Domestic Violence – Interim Monetary Compensation – Petitioner challenged the order of the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, enhancing interim monetary compensation from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 31,000 per month – Contention that an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act against an interim order is not maintainable – Court held that there is no bar on filing an appeal against an interim order under Section 29 of the DV Act – Interim orders passed under Section 23 of the DV Act are appealable [Paras 1-16].

Jurisdiction – Scope of Appeal under DV Act – Argument advanced by petitioner relying on Punjab & Haryana High Court decision, holding that no appeal lies against interim orders, rejected – Uttarakhand and Delhi High Courts’ decisions holding appeals maintainable against interim orders under DV Act endorsed – Legislature did not explicitly bar appeals against interim orders, thus they fall within purview of Section 29 of the DV Act [Paras 7-15].

Interim Order – Evaluation of Evidence – Order of the Trial Magistrate reducing interim compensation from Rs. 21,000 to Rs. 15,000 per month found cryptic and lacking reasons – 1^st Additional Sessions Judge’s detailed analysis and enhancement of interim compensation to Rs. 31,000 per month upheld – Findings based on petitioner’s substantial salary and children’s educational needs – No perversity in conclusions warranting High Court’s interference [Paras 17-21].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Appellate Court’s order – No gross failure of justice or violation of natural justice principles identified – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 not invoked to alter well-reasoned orders of subordinate courts [Para 22].

Criminal Law - Acquittal for Murder - Government Appeal against trial court’s judgment acquitting accused of murder charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Trial court convicted accused for causing simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC - Prosecution alleged that accused snatched a one-year-old child from her mother's lap and threw her on the ground, leading to her death - Post-mortem report indicated death due to shock and haemorrhage from a ruptured spleen with no external injuries - Prosecution witnesses' testimonies inconsistent and contradicted by medical evidence - Held, prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for murder - Acquittal for murder charges affirmed. [Paras 20-23, 36-39, 46-47]

Injury Causing - Conviction for Simple Injuries - Prosecution established that accused inflicted simple injuries on complainants during altercation - Medical evidence corroborated injuries consistent with blunt force trauma - Trial court’s finding of guilt under Section 323/34 IPC supported by consistent testimonies of injured witnesses and medical reports - Conviction for simple injuries upheld. [Paras 33-34, 48]

Procedural Aspects - Charges Framing - Discrepancy in charges framed by trial court noted - Separate charges for individual accused under Section 302 IPC and joint charges under Section 302/34 IPC - Alteration unexplained by prosecution - Emphasized importance of clarity in charges framing. [Para 45]

Decision - Dismissal of Government Appeal - Appeal challenging acquittal under Section 302/34 IPC dismissed - Trial court’s judgment affirmed - Conviction and sentence for simple injuries under Section 323/34 IPC sustained - No order as to costs. [Paras 49-51]

Insecticides Act – Prosecution of Employees without Company as Accused – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu quashed proceedings against petitioners, employees of Godrej Consumer Products Ltd., for offences under Sections 29(1)(a)(i) and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. – Petitioners challenged trial court’s process issuance without arraying the company as accused, arguing violation of Section 22 and Section 24 of the Act. – Court found the company’s inclusion necessary for proceeding against employees. – Proceedings and order against petitioners quashed. [Paras 1-13]

Legal Representation – Petitioners represented by Mr. Karman Singh Johal, Advocate. – Respondent represented by Mr. Dewakar Sharma, Dy. AG. [Intro]

Issue 1 – Company’s Absence in Complaint – Court observed that under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, prosecution against employees requires the company to be arraigned as an accused. – Reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy (2019) 3 SCC 797, emphasizing that vicarious liability of employees cannot be invoked without prosecuting the company. [Paras 9-12]

Issue 2 – Violation of Sections 22 and 24 – Not examined as determination of Issue 1 was sufficient to decide the matter. [Para 8]

Decision – Quashing of Proceedings – Held – The complaint proceedings against the petitioners pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, are quashed due to the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused. [Paras 13-14]

Principles of Natural Justice – Personal Hearing – The petitioner was not granted a personal hearing before the issuance of the impugned orders under Section 74 of the UPGST Act, despite requesting it in writing – Court emphasized that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory under Section 75(4) where any adverse decision is contemplated against the person charged – Reaffirmed the importance of personal hearings in ensuring compliance with natural justice [Paras 1-45].

Alternative Remedy – Availability – The argument by the State that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the Act was dismissed – Court held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition when there is a violation of principles of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction [Paras 7-10].

Interpretation of Statutes – Literal Rule and Casus Omissus – Court reiterated the principle that statutory provisions must be interpreted based on their clear and unambiguous language – Casus omissus should not be readily inferred and should be addressed only in cases of clear necessity supported by the statute itself [Paras 21-44].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Impugned orders dated 19.02.2024 and 27.04.2024 set aside – Matter remitted back to the proper officer to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order in accordance with statutory provisions [Para 45].

Appointment of Non-Teaching Staff – Requirement of Prior Approval – Appellant challenged the decision of the Single Judge which quashed the orders of the DIOS disapproving the appointment of the respondent as an Assistant Clerk – Argument that minority institutions are exempt from seeking prior approval as per Regulation 101 of the Act – Single Judge held Regulation 101 inapplicable to minority institutions, affirming the appointment of the respondent and directing financial sanction and salary payment – High Court held that Regulation 101 applies to all aided institutions, including minority institutions, and mandates prior DIOS approval – Judgment of Single Judge set aside [Paras 1-56].
Minority Educational Institutions – Regulatory Provisions – Applicability of Regulation 101 – Detailed examination of Regulation 101 which mandates prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions – Analysis of Supreme Court rulings affirming the regulation's applicability to both minority and non-minority institutions – Emphasis on the necessity of regulatory oversight for ensuring lawful appointments and proper utilization of state aid [Paras 44-53].
Recruitment Process – Validity of Appointment – The respondent's appointment as Assistant Clerk found invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Advertisement for the post lacked essential details and the appointment letter was deficient – High Court concluded that the appointment process was flawed and lacked transparency – Importance of adhering to prescribed procedures for fair and legitimate recruitment [Paras 30-34, 53-54].
Conclusion – Special Appeal Allowed – Single Judge's judgment reversed – Held – Regulation 101 of Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is fully applicable to aided minority institutions – Appointment of the respondent without prior DIOS approval is invalid – Directive issued for compliance with regulatory requirements in future recruitment processes [Paras 55-56].
Decision: Special Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of Single Judge set aside – Appointment of respondent as Assistant Clerk declared invalid due to non-compliance with Regulation 101 – Emphasis on mandatory prior DIOS approval for filling non-teaching posts in aided institutions, including minority institutions.
 

Income Tax – Exemption – Assessee, a charitable trust, transferred Rs. 20 crores of accumulated income to its Trust Fund Account and used it to make corpus donations to other charitable trusts – Assessing Officer (AO) denied exemption on this amount, treating it as deemed income under Sections 11(3)(c) and 11(3)(d) – ITAT allowed exemption under Section 11(1) for 15% of deemed income [Paras 1-9].

Utilization of Accumulated Income – The assessee argued that the temporary utilization of accumulated funds for donations, later reversed within two months, should not affect the exemption under Section 11(2) – ITAT upheld this view, citing that the funds were used for charitable purposes and quickly restored [Paras 10-25].

Legal Precedents – Reference made to the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Natwarlal Chowdhury Charity Trust, which held that accumulated income can be exempt under Section 11(1)(a) even if deemed income under Section 11(3) arises due to temporary non-compliance [Paras 6-10].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – ITAT's decision upheld – Accumulated income utilized for donations to other charitable trusts temporarily should not result in loss of exemption – Donations treated as application of income for charitable purposes, and 15% of deemed income allowed for exemption under Section 11(1) [Paras 29-31].

Ancestral vs. Self-Acquired Property – Suit by sons challenging the self-acquired nature of property decreed in favor of grandsons – Trial Court held land in village Salala as self-acquired based on a sale deed and land in village Pattar Kalan as ancestral – Appeals filed by both parties – First Appellate Court dismissed all appeals without considering application for additional evidence – High Court remanded matter to First Appellate Court for re-evaluation [Paras 1-15].

Additional Evidence – Appellants' application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC for producing additional evidence not decided by the First Appellate Court – High Court directed First Appellate Court to decide on the application and then re-evaluate the appeals – Emphasized statutory right to lead additional evidence and the necessity for Appellate Courts to consider such applications before final decision [Paras 10-14].

Relief – Judgments and decrees dated 07.02.1992 by the First Appellate Court set aside – Matters remanded back for fresh decision considering the application for additional evidence – Appellate Court directed to expedite decision within nine months [Paras 15-15].

Admission – Post-Graduate Medical Courses – Appellants challenged their exclusion from the merit list for Priority-III candidates in AFMS institutions due to lack of official seals on their sponsorship certificates – Learned Single Judge upheld the rejection – Appellants sought reconsideration and admission based on their NEET-PG 2023 ranks [Paras 1-11].

Sponsorship Certificates – Technical Deficiencies – Appellants argued that the absence of an official seal was a technical formality, not a mandatory requirement – Cited provisions from the Information Bulletin – Respondents failed to provide opportunities for rectifying the deficiency – Prior practice did not enforce this requirement strictly [Paras 12-20].

Legal Precedents – Procedural Relaxations – Appellants relied on Supreme Court rulings (Dolly Chhanda v. JEE, Chairman and S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh) emphasizing that procedural defects should not deprive candidates of admissions – Prior judgments supported the rectification of minor deficiencies [Paras 21-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Respondents directed to grant admission to appellants in the next academic year (2024-2025) based on NEET-PG 2023 ranks and chosen institutions – Sponsorship certificate deficiency deemed a procedural formality, not a ground for exclusion [Paras 29-36].
 

Land Acquisition – Quashing of Notification – Notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for urgent acquisition quashed by Single Judge – Appeal by landholders challenging land acquisition for university expansion – High Court upholds quashing of urgency clause but modifies procedural directions [Paras 1-16].

Urgency Clause – Invocation Invalid – Original notification under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 issued without urgency – Fresh notification under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 invoking urgency after significant delay found unjustified – High Court emphasizes legal impermissibility of simultaneous applicability of urgency provisions from both Acts [Paras 8, 10].

Procedural Lapse – Consideration of Objections – Single Judge’s order remanded matter for fresh consideration of objections under Section 5A – High Court upholds this approach, allowing appellants to submit fresh objections – Directions for compliance with Section 5A reiterated to ensure fair process [Paras 11, 16].

Judicial Precedents – Reference to Apex Court – High Court refers to Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Krishan Lal Arneja regarding invalidity of urgency clause invocation – Finds factual distinctions and reiterates need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in land acquisition [Para 11].

Decision – Appeals Disposed – Impugned order by Single Judge upheld with modifications – Parties permitted to submit fresh objections under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Proceedings to be undertaken afresh by authorities strictly in accordance with law – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 16, 16.1].