Civil Law - Minor’s Property – Sale Without Court Permission – Sale Partly Void – Plaintiffs, minors at the time of the sale, challenged the sale deed executed by their father without court permission for their undivided 2/3rd share in inherited property – Held: As per Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, such alienation without court sanction is void to the extent of minor’s share – Sale deed is not binding on plaintiffs' 2/3rd share [Paras 18-20, 27-28].

Suit by Minor – Representation by Maternal Grandfather – Validity Upheld – Suit was filed by plaintiffs as minors through their maternal grandfather – Held: Maternal grandfather was competent to act as next friend under Order 32 Rule 1 CPC in absence of both parents; no prior court appointment was necessary where next friend status was not challenged in time and both plaintiffs later prosecuted the case after attaining majority [Paras 15-17].

Burden of Proof – Validity of Sale Deed – Onus Lies on Plaintiffs in Declaration Suit – The appellate court properly evaluated the evidence, including inconsistencies in the creditor's pronote and suspicious elements in the sale – Failure to examine creditor or prove legal necessity weakened the defendant's case – Held: Sale was not for legal necessity and lacked bona fides [Paras 21-22].

Guardianship – Alienation by Father Acting as Guardian – Court Sanction Mandatory – Plaintiffs’ father, though natural guardian, had not obtained court permission before selling immovable property of minors – Alienation invalid under Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act [Paras 19-20].

Final Decision – Second Appeal Partly Allowed – High Court modified the appellate decree and held that the sale deed dated 25-06-2001 was void and not binding on plaintiffs to the extent of their 2/3rd undivided share – Deed valid only for the father’s 1/3rd share [Para 28].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Direct Approach to High Court – Permissibility in Special Circumstances – Application Allowed – Applicant directly approached the High Court bypassing Sessions Court citing rejection of interim protection to co-accused and risk of similar denial – Court held that special circumstances were made out, particularly due to applicant’s young age and academic commitments – Preliminary objection overruled [Paras 2–9].

Dowry Death Allegation – Discrepancy Between FIR and Medical Evidence – Bail Granted – FIR alleged strangulation by co-accused (mother), implicating the applicant and family – However, postmortem showed ligature mark with cause of death as hanging, and no injury elsewhere – No direct allegations against applicant – Bail granted considering lack of prima facie material and academic background of applicant [Paras 10–16].

Anticipatory Bail – Bail Not Barred by Prior Writ Dismissal – Distinct Remedies – Held – Withdrawal of earlier writ petition for FIR quashing did not preclude filing anticipatory bail – Anticipatory bail considered independently on its own merits [Para 15].

Decision – Anticipatory Bail Granted – Applicant to be released on personal bond and sureties in event of arrest or appearance, subject to conditions including cooperation, non-interference with investigation, and presence before trial court [Paras 16–17].
 

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].
 

Electricity Law - Electricity Tariff – Excessive Delegation – Regulation 4.4 of WBERC Tariff Regulations Struck Down – Petition Allowed in Part – Petitioners challenged Regulation 4.4 that permitted licensees to impose “restricted drawal” limits and charge double rates for exceeding them – Held: Regulation confers uncanalised and arbitrary powers on licensees to unilaterally restrict contracted load without notice, guidelines or accountability – Violates Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) – Results in sub-delegation of tariff powers beyond scope of Sections 61 and 181 of the Electricity Act – Court struck down Regulation 4.4 prospectively and directed WBERC to issue new guidelines with safeguards, timelines, expert oversight and consumer rights [Paras 31–51, 53].

Natural Justice and Tariff Law – Arbitrary Penalty without Hearing – Procedural Safeguards Missing – Violation Found – Court noted that the regulation imposed financial penalty without giving consumers opportunity to respond or contest the imposition of drawal restrictions – Held: Levy of double charge without prior notice or hearing violates natural justice – No proportionality or scientific basis for penalty quantum – Directions issued for future regulatory framework to include hearings, expert damage assessment, and protection of contracted demand [Paras 36–45, 53].

Decision – Regulation 4.4 Quashed – Prospective Operation – DVC Billing Dispute Left to Redressal Authority – Calcutta High Court struck down Regulation 4.4 as unconstitutional and violative of the Electricity Act – Ruling applied prospectively – Disputes regarding past overdrawal charges to be resolved by appropriate grievance redressal forums – DVC and other licensees directed to cease enforcement of current drawal restrictions imposed under Regulation 4.4 [Paras 52–56].

Criminal Law – Murder - Section 302, 34 IPC  - Accid Attack - Conviction Based on Sole Eyewitness – Acceptability of Single Witness Testimony – Upheld – The conviction was based substantially on the testimony of the deceased's brother, who was an eyewitness to the occurrence – Held: Statement of a single eyewitness is sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence – Evidence of PW-10 Sanjay Rawat was detailed, corroborated by medical and forensic reports, and found to be credible [Paras 16–18].

Acid Attack – Chemical Burns Leading to Death – Sulphuric Acid Detected on Clothes and Vehicle – Cause of Death Established – Medical evidence confirmed death due to chemical burns – Forensic Science Laboratory found sulphuric acid traces on clothes of accused and seat cover of vehicle – Held: Recovery and expert reports corroborated ocular account and established guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 17, 20].

Motive – Employment Termination and Personal Grudge – Considered but Not Essential – Rajni’s removal from employment by victim's brother-in-law was cited as motive – Held: Even in absence of motive, clear and cogent direct evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction [Para 17].

Non-Conduct of Test Identification Parade – Not Fatal – Accused Known to Witness – No TIP conducted for Rajni – Held: TIP not required when accused is already known to witness and is named in FIR – Non-identification of other co-accused in FIR strengthens natural course of prosecution narrative [Paras 17, 19].

Delayed Appeal Hearing – No Prejudice Established – Appeal Dismissed on Merits – Appeal filed in 2004 remained pending for 23 years – Held: Delay in hearing did not result in miscarriage of justice – Conviction sustainable on strength of unshaken prosecution evidence [Para 2].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Conviction Under Section 302/34 IPC Upheld – Life Imprisonment Affirmed – The Division Bench found no merit in the appeal, upholding the trial court’s findings and sentence – Acid attack resulting in death proven through consistent eyewitness account and corroborative forensic evidence [Paras 21].

Civil Law -  Mutation - Inheritance – Succession of Issueless Hindu Male – Mother as Class-I Heir – Mutation in Favour of Class-II Heirs Invalid – Upon the death of Pritam Singh, who died issueless, his mother Smt. Santo was alive and the only Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act – Mutation of his share in land in favour of his siblings and sister Daro was illegal – Held: The entire remaining estate of 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved solely on his mother, and not on collateral heirs [Paras 3–5].

Transfer of Property – Applicability of Section 41 TPA – Bonafide Purchaser Protection Denied – No Ostensible Ownership – Sale deeds executed by Mehma Singh and Santo in excess of Santo's inherited share were wrongly protected by the First Appellate Court under Section 41 of the TPA – Supreme Court precedent in Hardev Singh v. Gurmail Singh, (2007) 2 SCC 404, laid down mandatory conditions for invoking Section 41, including ostensible ownership and due diligence – None satisfied – Held: Section 41 not attracted and transfers to that extent invalid [Paras 6–7].

Principle of Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet – Sale by Stranger to Title – Invalid Transfer – Reiterated that no individual can transfer better title than he lawfully owns – Sale by Mehma Singh of property not inherited by him from Pritam Singh was void and ineffectual against rightful successors [Para 7].

Revenue Mutation – Erroneous Entry Caused Litigation – Revenue Authorities Directed to Rectify Records – Mutation wrongly included land already sold by Pritam Singh and did not limit inheritance to the mother – Court directed Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, to correct mutation, restrict Santo’s title to 3 kanals 3 marlas and disregard excess sales by others – Directed compliance report within two months [Paras 9–10].

Decision: Appeal Allowed in Part – Mutation to be Rectified – Directions to Revenue Authorities – Court allowed the appeal with direction to correct revenue entries – Only 3 kanals 3 marlas devolved upon Smt. Santo and sale by her upheld to that extent – Financial Commissioner to ensure implementation and submit compliance [Paras 9–11].

Motor Accident Claim – Compensation for Permanent Disability – Enhancement Allowed – The claimant, aged 48 years and engaged in dairy farming, suffered 60% permanent disability in a road accident and remained hospitalized for nearly a month – The Tribunal awarded a lump sum of Rs. 2,60,000 without assessing future loss of income, pain, or other non-pecuniary damages – Held: Applying the settled law from Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Pranay Sethi, the High Court reassessed monthly income at Rs. 2100, applied a multiplier of 13, and awarded compensation under various heads including pain, suffering, and loss of amenities – Enhanced compensation of Rs. 9,06,854 with 9% interest from date of petition awarded [Paras 6–12].

Compensation Calculation – Application of Minimum Wages and Multiplier – Just and Reasonable Compensation – Appellant's monthly income fixed at Rs. 2100 per minimum wages for skilled labour in Punjab – Future prospects @ 25% added – 60% disability applied on annual income, and multiplier of 13 used for assessing future income loss – Additionally, Rs. 3 lakhs for pain and suffering, Rs. 2 lakhs for attendant charges, Rs. 2 lakhs for loss of amenities, and other conventional heads quantified – Tribunal had failed to follow settled principles in assessing just compensation [Paras 6, 10].

Interest on Compensation – Applicable Rate and Period – Interest @ 9% per annum granted – Following ratio in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara and R. Valli v. Tamil Nadu STC, Court ordered interest on enhanced amount from date of petition till realization – Insurance Company directed to deposit within 2 months [Para 11].

Final Relief – Compensation Enhanced – Original award of Rs. 2,60,000 enhanced to Rs. 11,66,854 – Enhanced amount of Rs. 9,06,854 directed to be paid by Insurance Company with 9% interest – Insurance Company to disburse advocate's fee and payment to claimant’s bank account as directed [Paras 12–13].

Bail – Regular Bail – Sections 148, 149, 307, 120-B, 201, 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Disclosure Statement Based Nomination – Bail Granted – The petitioner was not named in the FIR and was nominated based solely on the disclosure of a co-accused – No specific role or injury attributed to him – Petitioner in custody for over 9 months, with trial unlikely to conclude soon – Held: Continued detention serves no purpose – Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail subject to conditions [Paras 1, 3–5].

Injury Nature – Simple Injuries on Non-Vital Parts – Weighed in Grant of Bail – The alleged injuries to the victim were found to be simple and on non-vital areas – Held: These factors, along with absence of prior naming, favor grant of bail as per settled criminal jurisprudence [Para 4].

Delay in Trial – Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 – Prolonged Incarceration – Bail Justified – With challan filed and charges framed but no prosecution witness examined out of 33, Court noted likely delay in conclusion of trial – Held: Continued incarceration unjustified and violates Article 21 rights – Referred to Dataram v. State of U.P. and Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition Allowed – Trial Court Directed to Accept Bail Bonds – No Opinion on Merits – The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted regular bail – Trial Court directed to accept bail/surety bonds – Observations not to prejudice the trial [Para 5].

Civil Law - Registration Act – Section 17(2)(vi) – Decree Based on Compromise or Admission – Registration Not Required – Trial court’s direction to register decrees from 1988 under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act was set aside – Held: As the decrees were either based on compromise or admission and related to the suit property itself, they fall under the exclusion clause of Section 17(2)(vi) – Registration is not mandatory [Paras 14–22, 29(i)].

Limitation – Section 23 of Registration Act – Application for Registration Filed After 35 Years – Barred by Limitation – The application to register the decrees was filed in 2023—35 years after decree became final – Held: Barred under Section 23, which requires registration within four months from the date the decree becomes final [Paras 23–24, 29(ii)].

Jurisdiction – Section 32 of Registration Act – Decree Holder Must Present for Registration – Court Cannot Direct Registration – Application was erroneously moved before Civil Judge (Senior Division) to direct District Magistrate to register the decree – Held: Only decree holder may initiate registration as per Section 32 – Court has no power to suo motu initiate registration [Paras 25–26, 29(iii)].

Procedure – Non-joinder of Necessary Parties – Petition Defective – Legal heirs of deceased defendant Surjeet Singh were not impleaded in the application – Held: Fatal defect rendering the application non-maintainable [Para 28, 29(iv)].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Trial court order directing registration of decrees set aside as contrary to law and barred by limitation [Para 30–31].