Bail Application – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Prima Facie Case Against Accused – Rejection Upheld – The appellants, accused of recruiting individuals for a proscribed organization, filed for bail under UAPA – The trial court rejected their applications, citing the bar under Section 43-D(5) UAPA – Held: The prosecution presented credible material including witness testimonies and documentary evidence linking the appellants to CPI (Maoist) – The threshold under Section 43-D(5) UAPA requires only a prima facie case, not conclusive proof – The burden is on the accused to disprove allegations, which they failed to do – Bail rightly denied [Paras 7-10].

Burden of Proof – Standard for Bail Under UAPA – Section 43-D(5) UAPA – Stringent Conditions Applied – The defense argued that CMS (Chaitanya Mahila Sangham), to which the accused belonged, is not a banned organization – However, the prosecution produced letters, protected witness statements, and identification records linking the appellants to CPI (Maoist) – Held: Under Section 43-D(5) UAPA, if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true, bail must be denied – The evidence sufficiently established the accused’s role in radicalization and recruitment activities [Paras 8-9].

Delay in FIR – Impact on Prosecution – Not a Ground for Bail – The appellants contended that the de facto complainant reported her daughter’s disappearance after four years, weakening the prosecution’s case – Held: Delay in filing an FIR, though a factor for consideration, is not fatal if the prosecution can justify it – The complainant consistently maintained that her daughter was misled and recruited into the Maoist cadre – The investigative agencies corroborated the claims with independent material, making delay irrelevant [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Criminal Appeals Dismissed – Bail Denied – The High Court found the trial court’s decision to be legally sound – Considering the gravity of the offense and the prima facie case established, the appellants were not entitled to bail under Section 43-D(5) UAPA – No interference warranted – Appeals dismissed [Paras 10-11].
 

Civil Writ - Public Employment – Prescribed Qualification vs. Equivalent Qualification – KPSC’s Inconsistent Approach Struck Down – The petitioners contended that their qualifications, recognized by government institutions, were equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the recruitment notification – The Court found that the KPSC had arbitrarily excluded them despite initially considering them eligible – Held: Once KPSC accepted the qualifications and included the petitioners in the shortlist, their later exclusion was unjustified [Paras 9-10].

Recruitment Process – Equivalence of Qualifications – Supreme Court’s Observations on KPSC’s Inconsistency – The Supreme Court in Anoop M v. Gireeshkumar T.M. emphasized that equivalence applied to institutions rather than qualifications themselves – The Kerala High Court reiterated that KPSC could not reject candidates possessing qualifications from government-approved institutions when the same were accepted in previous selections – Held: KPSC’s rejection of candidates without a proper assessment was arbitrary and violative of settled principles of public employment [Paras 7-8].

KPSC’s Duty – Transparent and Fair Selection Process – Non-Speaking Orders on Exclusion Invalid – The Court noted that KPSC had sent official messages to candidates confirming their eligibility, only to later exclude them without valid reasoning – Held: The rejection of the petitioners’ names from the final rank list was arbitrary, and they must be reinstated in accordance with merit [Paras 8-9].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Petitioners to be Included in Rank List – The Court directed KPSC to include all petitioners who were originally shortlisted and whose qualifications were accepted, ensuring their placement in the final rank list according to merit – Held: Writ petitions allowed, and all interlocutory applications closed [Para 10].
 

Taxation Law - Transfer Pricing – International Transaction – AMP Expenses – Absence of Agreement – No Adjustment Required – The Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) treated AMP expenses incurred by the assessee as an "international transaction" for brand-building for its Associated Enterprise (AE) and made an adjustment – The ITAT held that the Revenue failed to establish the existence of an "international transaction" as defined under Section 92B of the Income Tax Act – Held: The existence of an international transaction cannot be inferred merely based on high AMP expenditure, and there must be an arrangement, agreement, or understanding between the parties to trigger transfer pricing provisions – ITAT's decision upheld [Paras 4, 10, 29-30].

Transfer Pricing – Benchmarking Analysis – Revenue’s Burden to Prove International Transaction – The Revenue contended that excessive AMP expenditure resulted in a transfer pricing adjustment – The Court held that before undertaking benchmarking analysis, the Revenue must first establish the existence of an international transaction with tangible evidence – Mere comparison with industry standards or other entities' AMP expenditures does not justify a transfer pricing adjustment – ITAT’s decision to quash the addition upheld [Paras 7, 23-24].

Bright Line Test – Not a Valid Basis for Transfer Pricing Adjustment – The TPO applied the "Bright Line Test" (BLT) to determine excess AMP expenditure benefiting the AE – The Court referred to the decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. CIT and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India (P.) Ltd. v. CIT, reaffirming that BLT has no statutory basis and cannot be used to determine the existence of an international transaction – The Revenue's approach of inferring a transaction based on excess AMP expenditure rejected [Paras 26-27, 60, 62].

Transfer Pricing – Relationship with AE Alone Not Sufficient to Presume International Transaction – The Revenue argued that AMP expenditure benefited the foreign AE and thus should be considered an international transaction – The Court rejected this argument, holding that the mere existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship does not automatically imply an obligation to incur AMP expenses on behalf of the AE – The Tribunal's finding that no agreement or arrangement existed was upheld [Paras 9, 11, 29].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – ITAT’s order upheld – Transfer pricing adjustment on AMP expenditure deleted – Revenue failed to establish the existence of an international transaction.

Taxation Law - Reassessment Proceedings – Requirement of Failure to Disclose Material Facts – Jurisdictional Condition – Section 147 of the Income-tax Act – Reassessment notice issued after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year must satisfy the condition that income escaped assessment due to failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts – In the present case, reassessment proceedings were initiated without establishing such failure – Held: Reassessment proceedings are invalid and without jurisdiction [Paras 20-23].

Reassessment Proceedings – Bar Under Third Proviso to Section 147 – Where the subject matter of reassessment is pending in appeal before the appellate authority, reassessment proceedings on the same issue are barred – In the present case, the issue of "guarantee fee" was already under appeal before the Tribunal – Held: Reassessment proceedings initiated on the same issue are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed [Paras 24-25].

Reassessment Proceedings – Absence of Fresh Tangible Material – Change of Opinion Not Permissible – Reassessment cannot be initiated based on the same material that was already considered during original assessment – The reasons for reopening did not rely on any new material – Held: The reassessment proceedings amount to a mere change of opinion, which is impermissible in law [Paras 22-23, 26].

Notice under Section 148 – Compliance by Treating Original Return as Response – An assessee is not barred from challenging reassessment proceedings merely for not filing a fresh return in response to Section 148 notice – If the assessee requests the department to treat the previously filed return as a response, it constitutes substantial compliance – Held: Petitioner complied with Section 148 notice requirements, and the reassessment order remains challengeable [Paras 28-29].

Quashing of Reassessment Proceedings – Absence of Jurisdictional Grounds – Section 147 & 148 of the Income-tax Act – Since there was full disclosure, the issue was already under appeal, and no fresh tangible material existed, the jurisdictional conditions under Section 147 were not satisfied – Held: The reassessment notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment order are quashed as without jurisdiction [Paras 27, 30-31].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Delay in Filing of Complaint – Continuous Offense – No Bar on Investigation – The petitioner contended that the complaint was lodged five years after the alleged incidents, rendering it politically motivated – The Court held that the complaint was not limited to events in 2019 but referred to a continuing pattern of conduct up to 2024 – Held: The investigation is not barred by delay since the allegations indicate a continuing offense [Paras 9-10].

Special Investigation Team (SIT) – Legality of Constitution – Officers Need Not Be Exclusively from CID – The petitioner argued that the SIT was improperly constituted since not all its members were from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) – The Court clarified that while the head of the SIT was from CID, other members could be drawn from different departments – Held: The constitution of SIT was legal and within the State Government's powers [Paras 11-12].

Power of SIT to File Report – Direction to Submit Report to Government Does Not Vitiate Investigation – The petitioner contended that since the SIT was directed to submit its report to the Government instead of the Court, the investigation was vitiated – Relying on precedents, the Court held that such a direction does not preclude the SIT from filing its final report before the jurisdictional court – Held: The notification constituting the SIT does not render the investigation illegal or without jurisdiction [Paras 12-13].

CID as a Police Station – Authority to Investigate and Register Cases – The Court referred to the Government Notification dated 12-01-2024, declaring CID as a police station for the entire state of Karnataka – Held: CID officers investigating the case were acting within their legal authority, and the investigation was valid [Para 14].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – No Grounds for Quashing FIR – The Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it – Held: The FIR and investigation shall continue as per law [Para 15].

Civil Procedure – Injunction Against Title Holders – Maintainability – Petitioner sought an interim injunction restraining respondents (title holders) from alienating the suit property, claiming a contractual right based on an unregistered sale agreement – Trial Court and Appellate Court rejected the claim, holding that an injunction cannot be granted against the rightful owners – Held: A person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the true owner – Mere existence of an agreement to sell does not create any ownership rights – Petition dismissed [Paras 14-16].

Professional Misconduct – Advocates Act – Ethical Violations – Counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Preethi Basker, was found to have engaged in professional misconduct, including conflict of interest, unethical financial dealings, and misrepresentation before the court – Held: Prima facie case of misconduct established – Direction issued to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the advocate – Matter referred for further inquiry [Paras 27-29].

Fraud and Misrepresentation – Sale Agreement – Suppression of Material Facts – Petitioner and his associates allegedly manipulated legal proceedings to extort money from respondents – Evidence of falsified transactions, fraudulent agreements, and intimidation tactics presented – Held: Such conduct amounts to abuse of judicial process – Proceedings directed to be scrutinized by the appropriate authorities [Paras 30-32].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and Appellate Court, confirming that the petitioner had no legal right to seek an injunction against the property owners – Directions issued for disciplinary and legal action against concerned individuals – No costs [Paras 68-69].
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of Summons - CBI Jurisdiction – Power to Investigate Non-PC Act Offences – The petitioner challenged the CBI's authority to continue investigating and filing a charge sheet after PC Act offences were dropped – The Court held that the CBI could continue investigating and submit a final report before the jurisdictional magistrate if non-PC Act offences were revealed – Held: The CBI had jurisdiction to prosecute private individuals even after excluding PC Act offences [Paras 14-21].

Committal of Case – Validity Under Section 306(5) Cr.P.C. – The petitioner contended that the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) wrongly committed the case to the Sessions Court – The Court held that under Section 306(5) Cr.P.C., once pardon is granted to an accused and accepted, the CJM must commit the case to the Sessions Court – Held: The committal was valid and in accordance with law [Paras 22-24].

Error in Court Summons – Clerical Mistake Not Affecting Jurisdiction – The petitioner argued that the summons issued incorrectly mentioned the Special Court for CBI cases instead of the Additional Sessions Court-III – The Court clarified that the Sessions Court had lawfully taken cognizance and the clerical error did not prejudice the petitioner – Held: The jurisdiction was not affected, and the trial remained valid [Paras 25-29].

Framing of Charges – Challenge to Valuer’s Prosecution Not Sustainable at Pre-Trial Stage – The petitioner, a valuer, claimed he was merely performing professional duties and could not be prosecuted – The Court noted that allegations suggested active involvement in the conspiracy, which required trial – Held: Quashing was unwarranted as the charges had already been framed, and trial proceedings were ongoing [Paras 30-34].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Trial to Proceed Expeditiously – The Court found no merit in the petition and directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months – Held: The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to contest charges during trial [Paras 35-36].
 

Matrimonial Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Burden of Proof on Petitioner – Appellant sought divorce under Section 10(1)(ix) & (x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, alleging that the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home, subjected him to cruelty, and filed false complaints – Respondent denied allegations, stating that the appellant was living with another woman and that she was forced to file complaints – High Court held: Mere allegations without substantive evidence do not constitute cruelty or desertion – Divorce cannot be granted in the absence of clear proof of grave and weighty conduct making cohabitation impossible [Paras 8-10, 15-16].

Evidence Law – Admissibility and Weight of Evidence – Unrebutted Testimony Insufficient – The appellant’s evidence was not corroborated by independent witnesses – Respondent’s evidence was eschewed due to her failure to appear for cross-examination – High Court ruled that even in such a scenario, the appellant bears the burden of proving cruelty and desertion, which he failed to discharge – Failure to examine independent witnesses further weakened his case [Paras 11-12, 15].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Not a Ground for Divorce Under Indian Divorce Act, 1869 – Appellant relied on precedents supporting dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown – High Court held: Mere separation and strained relations do not automatically justify divorce under the Act – Unlike Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 does not recognize irretrievable breakdown as a standalone ground for divorce [Paras 17-18].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No costs awarded [Paras 19-20].
 

Service Law – Delay in Pension and Gratuity Payment – Writ Allowed – The petitioner’s husband, a former Civil Judge (Senior Division), was dismissed from service on 28.02.2001, but his dismissal was quashed by the High Court on 09.03.2018 – Despite this, pension and gratuity were not released until March 2024 – Held: Denial of pension and gratuity despite the setting aside of dismissal was arbitrary and illegal – Pension is not a bounty but a right under Article 300-A of the Constitution – Interest on delayed payment ordered [Paras 3.1-4.4].

Administrative Lapses – Failure to Release Provisional Pension – Unjustified Hardship to Widow – Despite the High Court’s 2018 ruling quashing the dismissal, neither provisional pension nor family pension was released until 2024 – Held: Delay in pensionary benefits caused undue hardship to the widow of the deceased officer – Pension rules mandate that provisional pension must be paid immediately after retirement – Withholding pension without legal justification is impermissible [Paras 3.2-4.2].

Judicial Review – Recovery of Subsistence Allowance Illegal – Violation of Rules – Respondents attempted to recover subsistence allowance paid during the deceased’s suspension from 17.08.1996 to 30.06.1999 – Held: Such recovery is illegal under Punjab Civil Services Rules, as the suspension period was later regularized – Government cannot recover subsistence allowance unless misconduct is proven, which was not the case here [Paras 3.5-3.6].

Final Decision – Writ Allowed – Compensation and Interest Granted – High Court directed the respondents to:

•    Pay interest at 10% per annum on delayed pension from 01.07.1999 till payment.
•    Pay interest at 10% per annum on delayed family pension from 03.10.2021 till payment.
•    Pay interest at 10% per annum on delayed gratuity from 09.03.2018 till realization.
•    Consider representation for retrospective promotion within 30 days.
•    Pay ₹25,000 as exemplary costs to the petitioner within 60 days.