Land Acquisition – Applicability of Section 11 and 11A – Girnar Traders (3) Applied – Challenge Fails – Petitioners challenged acquisition proceedings on the ground of lapsing under Section 11A and lack of prior government approval under Section 11 – Court held that acquisition under MRTP Act is a complete code and amounts to legislation by incorporation, thus amendments to the Land Acquisition Act in 1984, including Section 11A, do not apply – Held: Challenge to acquisition fails on these grounds [Paras 24-53].

Prior Government Approval – Mandatory for Valid Award – Award Held Void –

Despite denying applicability of Section 11, State tried to establish compliance – Evidence revealed contradictory affidavits, manipulation, and lack of prior approval from competent authority before issuing individual awards – Held: Award dated 07/04/2015 issued without required approval is void and non-est – Acquisition proceedings vitiated [Paras 54-71].

Lapsing of Acquisition – Delay Beyond Statutory Period – Proceedings Held

Lapsed – Awards made long after prescribed period under Section 11A of the Old Act and Section 25 of the New Act – State failed to provide consistent and credible explanation regarding timing and validity of awards – Held:

Acquisition stands lapsed for breach of statutory time limits [Paras 72-73].

Relief under New Land Acquisition Act – Entitlement to Developed Land –

Direction Issued – Petitioners held entitled to 20% of developed land under Serial No. 3 of the Second Schedule to the New Act and supporting GRs – State directed to extend benefit accordingly [Para 74].

Final Decision – Writ Petitions Allowed – Impugned acquisition proceedings quashed – Direction issued to allot 20% developed land to Petitioners – No costs awarded [Para 75].

Criminal Contempt – Allegation against Sitting Judges – Scandalizing the Court – Contemnor accused Judges of accepting bribes for dismissal of his writ petition – Complaint addressed to the President of India – Held: Allegation scandalizes the Court and tends to lower its authority within meaning of Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act – Contemnor's admission of authorship and contents of complaint noted – No justification found for demand of covering letter [Paras 1-4, 8-9].

Judicial Integrity – Maintenance of Public Confidence – High Court reiterated importance of preserving dignity and authority of the judiciary – Referred to judgments emphasizing that even unproven allegations that create disaffection against the judiciary constitute contempt – Court found contemnor’s conduct obstructive to the administration of justice [Paras 5-7].

Sentence – Leniency Due to Age – Considering that contemnor was of old age and had no prior contempt history, Court imposed only a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with default sentence of one week simple imprisonment – Directed compliance by Senior Registrar [Paras 9-11].

Service Law - Voluntary Retirement – Civil Servant Deputed to Army Postal Service – Retirement While on Deputation – Denied – The petitioner, holding a civil post with the Department of Posts and later commissioned in APS, sought voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A without repatriation – Tribunal held and High Court affirmed that such retirement from APS without repatriation was impermissible – Held: As petitioner had not completed 30 years of service required under Rule 48, he was not eligible for benefits under Rule 67 or relevant OMs – Repatriation to parent department was mandatory prior to voluntary retirement [Paras 23-27].

Interpretation of Pension Rules – Retirement Under Rule 48-A Not Covered by DOT OM – Claim Rejected – Court held that Rule 67 read with DOT OM dated 05.09.1989 applied only to cases falling under Rule 48 (i.e., on completion of 30 years of service) – Petitioner, having completed only 28 years of service, was not eligible under the said OM – Held: Retirement did not satisfy conditions for direct pension authorization by APS as borrowing department [Paras 25-27].

Jurisdiction and Departmental Authority – Competent Authority to Release Pension – Department of Posts Identified – Although initially permitted to retire directly from APS, subsequent clarification by Army and Posts authorities corrected the procedural error – Held: Department of Posts, being the cadre-controlling authority, was responsible for disbursing retiral benefits [Paras 18-20, 27].

Final Decision – Petition Dismissed – Court declined to interfere with Tribunal’s findings – Petitioner not entitled to claim ex-serviceman status or ECHS benefits – Ordered: Writ petition dismissed with no costs [Paras 27-28].

Matrimonial Law – Recovery of Istridhan - Patrimony and Gold Ornaments – Entrustment Not Proved – Claim Dismissed – Wife alleged entrustment of 50 sovereigns of gold and ₹3 lakhs at the time of marriage – Court found inconsistencies and contradictions in pleadings and oral evidence – Delay of 8 years in raising claim also viewed as improbable – Held: No sufficient material to overturn Family Court's finding rejecting claim for patrimony and gold [Paras 6-12].

Maintenance – Financial Capacity of Husband Established – Award of ₹10,000 per Month Upheld – Husband claimed petitioner had income from running a shop, but no evidence was produced – Documents like bio-data and wedding invitation indicated respondent's affluent background – Held: Maintenance at ₹10,000/month is reasonable – No interference warranted [Paras 13-14].

Arrears of Maintenance – Interest Awarded – Interim maintenance ordered during pendency of appeal was not paid – Court ordered that all arrears shall bear interest at 9% per annum – Held: Petitioner entitled to realise maintenance arrears with interest in accordance with law [Para 15].

Final Decision – Appeals Disposed – Family Court judgment affirmed – Wife allowed to recover arrears of maintenance with 9% interest – No other relief granted [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal - Disproportionate Assets – A1 Accused of Amassing Wealth 443% Over Known Income – Acquittal Set Aside – The trial court acquitted the accused holding that A1 and A2 had satisfactory explanations for their income and assets – High Court found that many sources claimed by defense were uncorroborated and erroneously accepted – Assets held by A2 were also wrongly excluded in assessing A1’s income [Paras 2-4, 10, 14.1].

Preliminary Enquiry – Not Mandatory Where Cognizable Offense Disclosed – Acquittal Based on Lack of Enquiry Set Aside – Trial court held FIR invalid due to lack of preliminary enquiry – High Court relying on CBI v. Hannah Vijayalakshmi held that when incriminating documents and cash were found during valid search in another case, separate FIR without preliminary enquiry was lawful [Paras 12.1.2–12.1.3].

Sanction for Prosecution – Additional Charge Officer Was Competent – Trial Court’s Finding Overruled – Trial court had held sanction invalid as it was granted by an officer holding “additional charge” – High Court ruled that as per Ex.P9 and departmental authorisation, PW1 was competent authority – Sanction was valid [Para 13].

Income Estimation – Trial Court Erred in Accepting Unsubstantiated Sources – Assets Miscalculated – The trial court accepted rental, agricultural, and loan proceeds without corroboration or legal proof – Several defense witnesses were related to A1/A2 – High Court held the lower court misapplied burden under Section 106 Evidence Act and ignored requirement for “satisfactory” explanation [Paras 14–15].

Burden of Proof – Accused Must Satisfactorily Account for Assets – Mere Plausibility Not Enough – High Court emphasized that under PC Act, explanation must be not only plausible but also satisfactory – Defense failed to meet this threshold despite submissions and documents – Reliance placed on Awadh Kishore Gupta, Jayalalitha, Soundirarasu cases [Paras 10–11].

Decision – Acquittal Reversed – Respondents Convicted – Matter Remanded for Sentencing – High Court found acquittal perverse, based on misapplication of law and facts – Conviction recorded under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) PC Act against A1 and under Section 109 IPC against A2 – Matter remanded to trial court for hearing on sentence [Paras 43-44].
 

Execution of Arbitral Award – Incomplete Award Filed – Execution Petition Rejected – Maintainability Questioned - Petitioner's execution petition seeking enforcement of MSMED Council award was rejected as the award originally filed lacked signatures of all Council members, rendering it incomplete under Section 31 of the Arbitration Act – Held: No executable award was before the court; rejection justified [Paras 4-6, 22, 31].

Successive Execution Petition – Res Judicata Applies – Prior Dismissal on Merits – Civil Revision Dismissed - The earlier application (E.A. No.11 of 2024) to restore a previous execution petition was dismissed on merits citing award’s lack of jurisdiction and invalidity – Court held this dismissal attained finality and bars maintainability of the subsequent execution petition for same award – Res judicata principles apply [Paras 29-30, 36-37, 41].

Award Without Jurisdiction – MSMED Council Exceeded Jurisdiction – Award Held Null and Void - Court reiterated earlier findings that Council lacked jurisdiction as the petitioner did not file a memorandum under Section 8(1) MSMED Act and the underlying contract was a works contract excluded from MSMED scope – Such illegality vitiates award and makes it inexecutable [Paras 28, 36].

Executing Court Power – Can Examine Maintainability Suo Motu – No Need for Objection by Judgment Debtor - Rejecting argument that executing court should register case and await objection, Court held that maintainability can be examined by the court itself when grounds are evident on record – Executing court not bound to proceed if award is found inexecutable [Paras 43-44].

Decision – Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Execution Petition Not Maintainable – High Court upheld rejection of execution petition as barred by earlier order and based on findings that the award lacked jurisdiction and was invalid – Held: No illegality in Special Judge’s order refusing to entertain execution of such award [Paras 44-45].
 

Temple Management – Succession to Committee of Management – Not Permissible under 1904 Agreement – Registered Trust Nama/Ikrar Nama of 1904 Governs – The temple management was originally vested with a Seven Member Committee constituted from six Thoks of 145 Sevayat families – Held: The agreement excludes legal succession to committee members; successors cannot inherit committee membership – Appointment must be made afresh as per Thok representation [Paras 23–25, 30–32, 38–
41]. 
 
Receivership – Role of Receiver Subordinate to Committee of Management – Receiver Not to Substitute Elected Committee – The 1924 compromise decree appointed a Receiver during deadlock – Held: Receiver’s role is secondary and temporary, meant to safeguard temple in absence of a duly constituted Committee – Continued reliance on 1924 compromise contrary to 1904 agreement [Paras 31–34, 39–41]. 
 
Judicial Overreach – Litigation Driven by Select Families – Abuse of Process – The petitioners and some respondents, claiming to be legal heirs of 1923 parties, excluded larger Sevayat community – Held: Petitioners’ claim of trusteeship unsustainable – All 734 families are equally bound by 1904 agreement; court deprecates misuse of judicial process to monopolize temple management [Paras 35–37, 40–41]. 
 
Binding Nature of 1904 Agreement – Governing Document for Temple Management – The court reaffirmed that the 1904 agreement is binding on all Pandas/Sevayats – Any appointment or management process must adhere strictly to its terms – Compromise decree of 1924 cannot override foundational governance framework [Paras 23–25, 38–41]. 
 
Judgment – Writ Petition Dismissed – Parties Directed to Follow 1904 Agreement – Court held that present litigation cannot override the original agreement of 1904 – All parties including petitioners and respondents must abide by its terms – Fresh Committee to be formed as per provisions laid down therein [Paras 41–42]. 
 

Bail – Proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA – Old Age and Infirmity – Bail Granted – Petitioner aged 86 years with multiple age-related ailments including cognitive impairment, dementia, and history of falls – Held: Petitioner falls within the category of “infirm” under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA – Not required to satisfy twin conditions under main provision – Bail granted [Paras 22–30]. 
 
Medical Grounds – Jail Facility Inadequate for Constant Monitoring – AIIMS Medical Board Report Considered – Despite not being acutely sick, the petitioner required round-the-clock monitoring, which could not be assured in jail – Held: Medical condition and advanced age necessitate release from custody [Paras 19, 27–28]. 
 
Triple Test – No Flight Risk, Witness Tampering or Evidence Destruction – Petitioner Released on Interim Bail Earlier Without Misuse – Held: Petitioner satisfies triple test for bail; ED’s allegations of influencing witnesses not substantiated at bail stage – Statement under Section 50 PMLA to be tested at trial [Paras 32–41]. 
 
Delay in Trial – Case Registered in 2018, Trial Yet to Commence – Massive Volume of Evidence and Witnesses – Held: Prolonged incarceration in face of slow trial offends Article 21 rights – Constitutional courts must intervene where trial delay makes bail refusal unjustified [Paras 42–46]. 
 
Judgment – Bail Granted – Constitutional Safeguards Prevail – The Court held petitioner entitled to bail under proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA due to agerelated infirmities and undue delay in trial – Bail granted with standard conditions [Paras 47–50]. 
 

Taxation Law - Exemption Under Sections 11 and 12 – Investment in Subsidiary Not a Violation of Section 13(1)(d) – The Revenue contended that the respondent violated Section 13(1)(d) by investing in equity shares of BARC, thereby making it ineligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12 – The respondent argued that the funds were deployed pursuant to a government policy directive and not as an investment for profit – Held: Since the deployment of funds was mandated by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) for creating a transparent television rating system, it did not constitute an “investment” under Section 13(1)(d), and the respondent was entitled to exemption [Paras 24-26, 45-46].

Definition of ‘Investment’ – Absence of Profit Motive and Statutory Compliance – The Court examined the definition of ‘investment’ under various legal sources, including CIT v. Sir Sobha Singh Public Charitable Trust, (2001) 250 ITR 475 (Delhi) and Director of Income-tax (Exemption) v. Alarippu, (2000) 244 ITR 358 – Held: The essence of an investment lies in the intention to generate income, profit, or returns – Since BARC was a not-for-profit entity prohibited from distributing dividends, the respondent’s fund deployment was an application of income rather than an investment violating Section 13(1)(d) [Paras 37-39, 43-44].

Government Policy and Compliance – No Discretionary Investment Decision by Assessee – The formation of BARC was based on TRAI’s 2008 recommendations and MIB directives, requiring the respondent to retain a 60% shareholding – The Revenue’s contention that this constituted an investment for financial gain was rejected – Held: When fund deployment is dictated by government policy and regulatory mandates, it cannot be classified as an investment in the traditional sense [Paras 27-30].

Judicial Precedents on Investments by Charitable Institutions – Consistent Approach – The Court referred to CIT v. Dr. Vikhe Patil Foundation, [2014] 42 taxmann.com 190, where a charitable trust’s purchase of cooperative bank shares was deemed a regulatory requirement rather than an investment – Held: The rationale applies to the present case, as the respondent’s fund deployment was a legal obligation rather than a voluntary financial decision [Paras 42-44].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The ITAT’s decision granting exemption under Sections 11 and 12 was upheld, and the questions of law were answered in favor of the respondent.