Civil Procedure – Dismissal of Suit – Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC – Suit dismissed by invoking Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC – Plaintiffs challenged the order for dismissal of suit filed for declaration & injunction – Trial court's rejection based on non-inclusion of plaintiffs in an earlier suit – Contention raised on purchase of property from a party in the earlier suit. [Para 1, 7]

Property Law – Sale of Property During Pendency of Suit – Plaintiffs purchased property during pendency of earlier suit – Sale deeds executed in 1993 – Issue on whether property can be claimed back by original party in the suit – Consideration of the doctrine of lis pendens and its applicability in the context of property sold. [Para 2, 8, 9]

Fraud and Deception – Challenge to Compromise Decree – Allegation of fraud in obtaining a compromise decree – Plaintiffs claimed the decree affected their rights as property purchasers – Examination of validity of compromise decree when allegations of fraud are raised. [Para 3, 13, 14]

Legal Doctrine – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Discussion on the doctrine of lis pendens and its implications – Consideration of whether the doctrine applies to properties sold during pendency of litigation – The impact of fraudulent practices on the application of the doctrine. [Para 15]

Decision – Reversal of Trial Court's Order – High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court dismissing the suit – Direction for further proceedings in the trial court – Emphasis on the need for a detailed examination of the factual matrix and legal principles involved. [Para 16, 17]

Income Tax – Reassessment Notices – Applicability of Limitation Period – Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18 – Notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, post-enactment of Finance Act, 2021, treated as issued under Section 148A(b) – Validity of reassessment actions including orders under Section 148A(d) and consequent notices under Section 148 – Extended reassessment notices not allowed to ‘travel back in time’ to original issuance date – Limitation period under Section 149(1)(a) applicable – Notices concerning AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 declared unsustainable for exceeding prescribed three-year limitation period – Paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2(ii) of CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.2022 propounding ‘travel back in time’ theory held bad in law. [Para 54-56]

Legislative Intent – Finance Act, 2021 – Reassessment Proceedings – Reduction of time limit for issuance of notice under Section 148 – In normal cases, limit set to three years from the end of relevant assessment year – Extended period of ten years applicable in serious tax evasion cases with evidence of income concealment of ₹50 lakh or more – New regime intended to reduce litigation and ease compliance burden – Specific cases where extended limitation applies detailed in Finance Minister’s speech and Memorandum explaining provisions of Finance Bill 2021. [Para 53-53.4]

Decision – High Court declares impugned reassessment actions including orders under Section 148A(d) and consequent notices under Section 148 concerning AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 unsustainable due to exceeding the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1)(a) of the amended Income Tax Act – ‘Travel back in time’ theory in CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.2022 held invalid – Writ petitions allowed and reassessment notices concerning the specified assessment years quashed. [Para 54-56]

Writ Petition – Quashing of Order – Quashing of order dated 20.10.2023 in Dhanbad Mahila P.S. Case No.30 of 2023 under section 82 Cr.PC – Petitioner, the husband in a case under section 498A IPC, had already complied with notice under section 41A Cr.PC and appeared before the investigating officer – Petitioner's non-pressing of prayer-(a) and focusing on prayer-(b) for quashing the impugned order. [Para 5]

Anticipatory Bail – Denial of Anticipatory Bail by Sessions Court and High Court – Petitioner's A.B.P. No.3077 of 2023 rejected by Sessions Judge and A.B.A. No.9253 of 2023 dismissed as withdrawn in High Court – Compulsion to withdraw due to issuance of process under section 82 Cr.PC. [Para 5, 7]

Supreme Court Guidelines – Reference to Supreme Court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I (2022) and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) – Emphasis on guidelines regarding issuing process under section 82 Cr.P.C and arrest procedures in cases under section 498A IPC. [Para 5, 7]

Judicial Review – High Court's consideration of petitioner’s compliance with legal procedures and Supreme Court guidelines – Setting aside of impugned order dated 20.10.2023 and remittance of matter to the lower court for fresh proceedings in accordance with the law. [Para 7, 8, 9]

Criminal Proceedings – Quashing of Proceedings – Criminal proceedings against bank officials in a case involving missing jewelry from a bank locker quashed – Lack of evidence against petitioners, who were not sent for trial after police investigation – Alleged theft occurred, but no material implicating bank officials – Civil suit for the same incident pending. [Para 2, 5, 14-16]

Bank Locker Security – Operation and Custodianship – Bank’s procedures for locker operation outlined – Custodian's duties specified – Locker agreement not equivalent to bailment – Custody and possession of locker contents with bank, not equating to joint possession with hirer – Transaction of hiring a locker distinct from landlord-tenant relationship. [Para 9-11]

Jurisdiction of High Court – High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings at any stage if interference is justified – Utilization of such power in the absence of prima facie evidence against petitioners – Reference to Supreme Court cases emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion in quashing proceedings. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Criminal proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.M.P. Nos. 1519 of 2009, 627 of 2013, and 1078 of 2013 quashed – Civil suit to continue independently of this order. [Para 16-19]

Trade and Commerce – Firecracker Sale – Petitioners seeking permission to continue firecracker sale under valid license – Grievance over locked premises impeding lawful business – Directions issued for compliance with safety measures and unlocking of premises. [Para 1, 5, 6]

Licencing – Compliance with Safety Standards – Requirement for petitioners to adhere to inspection report guidelines – Direction for Deputy Commissioner to verify compliance and allow business continuation subject to safety measures. [Para 4, 6]

Judicial Directions – Ensuring Compliance with Law – Court's directions for unlocking premises and implementing safety measures – Petitioners to notify Deputy Commissioner post compliance – Premises not to be used for business until official permit granted. [Para 6, 7]

Licence Verification – Future Protocol – Deputy Commissioner mandated to sign or e-sign every page of license for authenticity – Forensic verification of disputed licenses directed – Chief Secretary to initiate disciplinary action in cases of unauthorized signatures. [Para 7, 8]

Decision – Court's Observations and Disposal – Petition disposed with directions for safety compliance, unlocking of premises, and official inspection – Emphasis on adherence to safety standards and legal protocols in firecracker sales. [Para 6, 9]

Criminal Revision Cases – Return of Vehicles – Revision against orders rejecting return of vehicles seized for alleged illegal sand mining under Sections 379 IPC and Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 – Petitioners seeking interim custody citing vehicle depreciation and reference to Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat for similar relief. [Paras 1-4]

Environmental Protection and Illegal Mining – Emphasis on the duty of the government under the Constitution and MMDR Act for environment conservation – Illegal mining seen as a persistent menace, necessitating stringent measures including confiscation of vehicles to deter offences and protect the environment. [Paras 7-9.2]

Confiscation Proceedings – Criminal prosecutions and confiscation as parallel proceedings with distinct purposes – Supreme Court's directions and High Court's responsibilities in ensuring effective enforcement of environmental laws and speedy adjudication of confiscation proceedings highlighted. [Paras 8.2-10.8]

Judicial Directions for Confiscation – Instructions for Director General of Police to initiate confiscation proceedings within 30 days – Principal District and Sessions Judge directed to expedite and conclude confiscation proceedings within six months. [Para 11]

Suggestion for Government – Proposal for establishment of special courts to handle the volume of cases related to illegal mining and transportation under the Mines and Minerals Act – Urgent need for effective law enforcement and judicial proceedings expressed. [Para 12]

Maintainability of Section 451 Cr.P.C. – Clarification that seeking interim custody under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable when confiscation proceedings are initiated – Conditions for release of vehicles outlined, including bond execution, deposit of sums, and undertaking not to engage in illegal activities. [Paras 13-14]

Compliance and Reporting – Case listed for compliance report on a specified date – Relevant authorities instructed for execution and reporting of the order's directives. [Para 15]

Anticipatory Bail – Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. – Petitioner, owner of a hotel, apprehending arrest in connection with a criminal case – Application for pre-arrest bail in the context of alleged sexual offenses occurring at his hotel. [Para 1-3]

Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Application – State's objection regarding the non-maintainability of the application – Petitioner's fear of arrest deemed groundless – Discussion on the application of Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C. to the case. [Para 4-5]

Legal Interpretation of 'Reason to Believe' – Analysis based on the Apex Court's interpretation in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab – Requirement for belief in arrest to be founded on reasonable grounds, not mere fear or speculation. [Para 6-8]

Assessment of Apprehension for Arrest – No direct allegations against the petitioner in FIR or Investigating Officer's report – Arrest of hotel manager not implying automatic implication of the hotel owner – Petitioner's apprehension not founded on tangible grounds. [Para 9]

Decision – Application for anticipatory bail found to be based on unreasonable premises and hence non-maintainable – Rejection of the ABLAPL application without addressing the applicability of Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C. [Para 10-11]

Writ Petition – Eligibility for Assistant Professor in Dentistry – Challenge against the requirement of three years’ Senior Resident experience under Odisha Medical Education Service Rules, 2013 – Petitioners’ failure to meet the eligibility criteria on the cut-off date. [Paras 4, 17]

Odisha Medical Education Service Rules – Applicability of 2013 and 2021 Rules – 2021 Rules, eliminating the requirement of three years’ Senior Resident experience, not applicable to the recruitment process initiated under the 2013 Rules – Petitioners ineligible as per 2013 Rules criteria. [Paras 14, 17]

Administrative Law – Principle of Res Judicata – Writ petitions challenging the same selection process as previously adjudicated – Petitioners’ participation in selection process precludes challenge – Writ petitions not maintainable on grounds of res judicata and estoppel. [Paras 7, 10, 14]

Judicial Review – Rejection of Representations – OPSC’s decision to reject petitioners’ candidature based on lack of required experience – Court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in OPSC’s decision. [Paras 15, 17, 20]

Decision – Writ petitions for appointment as Assistant Professor in Dentistry dismissed – Petitioners did not meet the necessary experience criteria on the cut-off date as per 2013 Rules. [Para 21]

Civil Revision Application – Specific Relief Act – Dismissal of revision against judgment and decree passed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act – Plaintiff's suit for restoration of possession decreed – Defendants' possession claim over ancestral property not upheld – Trial Court's findings affirmed. [Para 2, 5, 15]

Possession and Dispossession – Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act – Determination of possession and dispossession within six months – Court not required to investigate title in such proceedings – Summary procedure outlined by the legislature for restoration of possession. [Para 9, 12]

Limitation – Timeframe for filing suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act – Suit filed within six months from the date of dispossession – Comparison with Article 64 of the Limitation Act for recovery of immovable property based on previous possession. [Para 11]

Revision Jurisdiction – High Court’s limited interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act – Exceptional cases where grave injustice or error of law is evident – Appeal and review barred under Section 6(3). [Para 13, 14]

Final Decision – Dismissal of Civil Revision Application – Affirmation of trial court's judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff – Stay on further proceedings of Execution Case vacated. [Para 15, 16]