National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3H(4) – Reference to Principal Civil Court – Apportionment of Compensation – "Person Interested" – Land of the estate holder Abdul Ahad Ganie acquired for widening of Baramulla-Kupwara National Highway – Award passed in favour of Respondent No.5 as sole owner on the basis of Mutation No.1066 recorded exclusively in her name for over seven decades – Petitioners, claiming to be legal heirs of the deceased co-sharer Mst. Malla Begum, sought reference of apportionment dispute under Section 3H(4) – Application rejected by Competent Authority – Held: Section 3H(4) uses mandatory language requiring reference once a dispute as to apportionment arises; however, such dispute must be one that the competent authority cannot decide without adjudication, assessed from the perspective of the competent authority and not merely from the perspective of the person challenging – Merely because a third party could raise a challenge, the competent authority is not bound to refer the dispute to civil court – In the present case, petitioners' claim of co-heirship under Muslim Personal Law remains unestablished before any competent forum; no declaratory decree or adjudicated right in the property exists; neither the petitioners nor their deceased mother was ever recorded as owner or tenant in available revenue records – Petitioners failed to file objections during acquisition proceedings within the statutory notice period – On these facts, petitioners do not qualify as "persons interested" and no legally cognizable apportionment dispute exists to mandate reference [Paras 22-33].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3H(4) – Distinction between Apportionment Dispute and Title Dispute – Revenue Entries – Mutation – The ratio of Vinod Kumar and Others v. District Magistrate, Mau and Others (2023) 19 SCC 126 presupposes the existence of competing legally recognizable interests in the property and applies where parties are co-sharers whose shares require apportionment; it does not apply where the very title of the claimant remains in dispute and is yet to be established by a civil court – Revenue entries and mutations do not confer title; however, where Respondent No.5 has been able to establish right, title, interest and ownership, and petitioners have failed to do so, they are strangers to the acquisition and cannot invoke Section 3H(4) – Remedy available to the petitioners is to challenge the title of Respondent No.5 before the civil court independent of acquisition proceedings [Paras 27-37].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – No illegality or perversity found in the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 of the District Collector, Baramulla – Dismissal shall not come in the way of petitioners pursuing the civil suit and revision petition pending before competent courts – Respondent No. 5 directed to be released compensation in terms of Award dated 31.07.2024 subject to her furnishing an undertaking that in the event petitioners succeed in the civil suit or revision petition, she and her legal heirs shall duly compensate the petitioners to the extent of their adjudicated share.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Friendly Loan – Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 – Petitioner, a dentist, issued a cheque for Rs. 10,00,000/- towards repayment of a friendly loan extended by the opposite party — cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds — legal notice issued but not responded to — petitioner denied the loan and claimed the cheque was stolen from his clinic — no police complaint lodged — both courts below convicted the petitioner — Held: Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act operates in favour of the holder of the cheque; once the cheque and its dishonour are proved, onus shifts to the accused to rebut the presumption by preponderance of probabilities — mere denial is insufficient [Paras 7–8].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Theft of Cheque – Plea as Afterthought – Petitioner contended that the cheque was stolen from his clinic and was not issued in discharge of any liability — no complaint was lodged with the police regarding the alleged theft — Held: Plea of theft raised for the first time during trial without any supporting police complaint is rightly rejected as an afterthought — courts below committed no error in rejecting such defence [Para 7].

Criminal Procedure – Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Concurrent Findings – Where there is a concurrent finding of fact by two courts below and the finding is not perverse so as to cause miscarriage of justice, the revisional court will not interfere — revisional jurisdiction is narrow and limited — in absence of jurisdictional error or perversity, an order of conviction affirmed in appeal is not to be unsettled — Held: No perversity or jurisdictional error found; revision dismissed [Paras 7, 9–10].

Decision: Revision dismissed — Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and compensation order of Rs. 12,62,500/- under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. with default sentence of SI for six months and substantive sentence of SI for eighteen months, as confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Champua, upheld.

Civil Procedure – First Appeal – Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Mandatory Requirements – Duty of First Appellate Court – Plaintiff's suit for recovery of compensation for land acquired for SEZ was dismissed by the trial Court after framing seven issues and deciding on merits – First Appellate Court, without framing points for determination, without independently assessing evidence, and without giving any reasons, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial Court on account of interlocutory applications filed at the appellate stage – Held: The judgment of the First Appellate Court was cryptic and unsatisfactory; the Court failed to discharge its obligation as a final Court of facts; Order XLI Rule 31 CPC mandates that the appellate Court state points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons therefor; non-compliance renders the judgment unsustainable [Paras 17–26].

Amendment of Plaint at Appellate Stage – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Proviso – Application for amendment of plaint adding new properties to schedules filed before First Appellate Court vide I.A.No.573 of 2023 – First Appellate Court allowed the application without assigning reasons and without recording satisfaction that the amendment could not have been introduced before commencement of trial despite due diligence as required by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Held: Such allowance of amendment without reasons is unsustainable; the First Appellate Court was required to decide this application on merits [Paras 21, 26].

Additional Evidence – Order XLI Rule 27 CPC – Appellate Court's Power – Exception to General Principle – General principle is that an appellate Court should not travel outside the trial Court record and cannot take fresh evidence – Exception under Order XLI Rule 27 permits production of additional evidence only in exceptional circumstances – First Appellate Court allowed I.A.No.267 of 2023 permitting additional evidence without following the prescribed procedure and without assigning reasons – Held: Such allowance without reasons and without following the procedure under Order XLI Rule 27 is not proper; the application must be decided on merits [Paras 22, 26].

Second Appeal – Maintainability – Order of Remand – Respondent contended that since the impugned order was one of remand, only a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC was maintainable – Held: Since the First Appellate Court set aside the total judgment and decree of the trial Court by substituting its own judgment, and not merely remanded on a limited point, a second appeal is maintainable – Distinction between a mere order of remand and substitution of the trial Court's judgment recognised [Paras 15–16, 23].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 05.02.2024 in A.S.No.126 of 2023 of the XII Additional District Judge, Srikalahasthi, set aside – Matter remanded to the First Appellate Court with five specific points for determination framed by the High Court, including questions regarding the extent of land purchased by defendant No.5, his possession pursuant to statutory obligations with APIIC, the plaintiff's entitlement to recover the suit amount, entitlement to amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 at the appellate stage, and permission to produce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 – First Appellate Court directed to decide on merits without being influenced by earlier findings – Exercise to be completed within three months – No order as to costs [Paras 29–30].

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 BNSS – Sacrilege and Misappropriation – SGPC Official – Allegations Confined to Negligence – Petitioner, a retired Secretary of SGPC, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR alleging unauthorized printing, distribution, disappearance and mishandling of 328 sacred saroops and misappropriation of ₹9,82,700/- – SGPC's own High-Level Enquiry Commission report found saroops to be unaccounted for and under the petitioner's control – However, departmental proceedings resulted in a finding only of negligence, not misappropriation – FIR registered on 07.12.2025 for incidents allegedly occurring between 2011 and 2016 without plausible explanation for inordinate delay – FIR not lodged by SGPC itself but at the instance of a third party – Evidence sought to be collected largely documentary in nature, making custodial interrogation unnecessary – Co-accused with graver allegations granted interim anticipatory bail – Held: Allegations do not prima facie indicate criminal intent or misappropriation; anticipatory bail granted subject to conditions [Paras 7–8].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner directed to join investigation within ten days before the Investigating Officer – In the event of arrest, to be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing adequate personal/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer subject to conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS – Observations confined to disposal of the bail petition and not an expression of opinion on merits.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – SC/ST (POA) Act – Section 14A(2) – Role of Accused in Custodial Death – Deceased Darshan was taken to Vivekanagara Police Station on 13.11.2025 without registration of case — detained illegally from 01.30 a.m. of 13.11.2025 to 08.30 p.m. of 15.11.2025 — thereafter sent to a rehabilitation centre where he was allegedly subjected to severe assault by accused Nos.1 to 9 (owner, manager and staff of the rehabilitation centre) and died on 26.11.2025 — accused No.10, the SHO, arraigned for illegal confinement — CID investigation report did not attribute any overt act of physical assault to accused No.10 — CCTV footage from the police station already seized and sent to FSL — charge sheet already filed — Held: Custodial interrogation of accused No.10 not required at this stage; anticipatory bail granted subject to stringent conditions including daily reporting to CID [Paras 9–14].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Factors – Charge Sheet Filed – Custodial Interrogation Not Required – Where a detailed charge sheet has already been filed following thorough investigation by the CID and the role of the accused has been specifically mentioned in the charge sheet without any allegation of physical assault, custodial interrogation is generally not warranted — the concern about tampering of evidence is addressed by noting that documentary evidence including CCTV footage has already been seized — Held: Anticipatory bail appropriate in the facts of the case [Paras 11–14].

Decision: Criminal appeal allowed — Impugned order dated 05.03.2026 in Crl. Misc. No.317/2026 rejecting anticipatory bail, set aside — Accused No.10/appellant directed to be enlarged on bail upon arrest in Crime No.999/2025 subject to: execution of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties; obtaining regular bail from trial court within ten days; daily reporting to DSP (H&B), CID, Carlton House for fifteen days; non-tampering with witnesses; no similar offences; and no departure from the jurisdiction of the trial court without permission

Land Revenue – Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 – Re-grant – Holder of Village Office – Burden of Proof – Petitioner claimed re-grant as heir of her husband Chikka Hanumaiah whose ancestor Byla was alleged to be Holder of village office — sole documentary basis was the extract of the barabaluti register (Annexure-B) issued by Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk — extract related to property in Bengaluru South Taluk — columns for survey number and extent left blank — name of village originally mentioned as "Vaderapura" struck off and "Rachanamudu" inserted — Tahsildar, Bengaluru South filed affidavit stating that the Thoti Inam barabaluti register is not maintained — Held: Annexure-B does not refer to the property in question and is not proved — petitioner failed to discharge the burden of establishing Byla as Holder of village office [Paras 55–73, 86].

Land Revenue – Re-grant – Status of Narasimhaiah – Officiator vs. Holder of Village Office – Narasimhaiah in his application described himself as interested to serve as Thoti and mentioned Venkatagiri as Barwardar — Narasimhaiah never claimed Byla as his ancestor or as village office holder — tastik payments made in 1987–2004 cannot establish rights as of the appointed date 01.02.1963 — Tahsildar's report dated 11.07.1972 rejected by Assistant Commissioner as Revenue Inspector was incompetent to draw a report on inam lands — Held: No records establish Narasimhaiah as Holder of village office — District Court's finding that Narasimhaiah was the Barwardar not acceptable [Paras 90–99].

Land Revenue – Re-grant – Sale by Pendente Lite Seller – Effect on Locus to Prosecute – Petitioner Kadari Narasamma sold the property on 28.07.2014 during pendency of proceedings before the District Court without disclosing the same — Held: There is no mandate in law requiring disclosure of a sale transaction unless the Court has passed a restraining order — the pendente lite seller does not lose locus to prosecute or defend the proceeding — the purchaser's right is subject to the decision of the Court — ratio in H. Anjanappa and Others v. A. Prabhakar and Others applies only to pendente lite purchasers, not sellers [Paras 49–52].

Land Revenue – Section 5(3) of Act, 1961 – 15-Year Restriction on Alienation – Amendment of 2003 – After the 2003 amendment, the 15-year restriction is to be reckoned from the date of re-grant after 2003 — sale made by Kadari Narasamma would be null and void — in that event, proviso to Section 5(4) of the Act, 1961 enables heirs of the transferor to seek re-grant [Para 51].

Land Revenue – Amendment to Section 7 of Act, 1961 – Prospective or Retrospective – Question Left Open – Whether the 1978 amendment to Section 7 of the Act, substituting the provision for re-grant of land to unauthorized holders, operates prospectively or retrospectively was not argued — question left open as answering it in either way would not aid the petitioners who have failed to establish Byla as Holder of village office — sons of Narasimhaiah have relinquished their claim and Kadari Narasamma prosecuted the case not as daughter of Narasimhaiah but as heir of her husband [Paras 108–112].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — Possession held by respondent No.1 (purchaser from Narasimhaiah) since 1971 not disturbed — Deputy Commissioner directed to take steps to trace the original barabaluti registers and report to the Registry within three months — no order as to costs.

Motor Accident Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Disability – Appellant, a labourer aged 40 years, suffered grievous injuries including fracture of left clavicle, chest injury, and severe head injury with haemorrhagic contusion causing midline shift in a vehicular accident on 22.11.2005 – Tribunal awarded a paltry sum of Rs. 95,000/- – Medical Board assessed 25% permanent disability; functional disability assessed at 20% for computation purposes – High Court found Tribunal's award grossly inadequate and enhanced total compensation to Rs. 7,72,135/- under various heads – Held: Compensation must be just and commensurate with the nature, extent and gravity of injuries suffered [Paras 7–17].

Loss of Income – Proof of Income – Minimum Wage as Yardstick – Absence of documentary proof of income not a ground to deny just compensation in Motor Accident Claims, which are summary in nature – Monthly income assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month based on minimum wages prevailing in Haryana in 2005 – Loss of income during hospitalisation (7 days) assessed at Rs. 935/-; loss during bed-rest period of six months assessed at Rs. 24,000/- – Held: Minimum wage notification is a yardstick and not an absolute factor; guesswork in assessing income must not be totally detached from reality [Paras 9–12.3].

Future Loss of Earnings – Future Prospects – Permanent Disability – Functional disability assessed at 20% – Claimant aged 40 years at time of accident; future prospects added at 30% as per National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi – Income taken as Rs. 5,200/- per month after adding future prospects – Compensation under loss of future earnings assessed at Rs. 1,87,200/- applying multiplier of 15 – Held: Claimant entitled to compensation for both future loss of earnings and future prospects even in disability cases [Paras 12.4–12.6].

Medical Expenses – Pragmatic Approach – Tribunal had restricted medical expenses to Rs. 20,000/- on account of discrepancies in some bills despite proof of treatment and expenditure – Held: In injury cases, a pragmatic approach must be adopted; a claimant cannot be expected to preserve every bill during treatment and recovery; medical expenses reassessed and enhanced to Rs. 60,000/- [Para 13].

Pain and Suffering – Non-Pecuniary Damages – Claimant sustained multiple grievous injuries including severe head injury and permanent disability – Tribunal's award under this head found wholly inadequate – Held: Compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of injuries, duration of hospitalisation, extent of disability, and mental and physical agony; compensation under pain and suffering assessed at Rs. 4,00,000/- [Paras 14–15].

Interest – Enhancement – Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% per annum – Held: Interest enhanced to 9% per annum from date of institution of claim petition till realisation; in case of non-payment within three months, interest payable at 12% per annum thereafter [Para 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Compensation enhanced from Rs. 95,000/- to Rs. 7,72,135/- with interest at 9% per annum; liability of respondents to remain as determined by the Tribunal.

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Jurisdiction of Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal – Respondent Sub-Inspector compulsorily retired under Rule 53(1) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 on account of a tainted service record involving 43 departmental proceedings – Tribunal set aside the order holding it was passed without authority of law and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the then IGP – Petitioners challenged Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 2(f) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal Act, 1976, which defines "service matter" but does not include "compulsory retirement" – Held: The Tribunal is a creature of statute and can exercise only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by the Act – "Compulsory retirement" is not included in any of the subjects enumerated in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1976 – None of the enumerated subjects is sufficient to assume that compulsory retirement is incidental thereto – Tribunal committed a serious error in assuming jurisdiction without assigning any reason – Order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity [Paras 13-16].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Section 4A of Act of 1976 – Prior Representation – Alternate Remedy – Petitioners contended that respondent failed to submit a prior representation under Rule 53(4) before approaching Tribunal as required by Section 4A of the Act of 1976 – Held: Rule 53(4) merely provides for a right of representation within 30 days; it is not an alternative remedy against compulsory retirement – In absence of any such alternative remedy, the respondent's only option was to file a writ petition under Article 226 – Objection under Section 4A not sustainable in the circumstances [Para 19].

Service Law – Compulsory Retirement – Post Facto Approval – Malice in Law – Rule 53(1) – Order of compulsory retirement passed by IGP without prior approval of High Power Committee as required by Government circulars dated 07.03.2001 and 30.04.2002 – Subsequently, DGP sent proposal for post facto approval; State Government accorded post facto approval on 26.04.2006 in respect of 76 officials including the respondent – Respondent never challenged the post facto approval – Tribunal did not consider the post facto approval while setting aside the order and erroneously held the order to be malicious and arbitrary – Held: Non-observance of non-binding guidelines is not sufficient to draw a conclusion of mala fides – Compulsory retirement involves no civil consequences; the doctrine of pleasure emanating from Article 310 of the Constitution governs such orders; principles of natural justice are not embodied rules in such cases – Post facto approval by the State Government validates the action and reflects complete agreement with the order – No material placed on record to substantiate the charge of malice in law – Compulsory retirement of one among 76 officials on basis of overall service record was not done in isolation or with vindictive intent – Tribunal erred in holding the order to be malicious [Paras 20-34].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 15.04.2021 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 1850/2005 quashed and set aside – Appeal of respondent Vijay Kumar Yadav before the Tribunal dismissed – No order as to costs.

Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement — India-China DTAA — Article 12(4) — Fees for Technical Services — Place of Rendition — Petitioner, a Chinese-resident company, provided management, finance, IT, and technical support services to its Indian subsidiary Benteler India from China through email, conference calls, and video conferencing — Petitioner applied for NIL withholding tax certificate under Section 197 IT Act contending that services rendered from China do not qualify as 'fees for technical services' under Article 12(4) of India-China DTAA, since Article 12(4) requires provision of services by a resident of a Contracting State in the other Contracting State, i.e., physically in India — Assessing Officer rejected application relying on ITAT decision in Ashapura Minichem Ltd. — High Court holds rejection of NIL certificate application justified in view of pending assessments against petitioner for previous years — Writ Petition dismissed — Declaration on taxability declined as same issue live before ITAT [Paras 59–68].

Virtual Rendition of Services — Physical Presence — Whether Virtual Services Equate to Physical Rendition in India — Revenue contended that services rendered virtually through video conferencing, emails, and conference calls amount to physical rendition in India — High Court rejects this contention — Held: Without any specific provision in law or in the DTAA, the broad proposition that virtual rendition of services by a foreign entity to an Indian entity amounts to physical rendition in India cannot be accepted — It is equally arguable that Benteler India received services in China — Reliance placed by Revenue on Praful B. Desai [(2003) 4 SCC 601], Kishan Chand Jain [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1334], Armin R. Panthaky [(2024) SCC OnLine Bom 3603 (FB)], and Ganesh Gouri Industries [(2024) SCC OnLine Del 5359 (DB)] found inapplicable to the facts — Said decisions pertain to criminal procedure, access to justice, and trademark jurisdiction and cannot be imported to decide place of rendition of technical services under a DTAA [Paras 44–51].

Section 197 IT Act — NIL Withholding Tax Certificate — Rule 28AA — Rejection — Justification — Petitioner's claim of NIL tax liability based on India-China DTAA interpretation was the identical ground raised and rejected in assessments for AY 2015-16 to 2023-24 by CIT (Appeals) or DRP, with matters pending before ITAT — Rule 28AA(2) requires Assessing Officer to consider tax payable on assessed or returned income of the last three previous years before issuing certificate — Since higher authorities had consistently held petitioner liable to tax in India for previous years and those findings had not been set aside, Assessing Officer could not have granted a NIL certificate without contradicting those rulings — Held: Rejection of application by Assessing Officer is unexceptionable and warrants no interference under Article 226 [Paras 59–65].

Article 12(4) India-China DTAA — Interpretation — "Provision of Services in the Other Contracting State" — Competing Contentions — Petitioner contended that Article 12(4) requires services to be rendered physically in India as a pre-condition for 'fees for technical services', a condition unique to India-China, India-Israel, and India-Finland DTAAs as distinguished from India's other treaties — Revenue contended that Article 12(4) contains no requirement of physical presence and the word "in" merely qualifies that services are provided in the context of the bilateral arrangement; further, Article 12(6) creates a deeming fiction that 'fees for technical services' arise in India when the payer is a resident of India — High Court declines to adjudicate on the merits of DTAA interpretation, as the identical issue is pending before the ITAT in petitioner's own case for previous assessment years — Held: Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant a declaration would directly impact pending ITAT proceedings; parties at liberty to canvass all arguments before the ITAT [Paras 66–68].

Decision: Rule discharged — Writ Petition disposed of — Impugned order dated 01.08.2025 rejecting NIL withholding tax certificate application upheld — Declaration on taxability of services under India-China DTAA declined — No order as to costs [Para 69].