Maintenance Review – Criminal revision filed against the order dated 25.01.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar, which granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,000 to revisionist No.1 and Rs.2,000 each to revisionist Nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Revisionists seek enhancement of the maintenance allowance, alleging that the trial court did not adequately consider the income and assets of the opposite party No.2 [Paras 2-4].

Income and Earnings Assessment – Opposite party No.2's income from the family business underreported as Rs.7,000 per month – Evidence suggests substantial assets and higher income level, including NSCs, PPF, and ownership in a family business, justifying a higher maintenance allowance [Paras 4, 18-20, 26-28].

Legal Jurisdiction and Procedural Legality – Discussion on the appropriate forum for filing revisions under the Family Court Act, 1984 – Criminal revision held maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Act against orders passed under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C., including those concerning maintenance [Paras 10-15].

Determination of Maintenance – Court finds that maintenance calculated as 25% of the actual income of the husband for the wife and 20% for each child is appropriate based on revised assessments of husband's income – Maintenance for wife revised to Rs.15,000 per month and Rs.6,000 each for the children [Paras 29-31, 34].

Modification of Maintenance Order – Original maintenance order modified to reflect enhanced allowances, payable from the date of the initial application with arrears to be paid in four equal installments [Paras 33-35].

Decision: The criminal revision is partly allowed - The maintenance order dated 25.01.2023 is set aside in part and enhanced as described - The revised maintenance amounts are to be paid from the date of the original application, with arrears structured in four equal instalments. [Para 36].

Gift Deeds and Basic Amenities Requirement – Dispute over ownership and right to stay in flats gifted by father to son – The Maintenance Tribunal nullified gift deeds executed in favor of the petitioner son, based on allegations of non-provision of basic amenities by the son post-transfer – Analysis centers on whether gift deeds were subject to the conditions of providing basic amenities and physical needs, as required under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act – Tribunal found conditions met due to explicit covenants allowing the father’s residence in the flats, indicating a conditional gift based on basic amenities provision - [Paras 1-54].

Tribunal's Jurisdiction Under Senior Citizens Act – Discussed necessity for specific conditions in gift deeds stipulating the provision of basic amenities for seniors as a prerequisite for invoking Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act – The court opined that such conditions need not be explicitly stated in the deeds but may be established through evidence and proceedings, which aligns with the act’s objective to protect senior citizens’ rights to basic amenities post property transfer - [Paras 19-20, 40-43, 46-47].

Application and Implications of Section 23(1) – Senior Citizens Act envisages scenarios where senior citizens can reclaim gifted properties if basic needs are not met by the transferee – The court critiqued the broad application of Section 23(1), urging it should not be used to resolve general property disputes unrelated to the maintenance of senior citizens – Emphasized that legislative intent is to ensure senior citizens' basic needs are met, not just to nullify transfer documents - [Paras 50-52].

Decision: court set aside the Maintenance Tribunal's order to nullify the gift deeds and vacate the flats - It directed that the petitioner provides residence to the respondent father in one specified flat along with a monthly maintenance amount, aligning with the act’s purpose to ensure the senior’s welfare rather than merely annul property transfers - The judgment refines the interpretation of Section 23(1), emphasizing evidence over explicit conditions in deeds for the provision of basic amenities - [Para 54].

Revisional Application Under Article 227 – Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 – Challenge to Assessment of Property Tax – exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, adjudicated upon the revisional application challenging the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal regarding the annual valuation for property tax of premises no. 99A, Humayun Kabir Sarani, Kolkata. The Tribunal’s order had modified the valuation determined by the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction appropriately and did not adhere to the mandatory statutory procedures under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. [Paras 1-21]

Misapplication of Jurisdiction by Municipal Assessment Tribunal – Held, the Municipal Assessment Tribunal improperly exercised its jurisdiction by failing to provide reasoned justification for modifying the Hearing Officer's order, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal's reliance on past judgments without elucidating their relevance to the present case and its disregard for the procedural requirements under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules thereof constituted a flagrant violation of statutory obligations. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Adjudication – High Court sets aside the impugned order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal and directs it to reconsider the matter in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. [Paras 18-20]

Quashing of Cognizance and Process – Criminal Revision against dismissal of petition to quash cognizance and process – Petitioner accused of offenses under Sections 354A(1)(iv)/34 IPC – Allegations by actress against petitioner – Cognizance and process issued without proper application of judicial mind and procedural requirements – Petitioner challenges orders before Sessions Judge – High Court’s dismissal of similar revisions against co-accused cited as ground for dismissal – Sessions Judge dismisses petitioner’s revision solely based on High Court’s order – Petitioner not heard in High Court’s proceedings – Violation of fundamental principle of hearing and natural justice – Abuse of process of law – Order of Sessions Judge set aside – Matter restored for proper hearing and disposal – Criminal Revision allowed.

Lease Agreement Dispute – Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and respondents disputed over the renewal of a lease agreement for property at Plot A-9 and 10, South Extension, Part-1, Ring Road, New Delhi - Lease originally executed in 1966, renewed in 2003 for 20 years – BPCL sought renewal; respondents declined and issued notice to vacate [Paras 3(i)-(vii)].

Interpretation of Lease Renewal Clause – Key issue was interpretation of Clause II (7) of the Lease Deed regarding lease renewal - BPCL contended for automatic 20-year renewal; respondents argued for mutually agreeable terms or no renewal – Court examined the phrase "NIL years" in the clause [Paras 9, 10, 12, 13].

BPCL’s Renewal Request – BPCL's communications in 2021 and 2022 seeking renewal cited – Respondents denied receipt; no substantiation by BPCL - Court considered these as afterthought defense [Paras 16, 17].

Court's Analysis and Ruling – Court interpreted renewal clause as requiring mutual agreement for any renewal period - Rejected BPCL’s interpretation of automatic renewal – No ambiguity in the written contract to warrant oral evidence or different interpretation [Paras 19, 23, 24, 25].

Specific Performance and Lease Agreement – Counterclaim for specific performance of lease renewal under Section 14(1)(c) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 deemed untenable – Lease deemed determinable in nature [Paras 27].

Decision – Appeals and pending applications dismissed; upheld judgment of the Commercial Court favoring respondents – Lease Deed considered determinable, no ground for specific performance [Para 28].

Quashing of Order by Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) – Writ Petition – Supreme Court judgment reversing High Court’s decision – ITSC order based on respondent-assessee group’s application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act for settlement – ITSC erroneously accepted application despite inadequate full and true disclosure of income by respondent – Held, ITSC acted beyond its jurisdiction by approving application and granting immunity, as it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such applications without full and true disclosure – Order dated 9 June 2014 set aside. [Paras 32-57]

Jurisdiction of ITSC and Requirements for Application under Section 245C – Analysis – Held, ITSC can only consider applications under Section 245C that include full and true disclosure of income – Any lack of such disclosure deprives ITSC of jurisdiction to entertain the application or provide immunity from prosecution and penalties – Respondent-assessee group’s failure to fully disclose income resulted in ITSC exceeding its jurisdiction by approving application and granting immunity. [Paras 34-37, 50-57]

Disclosure of Income in Settlement Applications – Importance – Held, foundation of settlement applications under Section 245C is full, true, and honest disclosure of income and source of income – Inadequate disclosure leads to ITSC losing jurisdiction over the application – Respondent-assessee group’s application lacked full and truthful disclosure, rendering ITSC’s order and granted immunities legally unsustainable. [Paras 54-57]

Decision  – ITSC erred in approving application and granting immunity – Application under Section 245C requires complete and truthful disclosure – Order dated 9 June 2014 set aside, writ petition allowed [Paras 55-57].                      

Condonation of Delay in Filing Written Statement – Trial Court’s Orders Challenged – Petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing written statement before the Trial Court – Trial Court declined to take written statement on record – Subsequent applications for condonation dismissed – Petition before High Court assailing Trial Court’s orders – High Court’s analysis of facts and law – Arguments on behalf of Petitioner and Respondent – Consideration of delay and justification – Judicial custody of Petitioner – High Court’s observations on procedural aspects – Invocation of judicial discretion – Precedents cited – Non-commercial suits and directory nature of time limits – Substantial justice and compensation – High Court allows written statement on record with costs imposed on Petitioner – Petition disposed accordingly.

Decision: Petition allowed; written statement allowed to be taken on record with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid to the respondent no. 1 before the learned Trial Court on the next date of hearing.

Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. –Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23, 25, 27A & 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) – Prosecution alleges involvement of applicant in trafficking heroin concealed in mulethi logs – Applicant engaged in legitimate business of import of dry fruits and mulethi – Alleged recovery of heroin from mulethi logs supplied by applicant – Prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence including call detail records, financial transactions, and presence at storage location – Court examines evidence and finds lack of direct evidence linking applicant to heroin trafficking – Mulethi logs recovered not conclusively linked to applicant – Statements of co-accused not admissible in evidence – Rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act not satisfied – Applicant in custody since May 5, 2022, with trial unlikely to conclude soon – Delay in trial considered a negation of fundamental right under Article 21 – Court grants bail with conditions including personal bond and surety, restriction on leaving the country, providing address updates, appearance before trial court, maintaining mobile communication, refraining from criminal activity and contact with witnesses, and possibility of bail cancellation upon involvement in another case – Observations made for bail purposes only, without prejudicing merits of the case – Bail application allowed.

Parole Request in Pending Criminal Appeal – Dismissal of petition for parole – Petitioner, convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part I and Section 323 IPC, seeks parole to attend brother's marriage – Held, application for parole not maintainable during pendency of appeal, where appellant can seek suspension of sentence and interim bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. [Paras 6, 10, 12]

Role of High Court and Executive in Granting Parole – Analysis of judicial precedents – Emphasized that State cannot exercise powers to grant parole during pendency of statutory appeal – Rule 1209 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 restricts grant of regular parole when convict's appeal is pending – High Court's appellate powers not to be derogated by executive decisions on parole. [Paras 7, 8]

Judicial Interpretation of Parole Rules – Reference to Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – Discussion on distinction between parole and furlough – Clarification on Rule 1209 barring parole during pendency of appeal – Importance of appellate court's powers in parole decisions highlighted. [Paras 7, 9]

Alternative Remedies for Convicts – Convicts can seek interim bail or suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during pendency of appeal – High Court has the power to consider such applications on grounds similar to those for regular parole. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision – Petition for parole dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioner to file application for suspension of sentence and interim bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in pending appeal – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 12]