Land Acquisition Compensation – Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Solatium and Interest – Applicability of Tarsem Singh Judgment – Benefits Granted - Petitioners whose lands were acquired under the National Highways Act were denied statutory benefits of solatium and interest by the Arbitrator – Relying on the binding precedent in Tarsem Singh, the High Court held Petitioners entitled to full statutory benefits – Held: Petitioners are to be granted solatium and interest per the 2013 Act within four months [Paras 3, 5, 13, 20].

Alternate Remedy – Availability Under Section 37 of Arbitration Act – Not a Bar – Inefficacious Remedy - High Court rejected NHAI’s objection that Petitioners should have approached the appellate forum under Section 37 – Held: Where such forum is incapable of granting the relief due to settled precedent (Rishabhkumar), Article 226 jurisdiction can be invoked directly [Paras 6-10, 17].

Binding Precedent – Application of Supreme Court Judgment – Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution – Mandate to All Authorities - The Court reaffirmed that law declared in Tarsem Singh is binding on all courts and authorities under Articles 141 and 144 – Rejection of Misc. Application by the Supreme Court to limit applicability further strengthens entitlement from original acquisition date [Paras 15, 19].

Judicial Discretion – High Court's Jurisdiction Under Article 226 – Writ Entertained Despite Arbitration Proceedings – Statutory Reliefs Only – Since claim was limited to statutorily mandated solatium and interest, no factual disputes involved – Writ jurisdiction rightly exercised despite pending or concluded arbitral proceedings [Paras 12, 16-18].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Direction to Pay Solatium and Interest – The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the competent authority and NHAI to compute and disburse 100% solatium and interest at 12% p.a. on compensation amounts within a period of four months – Non-compliance would entail interest at 6% p.a. beyond the stipulated period [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law - Temple Theft – Confession in Police Custody – Not Admissible – Acquittal Ordered – The prosecution relied primarily on alleged confessions of the accused made while in police custody and recoveries based on such statements – Held: Confessions made to police officers without a magistrate’s presence are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act – Discovery panchnamas were not supported by credible witnesses and were deemed unreliable – Acquittal ordered due to lack of admissible evidence and breach of procedural safeguards [Paras 21, 23].

Recovery of Stolen Property – No Independent Corroboration – Doubt Cast on Genuineness – The recovered ignots (melted ornaments) were allegedly produced by the son of the third accused under police pressure – He was not managing the goldsmith shop and claimed coercion – Held: Recovery not proven to be voluntary or linked to the alleged theft – Presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act not applicable – Accused acquitted [Paras 18, 21].

Panchnamas – Hostile Witnesses – Lack of Evidentiary Value – Majority of panch witnesses either turned hostile or failed to support key elements such as disclosure and seizure – Held: With panchnamas unproven and no corroboration, prosecution failed to establish chain of evidence – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 15-17].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof – Acquittal on Benefit of Doubt – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Court held that past criminal records cannot substitute for legal proof in current case – Acquittal granted due to lack of cogent, credible, and admissible evidence [Para 23].

Decision – Conviction Set Aside – Appeals Allowed – State's Appeal Dismissed – The conviction and sentence of all accused under Sections 457, 380, 413, and 114 IPC were set aside – Accused acquitted – State’s appeal for enhancement of sentence rendered infructuous and dismissed [Paras 24-25].

Civil Law – Retiral Benefits - Legal Heirship – Entitlement to Death Benefits – Declaration in SOP – Held Valid – The petitioner was declared as legal heir of the deceased teacher by a competent civil court, and such finding attained finality – The respondents’ failure to disburse benefits on grounds of memory-based data and lost service register was held arbitrary – Directed to reconstruct the register and pay dues – Family pension rightly denied as the petitioner did not fall within eligible category under Pension Rules [Paras 3, 6–9].

Reconstruction of Service Register – Decree in Civil Suit – Failure to Comply – Decree to reconstruct service register obtained by the petitioner in O.S. No. 327/2003 was not implemented by the authorities – Execution petition also allowed – Court held continued inaction unjustifiable and mandated compliance within one month [Paras 3, 6–9].

Family Pension – Rule 50(V) of A.P. Revised Pension Rules, 1980 – Not Applicable to Siblings – The petitioner being the brother of the deceased was rightly denied family pension as he does not fall under Category-I – Claim for pension rejected while other monetary claims upheld [Paras 4, 7–9].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed in Part – Court directed respondent authorities to reconstruct the service register within one month and disburse death benefits within two months thereafter – Claim for family pension was rejected [Paras 9–10].

Matrimonial Law – Divorce - Mental Cruelty – Concealment of Medical Condition – Grounds for Divorce – Held: Valid – The appellant-wife had pre-existing cyst and infertility issues, which she failed to disclose prior to marriage – Medical records and testimony established concealment – The Family Court correctly concluded that the deliberate non-disclosure of such crucial facts amounted to mental cruelty against the husband [Paras 23-24].

Cruelty – Physical and Mental Abuse – Divorce Justified – Respondent established instances of physical assault and mental harassment including threats and violent behavior by appellant – The evidence of cruelty was not rebutted effectively in cross-examination – Cumulative acts and continued abusive conduct caused mental agony – Divorce decree sustained [Paras 16, 24, 26].

Irretrievable Breakdown – Not Independent Ground – Still Relevant – Though not a standalone statutory ground, long separation of over ten years with no conjugal relations was rightly considered as supporting the cruelty claim – Courts rightly recognized prolonged separation as reflective of irreparable marital discord [Paras 27, 34].

Standard of Proof – Preponderance of Probabilities – In Matrimonial Disputes – No strict evidence rule – Oral testimony coupled with uncontroverted material sufficient – Family Court's approach consistent with settled legal principles on burden of proof in matrimonial cruelty cases [Paras 28-29].

Appellate Interference – Scope Limited – No Perverse Finding – High Court affirms Family Court findings as based on cogent reasoning and supported by record – Appeal dismissed [Paras 34-35].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint – Cause of Action – Illusory Pleading – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – The plaintiff claimed a 1/3rd share in ancestral property and challenged sale deeds of 1972 and 1975, relying on the dismissal of a prior unrelated civil suit in 2021 as cause of action – Held: The Court found that the alleged cause of action was fictitious and a result of clever drafting – The pendency or dismissal of prior litigation was irrelevant and did not prevent the plaintiff from asserting his rights earlier [Paras 1-4, 10, 15-16].

Limitation – Declaration of Ownership and Partition – Article 58 & 110 of Limitation Act – Suit Time-Barred – The plaintiff attained majority in 1978 and was aware of the disputed transactions – Held: Suit for declaration and partition should have been filed within 3 or 12 years respectively – The present suit filed in 2022 was clearly barred by limitation – The trial court erred in treating limitation as a mixed question of fact and law despite clear averments in plaint [Paras 12-14, 18-19].

Jurisdiction of Trial Court – Failure to Exercise Judicial Discretion – Misapplication of Order VII Rule 11 – The trial court rejected the application without thoroughly evaluating whether the plaint disclosed a real cause of action or was barred by limitation – Held: The trial court failed to act as per binding precedents requiring courts to reject plaints lacking a meaningful cause of action or filed beyond limitation [Paras 17-18, 22].

Decision – Plaint Rejected – Revision Allowed – The High Court quashed the trial court’s order and allowed the applications under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held that the plaint disclosed no genuine cause of action and was hopelessly barred by limitation – Pending applications were also disposed of accordingly [Paras 22-23].

Company Law – Criminal Complaint – Vicarious Liability Absent – Summons Quashed – Petitioners challenged prosecution under Section 147(2) of the Companies Act for failure to display company name and address as per statutory requirement – Held: Directors not holding office at the time of alleged default cannot be held liable – Complaint lacked specific averments of role or responsibility of accused in day-to-day affairs – Judicial mind not applied by Magistrate in issuing summons – Proceedings quashed [Paras 11–14, 17–19].

Criminal Procedure – Limitation under Section 468 CrPC – Cognizance Beyond Prescribed Period – Proceedings Barred – Alleged violation took place between 2003–2004 and came to knowledge on 24.06.2005 – Complaint filed only on 05.09.2006 – Held: Action barred under Section 468 CrPC which mandates six-month limitation where maximum sentence is fine only – Magistrate failed to consider bar of limitation – Complaint not maintainable [Paras 5, 16].

Issuance of Process – Mechanical Exercise Without Prima Facie Case – Proceedings Liable to be Quashed – Held: Summons cannot be issued without specific material showing role and liability – Complaint was vague, lacked particulars, and no role of individual Directors shown – Reference made to Supreme Court precedents on necessity of specific allegations and active role in conduct of business [Paras 13, 18–19].

Decision – Criminal Revisions Allowed – Entire Proceedings Quashed – Magistrate's Order Set Aside – Calcutta High Court allowed all criminal revisions, quashed complaint and all proceedings in C/9496/2006 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court, Calcutta – Noted failure of prosecution to show vicarious liability or file within limitation period – Magistrate’s order issuing process held mechanically passed [Paras 20–21].
 

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Matrimonial Dispute and Digital Harassment – Bail Granted – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in relation to FIR No. 119/2025 involving serious allegations by complainant-wife including physical assault, snatching of mobile phone, coercion, and unauthorized financial transactions – Court held that, despite nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of limited duration would suffice for investigation – Bail granted with conditions including cooperation, surrender of electronic devices, and periodic attendance [Paras 3–12].

Investigative Cooperation – Conditional Bail – Electronic Evidence to be Surrendered – Petitioners directed to appear before investigating officer, undergo custodial interrogation, and then be released on bail – Conditions included surrendering electronic devices (phones, laptops), regular attendance before IO, and restriction on tampering with evidence or leaving jurisdiction – Violation to invite cancellation of bail [Para 12].

Decision – Bail Granted with Stringent Conditions – Petition Allowed – Court allowed the anticipatory bail petition, permitted limited custodial interrogation, and imposed strict conditions including bail bond of ₹50,000 each, cooperation with investigation, and weekly police attendance – Clarified that violation of conditions may result in bail cancellation [Para 12].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner sought rejection of the plaint on grounds of vague and insufficient averments regarding the claimed freight charges and services rendered – Trial court rejected the application holding cause of action disclosed in plaint and documents – Held: While examining Order 7 Rule 11, courts may consider documents filed with plaint under Order 7 Rule 14 – If the plaint and accompanying documents disclose necessary facts to support a claim, rejection is unwarranted – Court reiterated that rejection of plaint is a drastic measure, to be used sparingly where no arguable case exists – Petition dismissed as the plaint, read with documents, disclosed sufficient cause of action [Paras 13–18].

Decision – Rejection of Plaint Denied – Petition under Article 227 Dismissed – Delhi High Court upheld trial court’s finding that the plaint, supported by invoices and records, disclosed a valid cause of action – Reiterated narrow scope of Order 7 Rule 11 and cautioned against its liberal invocation where triable issues exist [Paras 17–18].

Taxation Law - International Taxation – Transponder Services – Definition of “Royalty” under DTAA and Domestic Law – Matter Remanded – The appellant sought to contest the withholding tax obligation on payments to Intelsat Corporation for transponder services, arguing the payments did not amount to "royalty" under Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA – The Court noted that none of the lower authorities properly analysed the agreement or determined the nature of services – Held: Without factual findings on the nature of services, the question of law cannot be adjudicated; matter remanded to CIT(A) for factual determination and analysis of whether services fall under “secret process” or “royalty” under DTAA or the Act [Paras 20-35].

Withholding Tax – Retrospective Amendments – No Liability for Payments Made Before 2012 – The Finance Act, 2012 introduced Explanation 6 to Section 9(1)(vi) expanding the definition of “royalty” – Held: For assessment years where payments were made before the amendment, no withholding tax liability arises due to the retrospective effect being inapplicable to withholding obligations – Followed: Reliance Industries Ltd. [Paras 37-40].

Double Taxation Relief – Application of Section 90(2) – Most Beneficial Provision to Apply – The Court reaffirmed that in treaty cases, as per Section 90(2), the taxpayer is entitled to rely on whichever law (domestic or DTAA) is more beneficial – Remanded for CIT(A) to determine applicability of treaty protection and PE status of Intelsat Corporation in India – If Intelsat is not taxable in India, no TDS liability can arise on Viacom 18 [Paras 21-22, 35-36].

Remand – Lack of Factual Determination – Non-Speaking Orders Set Aside – The Court held that the authorities failed to discharge their duty to examine and record findings on the technical agreement and the definition of “process” under the DTAA – Such absence of foundational facts renders the orders unsustainable – Appeals remanded for fresh decision on merits [Paras 27-34].