Unauthorized Construction – Retention of Additional Floor – Sections 174 and 177 of the Howrah Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 – Petitioner challenged the Corporation’s decision to allow private respondents to retain an additional floor beyond the sanctioned G+1 structure – High Court held the action of the Corporation as contrary to law – Corporation directed to initiate proceedings under Section 177 against private respondents – Retention of unauthorized construction without statutory provision is illegal [Paras 1-27].

Procedure under Municipal Act – Statutory Obligation – Sections 174 and 177 require prior sanction for construction and empower the Commissioner to demolish unauthorized constructions – Corporation acted beyond its powers by regularizing additional floor construction without statutory basis – Emphasized that minor deviations can be regularized only under specified conditions, which were not met in this case [Paras 4-20].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders by the Commissioner of Howrah Municipal Corporation set aside – Directed to initiate proceedings under Section 177 within a month – Proceedings to be concluded within three months, ensuring opportunity of hearing to all parties – Decision to be communicated to parties [Paras 24-25].

Hindu Succession Act – Daughters’ Right to Inheritance – Appeal challenged trial court’s decree granting 1/8^th share of property to the respondent, a daughter of the deceased – Appellants claimed an oral agreement among heirs excluding daughters from the property share – Trial court decreed in favor of the respondent – High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, affirming equal inheritance rights of daughters under Section 8 of the Act [Paras 1-32].

Mutation – Illegality of Excluding Daughters – The mutation of property in the names of only the sons deemed illegal – High Court emphasized that daughters, as Class-I heirs, are entitled to equal share and proper mutation reflecting all heirs [Paras 23-24].

Constructive Trust – Contributions to Property – Appellants’ claim of exclusive ownership due to constructing a building on the inherited land with personal funds rejected – High Court held that contributions did not negate respondent’s statutory share [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree of the trial court upheld – Respondent entitled to 1/8^th share of the property and profits [Paras 32].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Second FIR – Principle of Single FIR – Petitioners challenged the legitimacy of the second FIR on the grounds of it being based on the same set of allegations as the first FIR – The court held that a second FIR is not maintainable if it pertains to the same offence and set of facts as the first FIR – Applied the principles established in TT Anthony and Amit Shah cases – Second FIR quashed [Paras 1-27].

Duplicate FIRs – Investigation Continuity – Use of Documents from First FIR – CBI admitted to using documents seized during the investigation of the first FIR in the charge sheet of the second FIR – Court emphasized that this practice indicates the investigations are linked and should be consolidated – Second FIR declared void [Paras 18-23].

Further Investigation – Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. – Proper Procedure – Court clarified that the CBI is allowed to conduct further investigation and submit additional evidence under the original FIR, without filing a new FIR for each subsequent piece of information or related offence – Ensures adherence to procedural requirements and prevents abuse of the investigative process [Paras 21-23, 27].

Application of Supreme Court Precedents – TT Anthony and Amit Shah – Court referenced the Supreme Court’s rulings to underline the illegality of multiple FIRs for the same offence – Reinforced the legal position that supplementary or additional charge sheets are permissible under the original FIR [Paras 19-20, 23].

Fundamental Rights – Protection Against Repeated Prosecution – Article 21 – Court noted that allowing multiple FIRs for the same set of facts infringes upon the fundamental rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Highlighted the need to protect individuals from repetitive and redundant legal actions [Paras 20, 23].

Decision:

CRR allowed – FIR No. RC No. 010/2014A/0015 dated 14^th June 2014, charge sheet dated 31^st March 2016, and subsequent order taking cognizance quashed – CBI permitted to submit supplementary or additional charge sheet in accordance with the law under the original FIR RC No. 0102012A/002 dated 10.01.2012 [Paras 26-27].

Commercial Law – Additional Documents in Commercial Suits – Petitioners sought to place additional documents on record which were allegedly in possession of previous counsel – Dismissal of the application by the Commercial Court upheld – Requirement for strict adherence to timelines and procedural rigour under Commercial Courts Act emphasized – Petitioners failed to establish a reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents at the time of filing suit [Paras 1-27].

Reasonable Cause under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC – Court highlighted the need for demonstrating reasonable cause for non-disclosure of documents within prescribed time – “Reasonable cause” must be beyond control of petitioner, not due to negligence or oversight – Previous consultation with multiple advocates does not justify non-filing of documents with plaint [Paras 19-26].

Strict Interpretation of Commercial Courts Act – Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents mandate strict interpretation of procedural requirements to ensure expeditious resolution of commercial disputes – Liberal interpretation would defeat the purpose of the Act [Paras 20-21, 25].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Findings of Commercial Court on non-allowance of additional documents upheld – Strict compliance with procedural norms under Commercial Courts Act reaffirmed [Paras 27-28].
 

Tender Process – Evaluation of Technical Bid – Clause 21.5 of ITB – Petitioner’s bid declared L1 after a lottery draw – Bid subsequently cancelled due to alleged submission of a false tax invoice for a “Wet Mix Plant” – Clause 21.5 only applicable during technical evaluation, not after financial bid opening – Cancellation deemed arbitrary and without proper verification – Principles of natural justice violated by lack of opportunity for petitioner to defend against allegations [Paras 1-11].

Cancellation of Bid – False Document Allegations – Petitioner accused of submitting a fake tax invoice – Allegations based on an email from the alleged supplier denying issuance of the invoice – Supplier’s email not authenticated during proceedings – Authority’s action found to be unjustified and lacking legal scrutiny – Decision to cancel bid quashed for procedural irregularities and failure to provide a fair hearing [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Cancellation of bid under Clause 21.5 of ITB found to be erroneous – Authority’s order quashed – Emphasized need for proper verification and adherence to natural justice in tender evaluations [Para 12].
 

Rent Enhancement – Fair Rent Assessment – Petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s order directing payment of enhanced fair rent and current rent – Contention that the Tribunal granted final relief on an interlocutory application and erroneously applied precedents without factual alignment – Order set aside and directions issued for proper assessment by the Tribunal [Paras 1-56].

Lease Expiry and Tenancy Rights – Examined the validity of tenants’ rights post-lease expiry – Issue of whether tenants can claim rent after lease expiry – Noted that final relief on interlocutory application is improper, emphasizing the need for fair procedural conduct [Paras 30-53].

Interlocutory Relief – Enforcement of Orders Pending Appeal – Discussion on the propriety of enforcing orders under appeal through interlocutory applications – Highlighted the significance of not rendering appeals ineffective by granting final relief prematurely – Directed deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs and continued rent payments under specified conditions [Paras 50-55].

Costs Imposition – Justification and Reasonableness – Reviewed the basis for imposing substantial costs – Emphasized need for clear justification and special circumstances for imposing high costs – Adjusted costs to a reasonable amount considering the conduct of the petitioners [Paras 41-43].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Orders of the learned Tribunal set aside – Directed petitioners to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs with the Tribunal and continue paying rent at Rs. 5000 per month – Costs imposed at Rs. 20,000 – Mandated expeditious disposal of original applications by the Tribunal [Paras 54-55].
 

NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 52A(2) – Bail Application – Appellant convicted for possession of 610 gms of smack under Section 8(C) read with 21(c) of the NDPS Act. Bail application based on alleged non-compliance with mandatory procedures under Section 52A(2) of the Act, which requires the presence of a Magistrate during the sampling and certification of seized contraband – Appellant argued that non-compliance vitiated the trial, making conviction unsustainable – Respondent claimed compliance with procedural requirements – Court found prima facie non-compliance with Section 52A(2), warranting bail [Paras 1-13].

Judicial Custody and Sentence – Non-compliance Impact – Appellant in judicial custody since the date of conviction (30.08.2022) and sentenced to 15 years RI with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 – Appellant argued that almost three years in custody and procedural lapses in the trial justified bail – Court granted bail without expressing final opinion on appeal’s merits, emphasizing that bail decisions do not affect the final outcome of the appeal [Paras 4-15].

Decision – Bail Granted – Bail application allowed – Appellant to be released on executing personal bond and two sureties – Observations made are for bail application disposal only, without affecting the criminal appeal’s merits – Listed for final hearing in due course [Paras 13-16].
 

Income Tax – Characterization of Receipts – Settlement Agreement – Rs. 32.42 crores received by ITC from ELEL under a settlement agreement related to disputes over a hotel operating license agreement – Issue of whether the sum is capital or revenue receipt – ITAT held it as a long-term capital gain – High Court reversed, determining it as a revenue receipt, taxable as business income [Paras 1-32].

Licenses and Trading Contracts – Legal Nature – Examination of the operating license agreement dated May 3, 1986, between ITC and ELEL – Agreement found to be a trading contract with no right, title, or interest conferred on ITC – Termination and subsequent settlement considered part of ITC’s ordinary business activities – Held that the sum received is a revenue receipt [Paras 14-21].

Evidentiary Considerations – Treatment of Receipts – Analysis of the purpose and nature of the settlement payment – Reliance on precedents distinguishing capital from revenue receipts – Court concluded that the settlement was compensation for the termination of a trading contract, thus revenue in nature [Paras 24-29].

Legal Precedents – Application of Judicial Principles – Cited Supreme Court judgments to distinguish between capital and revenue receipts – Compensation related to trading operations generally considered revenue receipts unless related to loss of a source of income – Settlement for termination of trading contracts treated as revenue receipts [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – ITAT’s finding reversed – Rs. 32.42 crores held to be revenue receipt and taxable accordingly – High Court’s judgment upheld [Para 32].
 

Trusts and Estates – Development Agreement – Originating Summons for Opinion – Plaintiff sought court’s opinion on executing a Development Agreement concerning Raghunath Chatterjee Street property for the benefit of deities – Agreement to include adult male descendants as confirming parties – Court affirmed benefit for deities and consent from family members – Deities’ safety considered paramount, proposals for property development approved [Paras 1-20].

Maintenance and Security of Deities – Funds Insufficiency – Plaintiff highlighted financial challenges in maintaining properties and deities – Proposal by defendant no. 13 for property development included financial benefits for deities and allocation of ground floor – Court approved proposals ensuring safety and upliftment of deities, considering current financial state and property conditions [Paras 7-19].

Procedural Aspects – Compliance with KMC Regulations – Court directed compliance with Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) rules for property development – Proposals modified in accordance with FAR and permissible construction area – Court emphasized adherence to municipal guidelines and proper planning [Paras 13-20].

Decision: CSOS 1 of 2023 disposed of – Court affirmed the benefit of executing Development Agreement for deities – Approved proposals ensuring deities’ safety and financial upliftment – Confirming parties from family directed to join Agreement [Para 21].