Income Tax – Assessment Order – Writ Petition challenging assessment order issued without proper notice to petitioner – Address discrepancy noted; notices returned undelivered – Petitioner claimed lack of opportunity to contest assessment due to incorrect address – Court found fault with petitioner for not updating address with Income Tax Department but recognized the necessity for petitioner to be heard – Assessment order set aside subject to payment of costs and re-assessment directed [Paras 1-6].

Procedure for Assessment – Importance of Proper Notice – Emphasized that taxpayers must update current addresses with tax authorities – Highlighted procedural lapse in serving notices and conducting assessments without taxpayer’s knowledge – Court mandated reasonable opportunity and personal hearing for petitioner during re-assessment [Paras 4-6].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed with Costs – Assessment order dated 10.01.2024 set aside on condition of petitioner paying Rs.15,000 as costs to Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai – Respondent directed to provide portal access for petitioner to submit reply and conduct reassessment with opportunity for personal hearing via video conference within four months [Para 6-7].

Electricity Connection - Alternative Remedy - Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum: Petitioner sought court direction for a new electricity connection amidst pending civil suit for property possession and criminal writ for protection. High Court emphasized the statutory framework for consumer grievances under the Electricity Act, providing an effective, expeditious remedy through the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman. It underscored that writ petitions should not bypass prescribed statutory remedies unless exceptions apply [Paras 1-17].

Civil Procedure - Application of Order II Rule 2 CPC: Court noted petitioner’s previous suit encompassed similar relief for electricity load restoration, thus Order II Rule 2 CPC barred repetitive litigation in alternative forums. Petitioner’s claim of a new cause of action was rejected as misleading, portraying an artificial distinction to evade statutory process [Paras 8-11].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner directed to seek remedy through statutory consumer grievance mechanisms. Court highlighted procedural integrity and necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction [Paras 12-17].

Hindu Succession Act – Coparcenary Rights – Plaintiffs, daughters of the deceased Murugan, claimed coparcenary rights in the ancestral properties – Defendants contended that the properties were self-acquired by D1 – High Court held that all the suit properties are ancestral and plaintiffs are entitled to coparcenary rights by birth under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 – Trial Court’s findings on coparcenary status and superstructures reversed – [Paras 14-35].

Evidence Act – Additional Evidence – Plaintiffs filed petitions under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to receive additional documents – High Court allowed the petitions, marking the documents as Ex-A.8 to Ex-A.11 – Documents were vital to decide the dispute [Paras 15-18].

Civil Procedure – Sale Deeds and GPA – Transactions pending suit – Certain sale deeds and GPA executed by D1 in favour of D2 and others during the pendency of the suit – High Court held that transactions were done to defeat plaintiffs’ rights – Transactions not protected under proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 [Paras 30-33].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Judgment and decree of Trial Court modified – Preliminary decree granted to plaintiffs for 1/3 share each in ancestral properties – Suit dismissed in respect of certain properties due to prior valid sale deeds – CMP petitions allowed, additional documents received and marked [Paras 35].
 

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 9 – Civil suit for possession of agricultural land – Ejectment of tenant – Denial of landlord’s title – Jurisdiction of civil court – The Court held that if defendants deny the title of the plaintiffs in their written statement, it is sufficient to hold that they have denounced the title of the plaintiff, thereby giving the civil court jurisdiction to entertain the suit for possession [Para 10].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 9 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 27 – Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 – Section 51 – Tenancy of agricultural land – Adverse possession – The defendants claimed adverse possession but did not plead tenancy. The First Appellate Court incorrectly found them to be tenants. The Court emphasized that findings cannot go beyond pleadings, and evidence led beyond pleadings should not be appreciated [Paras 11, 13].

Adverse Possession – Requirements – The Court noted that adverse possession must be hostile, actual, visible, exclusive, and continuous over the statutory period. The defendants' plea of adverse possession was not supported by evidence, and thus they did not perfect their title by adverse possession [Paras 5-7].

Denial of Title and Tenancy Rights – The Court ruled that denying the title of the plaintiffs by claiming ownership through adverse possession results in forfeiting tenancy rights. The civil court has jurisdiction to grant possession to the plaintiffs in such cases [Paras 9-10].

Decision: The appeals filed by the plaintiffs (RSA-1735-1990 and RSA-1734-1990) are allowed. The suits filed by the plaintiffs for possession are decreed in toto. The appeal filed by one of the defendants (RSA-1245-1990) is dismissed. The judgments of the trial courts in both suits are restored.

Criminal Complaint – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Petitioners challenged the summoning order by the Trial Court, claiming lack of essential ingredients of the alleged offences – Cited Supreme Court precedents on the necessity of reasoned orders for summoning – Court observed complaint lacked specific allegations and appeared motivated by personal vendetta – Complaint and proceedings quashed [Paras 2-3, 11-15].

Locus Standi – Legitimacy of Complaint – Court noted respondent No.2 (mother of deceased first husband) lacked locus standi as aggrieved party – Pension disbursement department would be the appropriate complainant if any fraud was committed [Para 11].

Policy and Legal Precedents – Summoning and Quashing Guidelines – Emphasized careful scrutiny of complaints alleging vexatious and frivolous litigation – Cited Supreme Court judgments on appropriate exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of legal process [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Held – Summoning order and all subsequent proceedings quashed – Complaint deemed motivated by personal revenge rather than legal merit [Para 15].

Workmen’s Compensation – Employer-Employee Relationship – Insurance Liability – Deceased driver crushed between two lorries – Insurance company’s contention that deceased had a fake driving licence and thus no liability – Court held that the insurance company cannot question employer-employee relationship based on the driving licence’s validity in this context – Liability of insurer not absolved despite fake licence of driver responsible for accident – Appeal dismissed – Compensation affirmed [Paras 1-12].

Driving Licence Validity – Employer’s Duty – No evidence of employer’s knowledge of fake licence – Court reiterates that the owner cannot be expected to verify the licence’s genuineness beyond its face value – Insurance liability persists even if driving licence is fake without owner’s knowledge [Paras 10-12].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Commissioner’s order upheld – No costs ordered – Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Recall of Witness – Petition challenging the recall of a key witness (PW-2) for re-examination – Respondent sought recall to correct errors and omissions during prior cross-examination conducted by a legal aid counsel – Trial Court’s decision to allow recall upheld – No manifest error in Trial Court’s decision; re-examination deemed necessary for just decision and to avoid miscarriage of justice [Paras 1-10].

Section 311 Cr.P.C. – Scope and Application – Importance of re-examining PW-2 due to their vital role in the case – Previous counsel did not represent respondent's choice – Respondent entitled to correct bona fide errors – Court emphasizes the importance of fair trial and just decision, balancing against unnecessary delays and hardship to witness [Paras 5-9].
 

Decision – Criminal Petition Dismissed – Held – Trial Court’s order to recall PW-2 for re-examination upheld – No interference warranted as the decision aids in achieving a just trial outcome [Paras 9-10].
 

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Framing of Charges – Section 306 IPC – Allegations based on suicide note – Deceased allegedly committed suicide due to non-repayment of loan by petitioner – Suicide note does not indicate instigation or intent to abet suicide by petitioner – Mere refusal to repay loan insufficient to constitute abetment – Insufficient material to frame charges under Section 306 IPC – Order framing charges set aside – Petitioner discharged [Paras 1-37].

Evidence Law – Suicide Note – Role in Framing Charges – Suicide note alleging harassment due to unpaid loan – Forensic report inconclusive on handwriting – No direct or indirect evidence of instigation or intent to abet suicide – Charge under Section 306 IPC requires clear instigation or aiding of suicide [Paras 19-30].

Legal Principles – Framing of Charges – Judicial Review – Section 227 Cr.P.C. – Court’s duty to sift and weigh evidence to determine prima facie case – Charges should not be framed on suspicion alone – Application of principles from Prafulla Kumar Samal and Kanchan Kumar cases [Paras 31-34].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order framing charges under Section 306 IPC set aside – Petitioner discharged in the criminal case arising out of FIR No. 355/2020.
 

SARFAESI Act – Agricultural Land Exemption – Writ Jurisdiction: Petitioner challenged the initiation of SARFAESI Act proceedings against its agricultural land, arguing that such land is exempt under Section 31(i) of the Act. The High Court reiterated that the classification of land in revenue records alone does not determine its status under SARFAESI; actual use and intention of the parties are crucial. The court emphasized that such determinations are within the jurisdiction of the appropriate tribunal and not for writ courts unless exceptional circumstances exist [Paras 1-9].

SARFAESI Act – Alternative Remedy – OTS Proposal: High Court dismissed the petition, stressing the availability of statutory remedies under SARFAESI Act. The court noted the petitioner's request for a new OTS did not warrant interference in SARFAESI proceedings. It reaffirmed the principle that borrowers do not have a vested right to an OTS, citing the Supreme Court’s precedent [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed - Petitioner directed to pursue remedies under SARFAESI Act. The court allowed for the possibility of a mutually acceptable settlement between the parties, clarifying no opinion on the merits [Paras 13-14].