Income Tax – Reassessment under Section 148 – Examination of legality of notices issued under Sections 148A(b) and 148A(d), and Section 148 post-final assessment order – Initially, reassessment notice issued on 31 March 2021, followed by an assessment order on 31 March 2022 imposing additional income based on alleged penny stock transactions – Subsequent notices on 1 June 2022 and 16 July 2022 challenging under reassessment terms based on SC decision in Ashish Agarwal – Held, notices and subsequent order under Section 148A(d) quashed as invalid due to lack of new information or grounds and reassessment proceedings were already concluded – No authority under Ashish Agarwal to reopen concluded assessments – Relied on Anindita Sengupta v. ACIT for confined application of Ashish Agarwal decision to ongoing proceedings without finality. Petit Allowed. [Paras 1-21]

Patent Law – Pre-grant opposition – Appeal against High Court’s order not to entertain writ petition challenging the Controller’s rejection of pre-grant opposition on grounds of alternative remedy – Invention related to an artificial liquid cream for unsweetened cooking and whipping, claimed not novel due to prior art patent (D1) owned by appellant, which had expired – Controller and Single Judge found that the specific composition and process claimed by TFPL were novel and not disclosed in D1, hence patentable – Appeal dismissed on grounds that Controller’s order was not manifestly erroneous, and alternatives remedies were available. [Paras 1-21]

Role of Prior Art in Patent Eligibility – Discussion – Held – Controller’s rejection of RPC’s pre-grant opposition was based on findings that prior patent D1 did not disclose the specific stabilizer system comprising of Xanthan Gum and Hydroxypropyl Methyl Cellulose (HPMC) in the claimed composition, which was held as novel by the Controller. The Court upholds the Controller’s decision and rejects RPC’s appeal, indicating no jurisdictional error or misapplication of law in the Controller’s decision. [Paras 10-14, 17, 20]

Judicial Review Limitations – Analysis – Held – The Court emphasizes the discretionary nature of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when an alternate statutory remedy is available. The Court concurs with the learned Single Judge that there was no manifest error in the Controller’s decision warranting interference, and that the remedies post-grant should be pursued as provided under the Patents Act. [Paras 10, 16-20]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – The High Court upholds the decision of the learned Single Judge, affirming the rejection of the pre-grant opposition by the Controller, thereby dismissing the intra-court appeal filed by RPC. The decision underscores the adequate alternate remedies available under the Patents Act for challenging patent grants. [Para 21]

Income Tax – Reassessment Notice Validity – Challenge against reassessment notice issued under Section 148 and subsequent order under Section 148A(d) – Notice based on transactions with Mr. Manoj Sethi, alleged to have unexplained cash deposits – Petitioner contends all transactions were through cheques and fully disclosed during original assessments – Court finds no improper assumption of jurisdiction by AO under Section 147 as the petitioner failed to disclose cash transactions in the original proceedings – Petitioner’s claim of full disclosure in original assessments rejected – Reassessment proceedings held valid. [Paras 1-30]

Duty of Disclosure under Income Tax Law – Emphasis on the requirement for assessee to ‘fully and truly’ disclose all material facts necessary for assessment – Mere production of accounts or evidence from which material evidence could be discovered by AO does not amount to disclosure – Supreme Court precedents stressed on the duty of the assessee to facilitate the AO’s discovery of material facts. [Paras 18-22]

Legal Interpretation of ‘True and Full Disclosure’ – High Court elaborates on the scope of true and full disclosure under Section 147, influenced by Supreme Court’s interpretation – Disclosure must include all material facts that could lead to a higher income assessment than originally made – Failure to disclose such facts justifies reassessment. Petition Dismissed. [Paras 19, 20, 23]

Criminal Law – Quashing of Second FIR – Criminal Miscellaneous Application – Quashing of the orders dated 05.03.2016 passed by the learned 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chhapra, and the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra, directing the lodging of a second FIR in connection with Chhapra Town P.S. Case No. 52 of 2013 – Application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. citing the impermissibility of a second FIR for the same occurrence – Supreme Court precedents including T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 relied upon – Held that the second FIR and subsequent proceedings are an abuse of the process of law – Orders quashed. [Paras 1-12]

Second FIR – Legal Prohibition – Analysis – Held – The Supreme Court’s judgments in T.T. Antony and Bhajan Lal cases clearly prohibit the lodging of a second FIR in respect of the same cognizable offense – The lodging of a second FIR would lead to a fresh investigation, which is not permissible – The court finds the actions to be manifestly attended with mala fide intentions and amounts to misuse of the judicial process. [Paras 8-10]

Decision – Quashing of Second FIR – Court quashes the orders directing the lodging of the second FIR and sets aside all consequential proceedings – Application allowed. [Para 11-12]

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Assessment – Appeal Allowed – Matter Remanded for Fresh Decision – High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla allowed the appeal against the award by the Additional District Judge, Mandi, H.P., in a land acquisition case. The appeal was filed on the grounds that the learned Reference Court ignored critical factors such as the nature of the land and assessed compensation based on guesswork. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication, directing it to consider the commercial potentiality of the land and assess market value appropriately, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the use of future sale transactions in determining market value [Paras 1-16].

Market Value – Reliance on Future Sale Transactions – Judicial Caution Required – The High Court emphasized that the Reference Court should avoid relying on sale transactions that occurred after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act to determine market value, as per Supreme Court precedent. The increase in market value post-acquisition due to development activities must be carefully considered to prevent inflated compensation [Paras 11-14].

Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the award of the Reference Court. The matter was remanded back to the Reference Court for reassessment of compensation, ensuring adherence to the principles of fair market valuation and procedural propriety. The Reference Court was instructed to expedite the proceedings and resolve the matter within three months.

Revision under Article 227 against order denying adjournment for expert cross-examination – Challenge against Trial Court’s order dated 16.04.2024 dismissing adjournment application for cross-examining Dr. Jassy Anand (PW-7), a forensic expert engaged to compare signatures/thumb impressions in property transaction documents – Supreme Court previously granted only one opportunity for plaintiff to complete evidence, specifically directing that proceedings conclude by 30.04.2024 – High Court finds no merit in petitioner’s claim that an additional opportunity should be granted for producing the expert for cross-examination, noting the specific directive of the Supreme Court for only one opportunity and adherence to scheduled dates by the Trial Court – Revision petition dismissed due to lack of substantive reasoning for the expert’s non-availability on the fixed date and the Trial Court’s correct application of the Supreme Court’s directive. [Paras 1-6]

Compassionate Appointment – Rejection of Application – Petitioner’s husband died in 2008 while employed with Food Corporation of India – Petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment soon after but faced rejection and subsequent delays in processing her applications – High Court held that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a concession meant to prevent destitution – Given the substantial time elapsed and no exceptional destitution shown, petitioner’s claim held unsustainable – Relevant policy (2013) not retrospective to cover 2008 – Petition dismissed. [Paras 1-8]

Administrative Law – Compassionate Allowance and Benefits After Dismissal – Petitioner seeks judicial review of the decision rejecting his claim for compassionate allowance and other benefits following his dismissal from service in 2001 – The petitioner remained inactive for 21 years before initiating legal action – High Court emphasizes the principles of delay and laches, noting that unexplained long delays can detrimentally affect the entitlement to relief – Court holds that attempts to revive a lapsed cause of action are impermissible and, in the presence of a valid dismissal order, entitlement to retiral benefits does not arise [Paras 1-10].

Constitutional Law – Jurisdiction and Laches – The dismissal occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court – The petitioner failed to provide sufficient reason for the 21-year delay in seeking judicial review, which the Court found detrimental to the cause of justice – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedent Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 551, regarding the adverse impact of delay and laches on the exercise of writ jurisdiction [Paras 7, 8, 9].

Decision: Petition Dismissed – The Court dismisses the petition on grounds of substantial delay, lack of jurisdiction, and failure to directly challenge the original dismissal order – No compelling case made out for entitlement to compassionate allowance under the circumstances described [Para 10].

Second FIR – Prohibition – Petitioner seeks quashing of orders for registering a second FIR based on same transaction – First FIR registered by the bank involving allegations of financial misappropriation – Complaint by third party initiated subsequent proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Investigating officer had already considered the third party's complaint during the investigation of the first FIR – High Court references T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, emphasizes prohibition of multiple FIRs on same transaction – Orders for second FIR quashed [Paras 1-12].

Misuse of Process – Malicious Prosecution – High Court notes that permitting a second FIR would lead to abuse of judicial process and malicious prosecution – Upholds the principle that investigation and further evidence collection should be under the original FIR – Cites State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to support quashing orders that result in misuse of judicial process [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Application allowed – Orders dated 05.03.2016 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chhapra and dated 21.01.2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra are quashed – Second FIR and all consequential proceedings set aside – Court reaffirms the prohibition against registering multiple FIRs for the same occurrence [Paras 11-12].