Income Tax – Quashing of Notices under Section 133(6) and 148 of the Income Tax Act – Petitioner challenged the issuance of notices under Section 133(6) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21 – Petitioner argued that the income in question (sales commission of ₹14,58,004/-) had already been disclosed in his original income tax return, and a reply was submitted in response to the notice under Section 133(6) – High Court found that the revenue wrongly assumed the petitioner did not respond to the notice and that the income was undisclosed – Held: Notices under Section 133(6) and Section 148 were issued without proper application of mind and are quashed [Paras 1-6, 17].

Income Escapement – Non-Application of Mind – The petitioner submitted a reply under Section 133(6), clearly reflecting that the commission income was already disclosed in his ITR – Despite this, the revenue issued a notice under Section 148, claiming that the commission was not included in the taxable turnover – The Court held that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 without considering the petitioner's reply constituted a lack of due diligence and non-application of mind by the revenue authorities [Paras 6-10, 17].

Faceless Assessment – Jurisdictional Error – High Court held that the notices under Section 148 were issued by an officer who was not competent, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the judgment in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India – The court reiterated that notices must be issued by the correct jurisdictional officer and in compliance with the faceless assessment scheme under Section 144B of the Act [Paras 18].

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Notices under Section 133(6) dated 16.12.2022, 26.12.2022, and 06.01.2023, and notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2024 quashed – All further proceedings based on these notices also quashed – Petitioner’s tax assessment for AY 2020-21 already included the commission income, and the revenue's action was held as without legal basis [Paras 19-20].

Bail - Hostile Witness – Testimony’s Value – Not Entirely Disregarded – The victim initially incriminated the applicant during her examination-in-chief, but later retracted during cross-examination – Held: Testimony of a hostile witness cannot be wholly disregarded – The court should scrutinize the evidence and rely on parts that remain credible and consistent with the prosecution’s case [Para 7].

Delayed Cross-Examination – Manipulation of Witness – Fair Trial – The victim's cross-examination was deferred by two months, and during this time, the applicant may have influenced the witness – Held: Deferring cross-examination for such a long period without valid reason can lead to manipulation of witnesses, as observed in Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab – A fair trial requires prompt and continuous examination to prevent witness tampering [Paras 8-10].

Bail Denied – Manipulation of Witness and Seriousness of Charges – Given the seriousness of the charges, the manipulation of the victim's testimony, and the circumstances leading to the delay in cross-examination, the court found no grounds to grant bail – Bail application rejected [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Bail application rejected – The court emphasized the seriousness of the charges, potential manipulation of the witness, and the need for a fair trial without interference – The trial court was directed to expedite the trial in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court [Paras 11-13].

Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Prima Facie Marriage Dispute – Necessity to Establish Valid Marriage – The petitioner denied that the opposite party (Respondent No. 2) was his legally married wife and argued that she was his maid. The petitioner claimed to have been married to another woman since 1979 and provided documentary evidence, including a marriage invitation card and family nomination forms. The trial court erroneously concluded that the marriage was undisputed and awarded interim maintenance – Held: The court below must examine the disputed question of whether the opposite party is the petitioner's legally married wife before granting interim maintenance. The impugned order was set aside [Paras 6-9].

Wife Under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Legal Definition – Need for Valid Marriage – The term "wife" under Section 125 Cr.P.C. refers to a legally married wife. In cases where the marriage is seriously disputed, the claimant must prima facie establish the existence of a valid marriage before any maintenance order can be made – Held: Prima facie proof of marriage is required even in summary proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The trial court must re-examine the issue after allowing both parties to present evidence [Paras 7-9].

Perverse Finding by Lower Court – Misinterpretation of Disputed Marriage – The trial court erred in holding that the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was undisputed, despite the petitioner's consistent denial and submission of evidence showing an existing marriage with another woman. This finding was perverse – Held: The trial court's order was based on an erroneous conclusion and was set aside [Paras 6, 9].

Opportunity for Fresh Hearing on Maintenance – Directions to Lower Court – The High Court directed the lower court to rehear the application for interim maintenance, allowing both parties to submit documents and evidence regarding the disputed marriage and other issues. The trial court was instructed to pass a fresh order within eight weeks – Held: The lower court must consider the disputed marital relationship and other issues afresh without being influenced by previous findings [Para 9].

Decision – CRR 2554 of 2019 allowed – The interim maintenance order dated 05.04.2019 was set aside, and the case was remanded to the lower court for a fresh hearing. Consequently, CRR 326 of 2024 was also allowed, and the execution proceeding was quashed [Paras 9-11].

Preventive Detention – Non-Application of Mind – Failure to Consider Bail Orders – Detention order quashed  - The petitioner was granted bail in all the FIRs mentioned in the detention order, yet the detention order failed to mention the grant of bail – Held: Non-mentioning of bail orders indicates non-application of mind by the detaining authority, thus rendering the detention order invalid [Paras 10-11].

Delay in Passing Detention Order – Absence of Proximate Link with FIRs – The detention order was passed nine months after the registration of the last FIR – Held: Lack of a proximate link between the grounds of detention and the FIRs undermines the legitimacy of the detention order [Paras 13-14].

Failure to Consider Representation – Violation of Constitutional Rights – The petitioner’s representation was not considered by the authorities despite being submitted through proper channels – Held: Non-consideration of the representation constitutes a violation of the constitutional and legal guarantees, further invalidating the detention order [Paras 15-16].

Provision of Grounds of Detention – No Prejudice Caused to Petitioner – The petitioner was provided with the grounds of detention and requisite documents within the statutory period, and he was informed of his right to make a representation – Held: The petitioner’s contention that he was not informed about his rights to make a representation is baseless [Para 14].

Decision: Detention order quashed – The court held that the failure to consider bail orders and the delay in passing the detention order demonstrated non-application of mind – The non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation violated constitutional rights – Accordingly, the detention order passed by the District Magistrate, Kathua, is quashed, and the petitioner is to be released from custody unless required in any other case [Paras 17-19].

Appointment of Election Officer – Jurisdiction of Registrar – Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules – Interpretation and Applicability – The petitioners challenged the removal of the Election Officer (Surja Ram Bishnoi) and the appointment of a new Election Officer (Manju Saharan) under Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules, arguing that Rule 11 applies only to elections under Section 26 of the Act, not Section 13, which governs subsequent elections – Court held: Rule 11 of the 2004 Rules is transitory, intended for the first elections under Section 26, but due to legislative omission (casus omissus), the court read Rule 11 as applicable to elections under Section 13 as well to avoid absurdity – The Registrar's intervention in the election process was valid [Paras 60-101].

Violation of Natural Justice – Non-Issuance of Notice to Election Officer – Rule 11(6) of 2004 Rules – Petitioners argued that the removal of the Election Officer without notice violated natural justice – Court held: Though Rule 11(7) does not explicitly require issuing notice, principles of natural justice should have been followed – Failure to issue notice made the order arbitrary [Paras 69-70].

Public Place for Elections – Definition and Compliance with Rule 11(6) – The respondents alleged that the election venue chosen (Virasat Vidhyapeeth, a private school) was not a public place as required by Rule 11(6) – Court held: A private school can qualify as a public place for election purposes unless there is a concern about transparency – The Registrar could have changed the venue but not removed the Election Officer based on venue concerns alone [Paras 110-115].

Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Filling Legislative Gaps – Rule 11 Applied to Subsequent Elections – Court applied the doctrine of casus omissus, holding that the absence of a provision analogous to Rule 11 for subsequent elections under Section 13 was an inadvertent legislative error – To avoid absurdity and chaos, the court read Rule 11 as applicable to elections under Section 13 [Paras 73-101].

Election Conducted by Both Election Officers – Legality – Elections were held by both the removed and the newly appointed Election Officers, leading to two competing elected bodies – Court held: Both elections were illegal – The earlier Election Officer (Surja Ram Bishnoi) should not have conducted elections after his removal, and the appointment of the new Election Officer (Manju Saharan) was also illegal following the quashing of the impugned order [Paras 122-123].

Decision: Order dated 24.05.2024 quashed – The court declared the removal of the Election Officer and the appointment of a new Election Officer illegal – Both sets of elections conducted by the removed and newly appointed Election Officers were invalid – The court directed fresh elections to be conducted under the supervision of the original Election Officer (Surja Ram Bishnoi) from the stage of filing nominations, with the Registrar appointing a new observer [Paras 120-129].

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Dismissal of Bank Officer – Disciplinary Findings Upheld – The petitioner, a Branch Manager, was charged with various irregularities, including sanctioning loans in violation of banking norms and misappropriating funds, leading to significant financial loss for the bank. Despite being acquitted in a related criminal case, the petitioner was dismissed after a departmental enquiry found him guilty based on documentary evidence – Held: The disciplinary proceedings were conducted following principles of natural justice. The findings and penalty of dismissal were based on strong evidence and were not perverse. The writ petition was dismissed [Paras 17, 26-27].

Distinction Between Criminal Acquittal and Departmental Proceedings – Different Standards of Proof – Departmental Findings Stand Despite Criminal Acquittal – The petitioner argued that his acquittal in a criminal case related to the same charges should result in exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings. The court held that the standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings differ. While criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, departmental proceedings are based on a preponderance of probability – Held: The criminal acquittal does not affect the findings of the disciplinary authority, which were based on adequate evidence [Paras 23, 25].

Natural Justice – Fair Conduct of Disciplinary Proceedings – Petitioner's Rights Protected – The petitioner claimed that the disciplinary proceedings violated principles of natural justice. However, the court found that the petitioner was given opportunities to examine witnesses, access documents, and present his defense – Held: The disciplinary authority followed due process, and the petitioner’s rights were adequately protected [Paras 4-5, 19].

Proportionality of Punishment – Dismissal Appropriate for Misconduct Involving Financial Loss – The petitioner contended that his dismissal was disproportionate to the charges. The court held that the magnitude of the financial loss caused by the petitioner’s misconduct justified the penalty of dismissal, especially given his position of responsibility in a nationalized bank – Held: The penalty was proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct [Paras 20, 25].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, rejecting his claim for reinstatement and other benefits. The court found that the disciplinary authority's decision was well-reasoned and based on sufficient evidence [Paras 26-27].

Rejection of Plaint - Partnership Act – Bar on Unregistered Firm Filing Suit – Applicability of Section 69 – Applicant (defendant) contended that the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent (plaintiff) was barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act as the plaintiff firm was not properly registered, and the person filing the suit was not a partner at the time of filing – Court held: Deeds of Reconstitution of the firm (2001, 2020) showed Vishal Kele was inducted as a partner prior to the suit, and the certificate from the Registrar of Firms retroactively confirmed his status as a partner – Hence, there was no bar under Section 69 – Application for rejection of plaint dismissed [Paras 7-10].

Partnership Act – Retroactive Effect of Registration – Validity of Suit – Respondent firm’s registration certificate, showing the name of Vishal Kele as a partner, was updated after filing the suit but with retroactive effect from 2001 – Court noted that the retroactive entry of Kele’s name as a partner in the Register of Firms was valid and did not bar the filing of the suit – Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Gwalior Oil Mills vs. Supreme Industries, the court observed that the firm's registration and the retrospective entry in the Register were sufficient for compliance with Section 69 [Paras 9-10].

Specific Performance Suit – Statutory and Common Law Rights – Section 69 Not a Bar – Even if the registration of the firm were in question, the court cited Supreme Court rulings to hold that suits for enforcing statutory or common law rights, such as specific performance of a contract, are not barred by Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act – The court emphasized that the respondent firm’s suit was for enforcing its business dealings, which was permissible even without strict registration compliance [Paras 11-12].

Rejection of Plaint – Grounds for Rejection under Order VII Rule 11 – The applicant's request for rejection of the plaint on grounds of non-registration of the partnership firm and lack of standing was dismissed – The court found that the grounds raised did not meet the criteria for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, and no legal infirmity was found in the lower court’s decision to proceed with the suit [Paras 6, 12].

Decision – Civil Revision Application dismissed – Trial court’s order rejecting the application for rejection of plaint upheld [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Education Rights of Prisoners – Petitioner, an accused in a criminal case involving serious charges under the Indian Penal Code and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, seeks direction to grant admission to the LL.B. course in Siddharth College of Law – Petitioner appeared for the Maharashtra CET law examination under permission from the Special Court, passed the examination, and was provisionally allotted a seat – Held: Imprisonment does not restrict the right to pursue education, and denying the petitioner admission despite following due process would violate fundamental rights – The court allowed the petitioner to take admission, subject to the university and college rules on attendance and eligibility [Paras 1-9].

Right to Education – Fundamental Right – Petitioner argued that education is a fundamental right and sought permission to complete the admission process while being in jail – Respondents opposed the petition, citing mandatory attendance requirements for the LL.B. course, stating the petitioner would be unable to meet the 75% attendance requirement due to his incarceration – The Court held that denying admission on this ground would violate the petitioner's right to education – However, no exemption from attendance requirements was granted, and the petitioner is subject to all rules applicable to other candidates, including attendance [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Directions to University and Law College – The Court directed Siddharth College of Law to consider allowing the petitioner's authorized representative to complete the admission process or to take the petitioner’s signature on necessary documents from the prison – Clarified that the petitioner is not exempt from fulfilling attendance or other course requirements, and the college may refuse permission to sit for exams if criteria are unmet – Petition allowed in these terms [Paras 9-11].
 

Specific Performance – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Bar of Limitation – The Plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement from 1989, cancellation of a sale deed from 2011, and declaration of ownership of the suit property. The defendant filed for rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, contending that the suit was barred by limitation, as the agreement was undated, unstamped, unregistered, and mentioned a mobile number which did not exist in 1989. Held: The suit was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed after 31 years, and the agreement was prima facie fabricated – Application under Order VII Rule 11 allowed – Suit dismissed [Paras 3-4, 7-10].

Declaratory Relief and Specific Performance – Delay in Filing Suit – The plaintiff claimed ownership based on an agreement from 1989 but did not act on it until 2020, even after the original owner’s death in 1996 and subsequent mutation entries. The court held that the plaintiff’s inaction for over three decades and failure to challenge mutation entries was fatal to the claim – The delay indicated the plaintiff's lack of rights over the property, and the suit was barred by limitation [Paras 3.2, 8-9].

Limitation Act – Issue of Limitation as a Mixed Question of Law and Fact – The trial court had refused to dismiss the suit under Order VII Rule 11, holding that the issue of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact. The High Court rejected this reasoning, stating that when facts are clear and undeniable from the pleadings, the suit can be dismissed at the threshold without leading evidence – Limitation is not always a mixed question of fact and law [Paras 6, 10.1].

Fraudulent Claims and Vexatious Litigation – The court noted that the plaintiff's case appeared to be an attempt to create nuisance and extract concessions from the defendant by reviving a long-dormant and likely fabricated claim – Such vexatious claims must be dismissed at the outset to prevent abuse of the legal process [Paras 10, 10.1].

Agricultural Land Act – Section 43A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 – The suit property was governed by the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, which required permission for sale under Section 43A. The purported 1989 agreement did not mention obtaining such permission, further rendering the agreement invalid [Paras 3.2, 8].

Decision: The impugned order of the trial court dated 10.04.2023 rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 is set aside – The suit is rejected as it is barred by limitation – The Civil Revision Application is allowed [Paras 11-13].