Guardianship and Custody – Appointment of Guardian – Petition for appointment of the father as the guardian and grant of permanent custody of minor child – Petitioner remarried and employed in Muscat – Respondent mother also remarried – Child expressed preference to stay with the father – Child to relocate to Muscat for further studies – Petition allowed with conditions for interaction rights of the mother [Paras 1-7].

Child Welfare – Consideration of Child’s Preference – Interaction with the child and psychological assessment confirming emotional stability and willingness to relocate – Court affirms compromise agreement and appoints father as guardian – Permanent custody granted till the child attains the age of majority, ensuring the child’s well-being and future educational prospects [Paras 3-6].

Custody Arrangements – Compromise Agreement – Memo of compromise dated June 26, 2024, incorporated into the decree – Regular interaction between child and mother through video conferencing arranged – Court emphasizes adherence to the agreement ensuring emotional support for the child from both parents [Para 7].

Decision: Petition allowed – Father appointed as guardian with permanent custody of the minor child – Rights of the mother to interact with the child maintained as per the compromise agreement – No order as to costs.

Taxation Law – Refund and Interest – Petitioner, a registered dealer under DVAT and CST Acts, sought refund of excess tax paid for the fourth quarter of AY 2016-17 and the first quarter of AY 2017-18 – Petitioner provided ‘C’ forms for concessional rate of interest – Refund claims not processed timely; petitioner moved writ petitions – Respondents eventually sanctioned refunds but without interest – Petitioner challenged orders rejecting interest on the delayed refunds – High Court held that petitioner is entitled to statutory interest on delayed refunds as per Section 42 of DVAT Act [Paras 1-27].

Legal Proceedings – Mandate of Section 42 DVAT Act – Court emphasized the mandatory nature of time limits set under Section 38 of DVAT Act for processing refunds – Delay in processing refunds cannot defeat the statutory right to interest – Court set aside impugned orders rejecting interest on refunds – Directed Respondents to grant simple interest at 6% per annum from the date refund was due till the payment date [Paras 16-27].

Procedure – Requirement of Filing DVAT-21 Form – Court reiterated that once a refund claim is made in the return, there is no additional obligation to file Form DVAT-21 – Refund claims embedded in the returns must be processed within the statutory period [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Writ Petition Allowed – Orders rejecting interest on delayed refunds set aside – Respondents directed to pay simple interest at 6% per annum on the refunded amounts – Interest to be computed from the date the refund was due as per the statutory provisions – Refund and interest to be paid within four weeks from the judgment date [Para 27].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Petitioner challenged the decision of the NCDRC upholding compensation for medical negligence – Preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction of the High Court – High Court emphasized supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to courts and tribunals within its territorial limits – Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction [Paras 1-14].

Territorial Jurisdiction – Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court – The High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 over tribunals situated outside its territorial limits – Reference to L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India and subsequent case law confirming jurisdictional limits [Paras 7-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Held – The High Court lacks jurisdiction to supervise decisions of tribunals outside its territorial limits – Reaffirmed need for adherence to jurisdictional boundaries [Para 14-15].
 

Criminal Law – Conviction for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC by the trial court, which sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court examined inconsistencies in medical evidence and unexplained gaps in the victim’s treatment timeline, raising doubts about the causation of death directly from the alleged assault [Paras 1-24].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies – Discrepancies noted between injury reports by different medical officers and the autopsy report regarding skull fractures and other injuries. The absence of detailed explanation for treatment gaps questioned the direct link between the assault and the victim’s death [Paras 9-18].

Prosecution Case – Doubtful Evidence – The prosecution’s evidence revealed contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the informant and the medical officers, undermining the reliability of the complaint and the direct causation of death [Paras 9-18].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Possible Views – Following the principle that if two views are possible—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favoring the accused should be adopted. The court found significant doubts in the prosecution’s case due to the unexplained treatment gap and inconsistent medical evidence [Paras 19-20].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – The appellant was found not guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. The court ordered the appellant’s release, unless wanted in connection with any other case [Paras 21-24].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part II IPC by the trial court, which sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The High Court examined inconsistencies in medical evidence and unexplained gaps in the victim’s treatment timeline, raising doubts about the causation of death directly from the alleged assault [Paras 1-24].

Medical Evidence – Inconsistencies – Discrepancies noted between injury reports by different medical officers and the autopsy report regarding skull fractures and other injuries. The absence of detailed explanation for treatment gaps questioned the direct link between the assault and the victim’s death [Paras 9-18].

Prosecution Case – Doubtful Evidence – The prosecution’s evidence revealed contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, including the informant and the medical officers, undermining the reliability of the complaint and the direct causation of death [Paras 9-18].

Benefit of Doubt – Two Possible Views – Following the principle that if two views are possible—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favoring the accused should be adopted. The court found significant doubts in the prosecution’s case due to the unexplained treatment gap and inconsistent medical evidence [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – The appellant was found not guilty under Section 304 Part II IPC. The court ordered the appellant’s release, unless wanted in connection with any other case [Paras 21-24].
 

Anticipatory Bail – Allegations of Dowry Harassment and Attempted Murder – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for offences under Sections 498-A, 307, 509, 313, 403, 409 read with 34 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act – Allegations included demand for dowry, misappropriation of gold, and forced abortion – Investigation revealed incidents both in India and the USA – Petitioners contended that incidents in the USA could not be prosecuted without Central Government sanction as per Section 188 CrPC – Court held custodial interrogation unnecessary due to the nature of the dispute and ongoing investigation [Paras 1-5].

Jurisdiction – Application of Section 188 CrPC – Examined applicability of Section 188 CrPC regarding prosecution of offences committed abroad – Referenced Telangana High Court's decision emphasizing requirement of Central Government sanction for such prosecution – Court found no challenge to this principle by the respondent [Paras 4].

Decision:

Anticipatory bail granted – Petitioners to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to personal bonds and sureties – Conditions imposed for marking attendance before the investigating officer and cooperation with the investigation – Emphasis on non-interference with witnesses [Para 5].

Bail Application – NDPS Act – The petitioner, accused under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, sought bail after being in custody for nearly four months – The Court considered that the petitioner was named in the FIR solely based on a co-accused's disclosure statement, and no contraband was recovered from him – Trial had not yet begun, and the Court highlighted the prolonged pre-conviction detention and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 [Paras 1-6].

Right to Speedy Trial – The Court emphasized that continued detention without trial constitutes a violation of the right to a speedy trial – The Court cited Supreme Court precedents, stressing that pre-conviction detention should be minimized and that undue delay in trials could impair the accused’s defense [Para 5].

Previous Convictions – While acknowledging the petitioner's involvement in other FIRs, the Court held that bail should not be denied solely on this ground – The Court referenced the judgment in Baljinder Singh alias Rock v. State of Punjab [CRM-M-25914-2022], underscoring that each case must be evaluated on its own merits [Para 5].

Decision:

The petitioner was granted regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Income Tax – Draft Assessment Order – CBDT Circular No. 549/1989 – The petitioner challenged the reliance on the Circular by the AO, arguing it was outdated and inapplicable under the amended Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act as applicable for AY 2005-06 to AY 2008-09. The Court noted the changes in the statutory provisions that allow refunds post-assessment and held that the Circular was not determinative of the issue [Paras 1-9].

Tribunal Powers – Section 254 of the Income Tax Act – The Court affirmed that the Tribunal has plenary powers to entertain new claims, even if not raised in the original return, especially if a direction is framed by a Court or Tribunal. It cited the decisions in Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and CIT vs. Jai Parabolic Springs Ltd to underscore the Tribunal’s authority [Paras 10-14].

Revisionary Jurisdiction – Section 264 of the Income Tax Act – Emphasized that the CIT’s revisionary powers allow the introduction of new grounds not urged before lower authorities. The Court referred to past rulings in cases like Parekh Brothers v. CIT and Sneh Lata Jain v. CIT to support this position [Paras 15-20].

Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – The Court quashed the final assessment orders dated 30 November 2021 and the consequential demand and penalty notices. It directed the AO to reconsider the additional grounds raised by the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with the law [Para 20-21].
 

Limitation Period – Article 60 of Limitation Act – Suit filed by minors – Time limit for challenging deed executed by guardian: The court held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs, who were minors at the time of deed execution, must be within three years of attaining majority. Based on evidence, the plaintiffs failed to meet this requirement, rendering their claims barred by limitation [Paras 10-15].

Validity of Deed – Legal Necessity and Benefit to Minors: The court discussed the necessity of proving legal necessity for the sale of property executed by a guardian on behalf of minors. The plaintiffs did not establish that the sale was for their benefit, and the court found the deed to be executed without the required legal necessity [Paras 16-18].

Evidence – Reliability of Documents and Testimonies: The court scrutinized the school admission register and testimonies to ascertain the dates of birth of the plaintiffs. It found that the interpolations in the school register were apparent and the testimonies were not reliable, leading to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation [Paras 11-14, 17].

Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Additional District Judge and affirming the dismissal order of the Trial Court, thereby dismissing the suit (T.S. No. 49 of 1974) [Paras 19-20].