAT's order dated 30/03/2013 was set aside, and the CIT(A)'s order dated 01/09/2011 was restored, upholding the appellant's calculation method for indexed cost based on the original acquisition date [Paras 39-40].
 

Criminal Law – Writ of Mandamus – Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution – Petitioner, a voter from the Samalkha constituency, sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus for the arrest of respondent No. 5 (Dharam Singh Chhoker), a member of the Haryana Legislative Assembly and candidate, citing multiple FIRs and non-bailable warrants issued against him – High Court noted that despite warrants and ongoing investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act), the respondent had not been arrested and continued campaigning openly – Held: Respondent No. 5 must be arrested unless an order of stay or quashing of prior court orders is issued by the Supreme Court – Mandamus issued to the Enforcement Directorate [Paras 1, 2, 22, 25, 30, 31, 35].

Election Law – Disclosure Obligations – Petitioner argued that respondent No. 5's affidavit was incomplete and violated Section 33-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by omitting necessary criminal antecedents – Court referenced Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India and other precedents, affirming voters' right to complete information about candidates as integral to Article 19(1)(a) – However, interference in the election process under Article 226 was deemed restricted once elections commenced as per Sukhdev Singh Patwari v. State Election Commissioner [Paras 7, 19, 20].

Criminal Procedure – Issuance of Warrants – Respondent No. 5 had non-bailable warrants issued multiple times for evading arrest – The court highlighted Section 73 Cr.P.C. empowering Magistrates to issue warrants for arrest if the accused evades law enforcement – Noted failures by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to act despite sufficient material and judicial orders [Paras 18, 27, 28, 33].

Constitutional Law – Judicial Review – High Court exercised its power under Article 226 to direct enforcement actions despite arguments for judicial restraint during elections – Emphasized the necessity to uphold fundamental rights and public interest in ensuring adherence to the legal process [Paras 16, 32, 35].

Decision: Petition allowed – Enforcement Directorate directed to arrest respondent No. 5 unless intervening orders by the Supreme Court state otherwise – Emphasized adherence to prior judicial orders for law enforcement [Para 35].
 

Taxation Law – Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration – Validity of Show Cause Notice – The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his GST registration, arguing that it was cancelled with retrospective effect without valid reasons or proper notice – The court found that the Show Cause Notice issued on 06.02.2024 lacked essential details, such as the officer's name and the location of the hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice – The court emphasized that at least three opportunities for a personal hearing must be provided as per the Master Circular dated 10.03.2017, which was not adhered to in this case – Held: The cancellation order dated 25.05.2024 is unsustainable due to non-compliance with procedural requirements [Paras 6-10].

Non-Existence of the Taxpayer – Temporary Suspension of Business – The petitioner’s business was alleged to be non-existent at the registered address, leading to cancellation – The petitioner explained that the business was temporarily closed due to health issues and travel, which did not warrant cancellation – Held: Temporary absence from the place of business does not justify the conclusion that the entity was non-existent – Cancellation order and subsequent rejection of revocation application are quashed [Paras 17-18].

Demand for Outstanding Penalty – Rejection of Revocation Application – The respondents rejected the petitioner’s application for revocation on the grounds of non-payment of a penalty of Rs. 24,38,232/- – The court found that the penalty demand, raised in a separate proceeding, was still pending adjudication and could not be used as a ground for rejecting the revocation application – The court held that penalty proceedings are independent of the cancellation of GST registration, and any dues can be recovered without linking them to the status of registration [Paras 14-16].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Both the impugned Show Cause Notices dated 06.02.2024 and 07.08.2024, as well as the cancellation orders dated 25.05.2024 and 27.08.2024, are quashed – The petitioner’s GST registration is directed to be restored – Respondents are, however, free to initiate fresh proceedings for tax recovery, if necessary, in accordance with the law [Paras 18-19].

Civil Writ - Mandamus – Admitted Liability – Subsidy Dispute – The petitioner sought reimbursement of Rs. 154.52 crores from the respondents for the procurement of RBD Palmolein Oil under the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS) – The petitioner contended that despite the Central Government having released the subsidy amount to the 2nd respondent, PEC Ltd., the latter failed to pay the petitioner – The respondent admitted the liability but cited financial constraints due to losses – Held: The writ petition is maintainable as the admitted liability does not require arbitration or alternative remedies – A writ of mandamus was issued directing the 2nd respondent to pay the admitted amount within 12 weeks [Paras 10-14].

Alternative Remedy – Rule of Discretion – The respondent argued that the petitioner should have invoked arbitration or the CPSE administrative mechanism for dispute resolution – The court held that availability of alternative remedies does not oust writ jurisdiction when there is admitted liability – In such cases, the court can exercise its discretion to issue a writ of mandamus [Paras 15-18].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – The 2nd respondent, PEC Ltd., is directed to pay Rs. 154,51,98,540/- to the petitioner within 12 weeks from the date of this order [Para 19].
 

PIL - Public Purpose – Use of Reserved Land – Construction of Water Tanks and RCC Centers – Petitioners objected to the use of land reserved for public utility purposes, claiming the nature of the land cannot be altered without due process – Held: The construction is for the public interest and only a small portion of the land is used for water tanks or RCC Centers, which does not affect the primary reserved purpose – The challenge is not supported by evidence that land was exclusively used for its reserved purpose in recent years – Bar under Section 77 of U.P. Revenue Code does not apply as no Bhumidhari rights were created [Paras 7, 21, 27].

Administrative Action – Pradhan’s Role and Responsibilities – Court raised concerns over the understanding of Gaon Sabha Pradhans regarding their duties and responsibilities under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act – Directed that training programs be initiated for Pradhans, especially women, to educate them on their roles and to discourage the practice of "Pradhanpati" (when the male spouse assumes the duties of a female elected Pradhan) [Paras 19, 28].

Land Encroachment – Directed Action – PILs included complaints of land encroachment by private individuals, including Pradhans – Held: In cases where the Pradhan or family members are encroaching on Gaon Sabha land, steps must be taken to initiate proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code if the land is not voluntarily vacated within the specified period [Paras 30, 17].

Decision: All PILs dismissed – Construction upheld as serving public interest – Directions issued to the Panchayat Raj Department to initiate training for Pradhans – Specific directions given regarding shifting water tank construction in PIL No. 1438/2024 and encroachment issues in PIL No. 2250/2023 [Paras 27-32].
 

Writ - Debarment – Financial Proposal Error – Correction Sought – Bidder’s Fault – Petitioners challenged the debarment order issued by NHAI, alleging that an error in calculating their financial proposal was made by the Tender Evaluation Committee – Held: Petitioners themselves had submitted the financial proposal of Rs. 4.76 crores, which was accepted as the lowest bid – The error was on the part of the petitioner, not the authority – Request for revision was denied, and debarment for six months upheld as reasonable for failure to submit performance guarantee within the prescribed time [Paras 30-34, 40].

Show Cause Notice – Predetermined Decision Allegation – Natural Justice – Petitioners argued that the debarment was premeditated based on show cause notices – Held: The authority provided multiple opportunities for personal hearings and addressed the petitioner’s submissions, demonstrating compliance with principles of natural justice – Debarment order was not pre-determined, and due process was followed [Paras 35-37].

Judicial Review in Contractual Matters – Restraint in Interference – The court emphasized that in contractual matters involving technical and commercial issues, judicial interference should be limited unless there is clear evidence of mala fides or irrationality – The petitioner’s failure to comply with the contractual requirements justified the debarment, and interference by the court was not warranted [Paras 41-44].

Maintainability of Writ Petition – Supervisory Role of RBI Over NBFCs – The petitioner, holding significant investments in Exclusive Capital Limited, an NBFC, sought RBI intervention alleging mismanagement, fund siphoning, and regulatory violations – Held: RBI’s role as regulator, under Chapter IIIB, involves oversight of NBFCs from inception to liquidation, authorizing judicial review in cases of supervisory lapses; the petition is maintainable [Paras 1-3, 16-20].

Financial Mismanagement and Regulatory Breach – Need for RBI Action – Section 45ID and RBI Master Directions, 2016 – The petitioner detailed alleged breaches, including excessive leverage, improper issuance of OCDs, and non-submission of audited accounts – Held: RBI is statutorily obligated to address NBFC financial misconduct; failure to oversee contraventions could lead to irreparable investor harm – Interim directions issued suspending Board and initiating special audit [Paras 10-15, 21-24].

Mandamus to Public Authority – Judicial Intervention in Regulatory Inaction – The Court observed that RBI’s supervisory powers are coupled with a duty to protect public and investor interests under the RBI Act; mandamus granted to ensure RBI intervention, directing appointment of an Interim Administrator and forensic audit under Sections 45MA and 45ID [Paras 25-34].

Decision: Petition allowed; respondent No.2’s Board of Directors suspended with Interim Administrators appointed, RBI directed to complete statutory audit and report back.

Civil Law - Adverse Possession – Limitation for Filing Suit – The appellants contended that they had perfected their title over the disputed property through adverse possession, having resided on the property since 1984 – The trial court accepted this argument and dismissed the respondent's suit – However, the first appellate court overturned this finding, ruling that the appellants failed to prove adverse possession and the suit was filed within the statutory period – Held: The plea of adverse possession is inconsistent with the appellants' claim of joint ownership, and the appellants failed to establish uninterrupted, hostile possession for the requisite twelve-year period as required by law [Paras 16-20].

Possession and Title – Joint Ownership Claim – The appellants’ father claimed joint ownership of the property with the respondent, but failed to provide documentary evidence – Both the trial court and the first appellate court found that the sale deed exclusively favored the respondent – Held: The appellants' claim to joint ownership was rightly rejected by both courts, and the title rests solely with the respondent [Paras 11-14].

Second Appeal – Scope of Section 100 CPC – The court reiterated that the scope of interference under Section 100 CPC is limited to substantial questions of law – Held: The findings of fact by the first appellate court were neither perverse nor contrary to law, and no substantial question of law arose in the second appeal [Para 22].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – The judgment of the first appellate court is affirmed, and the respondent's suit for declaration and possession is upheld [Para 23].

Criminal Law - Suspension of Sentence Pending Appeal – Conviction Under IPC and MCOC Act – Applicant's Bail Granted – Applicant sought suspension of sentence pending appeal after being convicted by the Special Court for offenses under sections 302 read with 120B IPC, and sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), and 3(4) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act (MCOC Act) – Applicant received four life sentences and a fine of Rs. 16,00,000 – Court found material discrepancies in evidence and reliance on prior judgments improper – Court granted bail, suspending the sentence pending appeal, citing lack of direct evidence against the applicant, reliance on inadmissible evidence from a prior case, and procedural lapses in evidence collection and sanction [Paras 1, 2, 13, 19, 25, 26].

Alleged Crime and Extortion Involvement – Circumstantial Evidence and Witness Testimonies – Prosecution alleged the murder of hotelier Jaya Shetty by an organized crime syndicate led by the applicant, for extortion demands unmet by the deceased – Witnesses (P.W.4, P.W.10, and P.W.22) provided testimonies on extortion calls and threats from applicant’s associate Hemant Pujari – Witnesses failed to confirm a direct nexus between the applicant and the extortion calls – Testimonies contained contradictions, and crucial witness Bala Shetty was not examined, leading to missing links in the chain of evidence, which weakened the prosecution’s case [Paras 4, 13, 18, 20, 23].

Inadmissible Evidence and Misuse of Prior Judgments – Special Court's reliance on a prior MCOC case (MCOC Special Case No.13 of 2001) and a confessional statement from co-accused Pramod Dhonde, recorded separately and inadmissible, was deemed erroneous by the High Court – The applicant was not jointly tried with Dhonde, making this confessional statement legally inapplicable – High Court cited Mydeen v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, highlighting that such evidence could not be used against the applicant [Paras 14, 19].

Irregularities in Evidence Submission – Certified Copies and Tape Recordings – High Court noted that critical documents (Exhibits 39A-39C, 40A-40G) were certified copies of photocopies introduced post-prosecution evidence and were not authenticated originals – Tape recordings submitted as evidence were not validated by original sources, further compromising evidentiary standards – Court cited Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari v. Brijmohan Ramdass Mehra, underscoring the inadmissibility of such unverified recordings in criminal proceedings [Paras 18, 24].

Issues with Prior Approval and Sanction under MCOC Act – Prior approval for prosecution under MCOC was ambiguous, referencing multiple accused but lacking specificity on the applicant’s involvement – Approval and sanction orders appeared to focus on other alleged syndicate members without clear evidence linking the applicant – This procedural ambiguity raised questions about the legal validity of the MCOC charges against the applicant [Paras 6, 25].

Decision – Bail granted, suspending sentence pending appeal – Court required the applicant to furnish a bond, provide contact details, and refrain from leaving the jurisdiction without permission – Conditions set for prosecution to seek bail cancellation if violated – Application allowed with specified conditions pending appeal outcome [Paras 26-28].