Tenancy Law – Section 32R – Non-Cultivation Not Equivalent to Abandonment – Eviction Quashed – The tenant-purchaser’s failure to cultivate due to old age and illness, without handing possession to third parties, was not a wilful breach warranting eviction – Held: Section 32R must be invoked sparingly and not for every lapse – Beneficial legislation protecting tenant rights must be interpreted purposively – Failure must be serious, prolonged, and indicative of abandonment, which was not established in this case [Paras 24–38, 47–49, 56].

Procedural Fairness – Eviction Order Based on Illiterate Tenant’s Statement – Held Invalid – Statement admitting non-cultivation recorded without legal assistance or proper inquiry – No evidence of explanation of legal consequences or consideration of mitigating factors – Held: Informed and voluntary waiver of ownership not established – Violation of Section 32P(1)’s requirement of a “formal inquiry” and natural justice principles [Paras 58–65, 66–72].

Delay and Laches – Condonation of Delay in Appeal Final – Cannot Defeat Substantive Rights – Petitioners challenged 1975 eviction order decades later – Delay condoned by Sub-Divisional Officer in 2013 and never challenged – Held: Delay cannot bar relief under agrarian reform legislation once condonation attains finality [Paras 16, 73–74].

Binding Precedent – Applicability of Amrut Bhikaji Kale – Tenant’s Ownership Right Cannot be Defeated by Ignorant Statements – Tenant had become a deemed purchaser under Section 32G and 32M – Reliance on Kale upheld – Statutory right cannot be waived by mere admission of hardship – MRT’s decision ignoring Kale held to be legally unsustainable [Paras 75–78, 82–84].

Decision – Petitions Allowed – MRT Judgment Set Aside – Eviction Order Quashed – Bombay High Court quashed 2019 MRT judgment and 1975 eviction orders – Held: Tenant’s non-cultivation was not deliberate or legally sufficient for divesting ownership – Restored tenant-purchaser’s rights under the Tenancy Act – Rule made absolute [Paras 85–89].

Civil Writ - Public Employment – Recruitment Process – Junior Accountant Selection Challenge – Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners assailed the selection process and final appointments of Junior Accountants, raising grievances related to the merit list, document scrutiny, and transparency – The Court held that unless there is proven illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety, judicial review of recruitment decisions is limited – No violation of Articles 14 and 16 was established – Held: Petitions dismissed with no case for interference in finalized selection and appointment process [Paras 23–30].

NDPS Bail – Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions Not Satisfied – Bail Denied - The petitioners sought regular bail in FIR involving seizure of over 3 crore tablets and capsules of psychotropic substances, drug money, vehicles, and mobile phones – Petitioners included directors of pharmaceutical firms, chemists, and transporters – Charges framed, 54 out of 160 prosecution witnesses examined – Held: The magnitude of recovery, involvement in organized inter-State racket, and pending examination of key witnesses negate twin-test under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act – Long incarceration alone does not dilute statutory bar when prosecution is proceeding efficiently – Bail rejected [Paras 6-13, 18].

Conscious Possession – Applicability of Section 37 – Commercial Quantity – Recovery from Different Locations – Retrospective Effect of Bail Precedents Denied - Despite prolonged custody, petitioners were denied bail due to direct recovery or association with contraband – Petitioners failed to dislodge presumption of conscious possession or demonstrate lack of nexus with recovered drugs – Arguments based on Supreme Court judgments like Tofan Singh and Dheeraj Shukla distinguished – Bail under Section 37 requires stronger case than prima facie non-involvement [Paras 11-14, 17-18].

Criminal Antecedents – Repeat Offenders – Relevance in Bail Consideration – Past Involvement in Similar Offences – Bail Denied - Multiple petitioners found involved in prior NDPS cases and offences under the Prisons Act – Held: History of similar criminal conduct and possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing remaining accused justifies continued detention – High threshold under Section 37 not met in any case – Bail dismissed across all petitions [Paras 18-19].

Public Interest – Drug Menace in Punjab – Supreme Court’s Concern – Strict Scrutiny Mandated – Bail Denied - Court reaffirmed that drug-related offences severely affect the public health and safety in Punjab – Cited recent Supreme Court observations urging caution in bail for repeat offenders in drug cases – Held: No mitigating circumstance present to deviate from legislative mandate – Bail petitions dismissed [Para 14].

Decision – All Petitions Dismissed – Interim Orders Vacated - After detailed analysis of evidence, law, and custody status, Court declined to exercise discretion under Section 37 NDPS Act – Directed trial court to expedite proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments [Paras 20-23].
 

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity and Twin Conditions under Section 37 – Bail Denied – Petitioners sought bail in FIR No. 72 of 2020 involving recovery of over 3 crore intoxicant tablets and capsules – Allegations of operating a multi-state drug network involving illicit manufacture, supply, and sale of psychotropic substances – Court held: Despite prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, the twin conditions of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) must be satisfied, which were not met – Serious recovery, criminal antecedents of several petitioners, and risk of evading trial considered – Bail rejected for all 17 petitioners [Paras 1–20].

NDPS Act – Bail – Commercial Quantity – Twin Conditions under Section 37 Not Satisfied – Bail Rejected – Petitioners sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a large-scale NDPS case involving over 3 crore intoxicant tablets, capsules, drug money, and vehicles – Court held that the bar under Section 37 NDPS Act applies and petitioners failed to meet twin conditions of proving they are not guilty and not likely to re-offend – Petitioners’ prolonged custody and ongoing trial held insufficient to dilute statutory mandate [Paras 10–13, 18].

Long Incarceration – Not Ground for Bail in Commercial Quantity Case – Trial Progressing Reasonably – Petitioners argued delay in trial and lengthy custody as grounds for bail – Court noted 54 prosecution witnesses already examined out of 160, no prosecutorial delay, and 46 witnesses given up – Held: Ongoing incarceration alone does not relax statutory bar under Section 37 where trial is active and serious recovery involved [Paras 16–18].

Criminal Antecedents – Multiple Petitioners Previously Involved in NDPS and Other Offences – Bail Denied – Court considered that most petitioners had pending or past cases, some convicted – Held: Antecedents and role in organized inter-state drug racket weigh against release – Risk of tampering with evidence or absconding highlighted [Paras 18, Annexures].

Disclosure Statements – No Evidentiary Value Alone – But Supported by Recovery – Petitioners argued disclosures inadmissible under Tofan Singh – Court noted recovery of contraband and other corroborative evidence support complicity beyond mere confessions [Paras 6–9, 13, 15].

Decision – Bail Petitions Dismissed – No Interim Relief – All 17 petitions dismissed – Special Court directed to expedite trial and avoid unwarranted delays – Observations not to affect merits of trial [Paras 20–24].

Civil Procedure – Closure of Evidence – Repeated Defaults by Plaintiff – Petition Dismissed – The petitioner-plaintiff failed to produce any evidence despite multiple adjournments and even defaulted in paying imposed costs – Trial Court closed evidence vide order dated 29.07.2024 – Held: The impugned order is justified and reflects due judicial discretion – High Court refused to interfere under Article 227 due to lack of procedural diligence by the petitioner [Paras 2-5].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope under Article 227 – Limited Interference Permissible – The High Court reiterated that its power under Article 227 must be exercised sparingly and with judicial restraint – Held: Interference is unwarranted unless manifest injustice or gross procedural error is apparent – Reliance placed on Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8 SCC 329 [Paras 6-7].

Final Decision – Closure of Evidence Upheld – Revision Petition Dismissed - The Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court’s decision and dismissed the revision petition as meritless [Para 7].

Civil Law – Tenancy Law - Summary Judgment – Admitted Tenancy and Arrears – Partial Decree Upheld – The appellant, a tenant under a registered lease, admitted the landlord-tenant relationship and rent arrears since 01.03.2018 – The Commercial Court granted partial decree for possession and rent recovery without trial, applying Order XIIIA CPC – Held: Summary judgment justified as there was no real prospect of the appellant defending the admitted claim [Paras 1-3, 6, 21-22].

Limitation – Refiling of Suit Under Commercial Courts Act – Section 14 Protection Granted – The respondent originally filed the suit in civil court in 2018, which was later returned due to jurisdictional transfer – The same plaint was refiled in 2023 under Commercial Courts Act – Held: Section 14 of Limitation Act applicable, suit not barred and claim from 01.03.2018 maintained [Paras 11-16].

Rent and Possession – Quantum and Apportionment – Rent Apportioned After Partial Possession Returned – The Court directed recovery at ₹84,000/month from 01.03.2018 till 19.10.2023 and ₹60,000/month thereafter for the remaining floors – Appellant's claims of reduced rent and oral arrangements with third parties found unsubstantiated and irrelevant to legal obligations under lease [Paras 17-22].

Security Deposit Adjustment – To Be Considered During Trial – Although the plea of ₹90,000/- security deposit adjustment was not accepted at summary stage, the Court clarified that this can be considered at the trial stage for damages and penalties [Para 23].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court upheld the Commercial Court’s orders, finding no merit in the appeal and confirming the validity of the partial summary judgment and directions for trial on damages [Para 26].
 

Income Tax Law - Business Loss and Commercial Expediency – Deduction for Expenditure on Group Company – Permitted – Appellant incurred Rs.200.47 lakh in deposits and interest and Rs.49.18 lakh as expenses in connection with its group company MMC – Court held that these were for commercial expediency to protect reputation and business continuity – Following earlier decision in assessee's own case for AY 1989-90, such deductions are allowable under Sections 28 and 37 of the Act [Paras 10–14].

Accounting Standards – Section 115J – Scope of Assessing Officer's Review – Limited – Held – Assessing Officer cannot question profit and loss account audited and certified under the Companies Act – Concept of ‘below the line’ has no statutory relevance – Following SC ruling in Apollo Tyres Ltd., the AO’s jurisdiction is restricted to adjustments enumerated in Explanation to Section 115J only [Paras 15–17].

Precedent and Consistency – Tribunal Order Set Aside – Revenue Had Accepted Previous Judgment – Held – Since the revenue accepted earlier High Court ruling in assessee’s favour for the preceding AY and did not challenge it, Tribunal’s reliance on overruled precedent was erroneous – Appeal allowed accordingly [Paras 13–14, 18].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – All substantial questions answered in favour of assessee – Tribunal’s order dated 25.02.2003 quashed – Expenses and write-offs allowed as business deductions [Para 19].
 

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Not Applicable – Petitioner Alleged to Have Driven the Getaway Vehicle – The petitioner sought bail claiming parity with co-accused Sifarish Khan and Akhileshwar Kumar @ Sanjay, who had been granted bail earlier – Held: The petitioner was directly involved in the commission of the robbery, driving the motorcycle with a fake number plate and aiding the pillion rider who snatched the gold – The co-accused had distinct and less direct roles, thus no parity existed [Paras 4, 6].

Robbery – Daylight Crime with Police Impersonation – Bail Denied – The offence was committed in broad daylight in a busy locality, with the perpetrators dressed in khaki to impersonate police officers and using a pistol-shaped lighter – The court found the nature and execution of the crime to be daring and serious, justifying rejection of bail [Paras 3, 7].

Recovery of Property – Gold Not Yet Recovered – Accused's Claims Unfounded – Though the defence claimed the gold was fake, the prosecution clarified it had not been recovered yet – Court observed that the petitioner’s counsel was not correctly briefed, and such misrepresentations weakened the bail plea [Para 8].

Final Decision – Bail Application Rejected – Given the seriousness of the offence, involvement of the petitioner, and absconding co-accused, the court found it unfit to grant regular bail to the applicant [Para 9].