Kidney Transplantation – Non-Near Relatives – Petitioners seeking approval for kidney transplantation where donors are not near relatives – Hospital hesitated to forward applications to the Authorisation Committee – Court allowed petitioners to submit applications directly to the Committee – Directed the Committee to scrutinize and decide on applications within four weeks [Paras 2-28].

Role of Hospitals – Clarification of Responsibilities – Court clarified that hospitals are not required to forward transplantation applications – Applications can be submitted directly by donors and recipients to the Authorisation Committee [Para 8].

Evaluation by Authorisation Committee – Guidelines for Consideration – Emphasized that Authorisation Committees should consider applications without assuming commercial intent – Evaluations should include absence of financial transactions and verification of donor's altruistic intent – Aligned with provisions of the Act and Rules [Paras 11-19].

Protection of Donor Rights – Ensuring Donor Welfare – Highlighted need for medical insurance coverage for donors – Suggested measures for post-operative care and financial security of donors – Encouraged development of comprehensive guidelines to protect donor interests [Paras 23-27].

Decision:

Petitioners are permitted to submit applications directly to the Authorisation Committee. The Committee is directed to scrutinize and decide on the applications within four weeks from the date of submission. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

Specific Performance – Rejection of Plaint – Limitation and Forgery Allegations - The appellants sought specific performance of a sale agreement regarding property sold by the first respondent to the deceased K.S.N. Manoharan. The trial court dismissed the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, based on allegations of forgery and limitation. The High Court reversed this decision, holding that the question of limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, requiring a full trial [Paras 12-14, 20].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Rejection of Plaint Improper - The Court observed that limitation in specific performance suits is a mixed question of fact and law, especially when allegations of fraud and misrepresentation by counsel are involved. The trial court erred in dismissing the suit at the threshold without framing issues and conducting a trial [Paras 25-28].

Doctrine of Laches – Litigant Should Not Suffer Due to Counsel’s Negligence - The appellants argued that the delay in filing the suit was caused by the negligence of their previous advocate, who failed to refile the suit. The High Court accepted this argument, emphasizing that a litigant should not be penalized for the mistakes of their advocate, particularly when fraud by the advocate is alleged [Paras 30-34].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Case Remanded for Trial - The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and remanding the case for trial. The trial court was directed to frame issues and decide the case on merits within six months [Para 35].

Income Tax – Reassessment Proceedings – Revenue's appeal against ITAT's invalidation of reassessment – Original assessment completed under Section 143(3) – Reassessment notice issued under Section 148 after more than four years – Allegations based on audit report claiming non-disclosure of material facts by the respondent-assessee – ITAT found no new tangible material to justify reassessment [Paras 1-31].

Audit Report – Not Sole Basis – Audit party's report pointing out factual errors not sufficient for reassessment – Reliance on Supreme Court decision in CIT v. P.V.S. Beedies (1998) – Distinguished as relating to pre-amendment Section 147(b) – Post-amendment, reopening requires tangible material indicating income escapement due to non-disclosure by the assessee [Paras 16-21].

Requirement of Tangible Material – Reassessment notice must demonstrate fresh tangible material – Mere audit report or internal audit findings inadequate – Relevant precedents reaffirmed by this Court in Willmar Schwabe India (P) Ltd. v. CIT (2023), Donaldson India Filters Systems v. Deputy CIT (2015) [Paras 22-30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – ITAT's decision upheld – No fresh tangible material found to justify reassessment beyond four years – Reassessment proceedings and notice under Section 148 quashed – No substantial question of law raised by the Revenue [Paras 31-32].
 

Adverse Possession – Ownership Claim – Plaintiffs claimed ownership of suit land by adverse possession for over 12 years – Trial court held possession but dismissed suit as time-barred – First appellate court reversed, declaring plaintiffs owners by adverse possession – Regular second appeal dismissed by High Court, affirming adverse possession due to uninterrupted, hostile possession since 1969 [Paras 1-18].

Limitation – Cause of Action – Fresh suit filed after previous suit withdrawn with liberty – Fresh cause of action arose after 12 years from 1971, not time-barred [Paras 10-11].

Revenue Records – Analysis of entries – Plaintiffs' possession recorded without rent payment, indicating adverse possession – Revenue terms interpreted to support plaintiffs' claim [Paras 8-9].

Relief – Regular second appeal dismissed – First appellate court's judgment upheld – Plaintiffs declared owners by adverse possession [Para 18].

Income Tax Law – Assessment under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Appeals against ITAT’s deletion of additions under Section 68 – Assessments based on voluntary disclosure of unaccounted income during a search operation – ITAT quashed additions due to lack of incriminating material found during the search – Held, assessment cannot be based solely on statements recorded under Section 132(4) without corroborative evidence – AO’s failure to provide cross-examination of witnesses amounts to a violation of natural justice, rendering the assessment invalid – Reliance on Section 292B to cure jurisdictional defects found unmerited – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-37]

Evidence Evaluation – Statements under Section 132(4) – Mere admissions by the assessee during search insufficient for assessment without corroborative material – Statements recorded under Section 132(4) can only constitute information and must be corroborated by evidence discovered during the search – Courts reaffirmed that assessments should be based on tangible evidence found during search operations, not solely on admissions. [Paras 20-23, 25]

Principles of Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examination – Failure to provide cross-examination of key witnesses violates natural justice – Supreme Court’s precedent in Andaman Timber Industries reaffirms that denial of cross-examination renders orders null and void – Jurisdictional AO must provide an opportunity for cross-examination when requested by the assessee – Assessments based on statements without cross-examination deemed invalid. [Paras 30-32]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeals – Held – Appeals dismissed due to lack of incriminating material and violation of principles of natural justice – ITAT’s order setting aside assessments and deleting additions upheld – The assessment proceedings were vitiated by procedural irregularities and lack of substantiated evidence. [Para 37]

Prevention of Corruption – Acquittal Appeal – State challenged acquittal of accused for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act – High Court upheld acquittal, noting discrepancies in prosecution's case and lack of credible evidence against respondent No.2 – Highlighted importance of consistency and corroboration in evidence for conviction [Paras 1-13].

Evidence and Witness Testimony – Material Contradictions – Court noted significant contradictions in witness testimonies and evidence – Prosecution's case weakened by hostile witnesses and inconsistent statements regarding demand and acceptance of bribe – Emphasized need for clear and consistent evidence in corruption cases [Paras 9-10].

Legal Principles and Standards – Presumption of Innocence – Court reinforced the principle that acquittal should not be overturned unless findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous – Referenced Supreme Court rulings underscoring cautious approach in reversing acquittals [Paras 8, 11].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal confirmed – Trial court's judgment upheld due to lack of compelling evidence and contradictions in prosecution’s case [Paras 13].

NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Recovery of poppy husk – Appellants not apprehended at the scene – Identification issues – Procedural lapses – Independent witness not examined – Case property not produced – Appeals allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 1-16].

Adverse Inference – Case property destruction due to flood – Allegation deemed unsupported – Trial court's reliance on uncorroborated testimony criticized [Paras 10-11].

Identification – No test identification parade conducted – Prosecution's reliance on witness claiming prior knowledge of appellants deemed insufficient – Absence of local witnesses to corroborate presence at crime scene noted [Paras 12-13].

Investigative Bias – Investigating Officer also the complainant – Potential for bias highlighted – Supreme Court precedents referenced [Para 15].

Relief – Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellants acquitted – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 16-18].

Civil Procedure – Remand Order – Appellate court quashed trial court's judgment and remanded case for fresh consideration – Appellant contended appellate court failed to specify new issues or necessity for additional evidence – High Court finds remand order lacks justification, sets it aside, and directs appellate court to decide appeal on merits [Paras 1-13].

Order 41 CPC – Powers of Appellate Court – Remand under Rules 23, 23A, 24 – Appellate court must specify issues or necessity for remand – Evidence on record sufficient for adjudication mandates final decision without remand – High Court emphasizes appellate court’s obligation to decide appeal on merits unless retrial is essential [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Precedents – High Court refers to Kerala and Allahabad High Courts' rulings, emphasizing minimal use of remand powers and appellate court’s duty to decide on merits when evidence suffices – References: Gopalkrishnan v. V. Ponnappan, Prem Raj v. Nagar Palika, RSRTC v. Haridwarilal Sharma [Para 10].

Decision – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Allowed – Remand order quashed – Appellate court directed to hear and decide appeal on merits – Parties to appear before appellate court on specified date [Paras 11-13].

Criminal Law – Conviction Under Common Intention – Appellants convicted for offences under Sections 302/149 IPC – Court finds material contradictions in eyewitness testimonies – Appellants not proven to have individually caused fatal injuries – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside, convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained [Paras 1-18].

Eyewitness Testimony – Reliability – Several prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Injured eyewitness could not identify attackers due to darkness – Court notes inconsistencies and contradictions in statements regarding involvement of accused in causing fatal injuries [Paras 12-14].

Evidence and Delay – Incident reported with two-hour delay – Bloodstained lathis recovered but blood group undetermined – Court finds prosecution failed to conclusively link appellants to fatal injuries [Paras 8, 16].

Joint Liability – Applicability of Section 149 IPC – Material contradictions in evidence regarding common intention – No direct evidence linking surviving appellants to causing fatal injuries – Court emphasizes requirement for clear evidence of common object for joint liability [Para 17].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Convictions under Section 302/149 IPC quashed – Convictions under Sections 147, 323, 325/149 IPC maintained – Benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act extended – Appellants' bail bonds discharged [Paras 18-19].