Writ Law - Octroi and Export Fee - Maharashtra Municipal Councils Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Township Act 1965 - Sections 108 and 322 - Constructive Res Judicata - Petitioner challenged the legality of octroi and export fee levied by Manmad Municipal Council on petroleum products stored at its Panewadi depot - Petitioner contended the depot was outside municipal jurisdiction and octroi was abolished by 1999 amendment - Record indicated petitioner had previously filed three successive Writ Petitions and a Review Petition on the same cause of action - WP 625 of 1999 was withdrawn with liberty - WP 5102 of 2005 was disposed of with directions to the Chief Officer - WP 8387 of 2006 was dismissed on merits by a Division Bench which upheld the nexus for charging export fee for road facility use - Review Petition 41 of 2008 was also rejected - Current petition sought to re-agitate the same grounds following coercive action for recovery of dues - Held - The current petition is not maintainable as it is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata - Adjudication in the earlier proceedings was conclusive and final - Petitioner cannot disregard the fact that the same cause of action was already agitated and rejected - Fresh petition on the same or similar grounds constitutes an abuse of the process of the court - [Paras 1-13 and 21-22].

Civil Law - Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Section 11 and Explanation IV - Applicability to Writ Petitions - High Court examined the applicability of res judicata to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The doctrine is based on public policy to ensure decisions of competent jurisdiction are final and individuals are not vexed twice with the same litigation - Explanation IV mandates that any matter which might and ought to have been made a ground of attack or defence in a former suit shall be deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue - Constructive res judicata is a rule of fair play and justice intended to subdue a cantankerous litigant - Held - The principle applies with equal force to writ petitions where the same set of facts or cause of action has been previously determined - Adjudication is conclusive not only for actual matters determined but also for incidental matters that might have been litigated - [Paras 14-20].

Decision: Writ Petition rejected – Rule discharged – No costs – Liberty granted to the Municipal Council to withdraw any amount deposited by the petitioner in Court.

Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 302 and 34 - Appellants Premnarayan and Parmanand were convicted for the murder of Jamuna Prasad Patel - Prosecution case rested on the last seen theory and recovery of a 6-7 kg stone at the instance of accused - High Court found that the medical officer PW-16 did not provide a clear finding on whether the death was homicidal or accidental - Viscera report confirmed presence of ethyl alcohol suggesting intoxication - Evidence of wife PW-5 and son PW-8 of the deceased admitted no prior enmity - Seized stone and clothes of the accused had no blood stains - Field boundaries were 4-5 feet high making accidental fall plausible - Held - Circumstantial evidence failed to form a complete chain of guilt - Impugned judgment set aside and appellants acquitted - [Paras 1-18].

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Evidence Law - Proof beyond reasonable doubt - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 3 - Five golden principles - Prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances excluding every other hypothesis of innocence - Suspicions however strong cannot replace proof - Deceased was intoxicated and might have fallen accidentally - No motive established - Held - Conviction cannot be based on surmises and conjectures - Reliance placed on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra - [Paras 8-10 16].

Evidence Law - Last Seen Together - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 7 - Appellants and deceased were neighboring farmers with fields and huts within 200 feet - Normal practice for farmers to stay in fields at night for irrigation - Merely being seen together in fields does not constitute a suspicious circumstance in rural context - Held - Last seen theory negated due to proximity of residences and lack of suspicious conduct - [Paras 10-13 16].

Decision: Both appeals allowed - Conviction and sentence under Section 302 and 302/34 IPC set aside - Appellants acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith.

Writ Law - Regularization of Service - Constitution of India - Article 141 - Respondent joined appellant University as Casual Labour in 1992 - Continued as Time Scale Worker from 2008 onwards - Obtained requisite educational and technical qualifications during service - University rejected representation for regularization as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist on grounds that Respondent had not completed 5 years of service as on 25.11.1993 per G.O.Ms.No.212 - Single Judge directed regularization in Junior Assistant cadre or equivalent post from date of order with notional seniority - Division Bench observed Respondent completed 33 years of service without any major punishment or court stay - Bench relied on Supreme Court precedents in Umadevi and Jaggo cases - Held - Procedural formalities cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights accrued over a considerable period through continuous service - University cannot rely on Act 2 of 1994 or G.O.Ms.No.212 to deny regularization to employees satisfying criteria laid down in Para 53 of Umadevi - Single Judge order sustained - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-13].

Service Law - Regularization - State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2006 (4) SCC 1 - Interpretation of Para 53 - Distinction between illegal and irregular appointments - University argued respondent was over-aged for direct recruitment and failed cut-off date for regularization - High Court held that Umadevi does not intend to penalize employees fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State for long years - Selective application of Umadevi to argue no vested right exists for temporary employees distorts the judgment's spirit - Prolonged and unblemished service performing inherently regular tasks transforms ad-hoc scenarios into those demanding fair regularization - Held - State instrumentalities must not weaponize the judgment against employees who rendered indispensable services over decades - [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of the learned Single Judge directing regularization of the respondent affirmed – No costs.

Writ Law - Maintainability - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XXIII Rule 4 - Principle of Abandonment - Withdrawal of proceedings before National Green Tribunal (NGT) - Petitioners had previously filed an Original Application before the NGT seeking similar reliefs including the rejection of E.C. applications based on the same cause of action - The said O.A. was withdrawn without seeking liberty to initiate further proceedings - Respondents contended that the present Writ Petitions were an attempt to resuscitate a concluded challenge - Held - The principles analogous to Order XXIII Rule 4 of the CPC apply to Writ Jurisdictions - A party who withdraws a proceeding without liberty to file a fresh one is precluded from instituting a second litigation on the same cause of action to prevent abuse of process of court - The present petitions are not maintainable as they are hit by the ratio in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal - [Paras 27-29].

Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Site Specificity - Project Proponent - Project Specificity - Petitioners challenged E.C. granted to 10th respondent on the premise that it was a proxy for the 8th respondent which had committed mining violations and failed to satisfy reparations - Amicus Curiae submitted that E.C. is site-specific and project-specific under E.I.A. Notifications - No provision exists in relevant environmental statutes to refuse E.C. based on violations in a previous project at a different site - Held - Environmental Clearance is 'site-specific' and 'project/activity-specific' as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Rajeev Suri v. DDA - The violations of a previous entity at a distinct site cannot be a ground to deny E.C. to a project proponent for a different site - [Paras 11-13, 30-31].

Civil Law - Lifting of Corporate Veil - Separate Legal Entity - Salomon v. Salomon Principle - Petitioners alleged that respondents 8, 9, and 10 were acting in unison to perpetrate fraud and conceal environmental crimes - They sought to lift the corporate veil to show that the promoters and directors were the same - Court found that the companies were incorporated at different times (1996 and 2018) and operated at different sites - No evidence of fraudulent transfers or shell companies created to evade legal obligations - Held - While the power to lift the corporate veil exists in environmental law it was not warranted in the present facts as no fraudulent constitution was proved - Merely having common directors does not justify ignoring separate legal identities - [Paras 5, 30, 41-44].

Writ Law - Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - Characterization of Petition - Respondents argued the petitions were PILs and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as per roster - Petitioners claimed they were residents near the site whose right to life and property were affected - Held - Since the petitioners essentially espoused their own cause regarding impact on life and livelihood the petitions are not liable to be characterized as P.I.Ls - [Paras 32, 45-46].

Writ Law - Bona Fides of Petitioner - Extraordinary Jurisdiction - Respondents alleged the litigation was used as a weapon for blackmailing and extracting money - FIR was registered against one petitioner for such acts - Held - The record indicates a lack of bona fides on the part of the petitioners - The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked where the conduct of the petitioner is suspect or motivated by collateral purposes - [Paras 33, 47-48].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed – Interim orders vacated.

Criminal Law - Dishonour of Cheque - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 138 - Petitioner borrowed Rs. 3,00,000 and issued a cheque which was returned for insufficient funds - Trial Court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to six months simple imprisonment with a direction to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 - Conviction was confirmed by the First Appellate Court - During the pendency of the Criminal Revision Case the parties entered into a joint compromise memo - Petitioner paid a final settlement amount of Rs. 2,60,000 to the complainant via Demand Drafts - Petitioner was in judicial custody due to non-compliance with earlier bail conditions - State opposed the revision on the grounds that the conviction was already upheld on merits and compounding at this stage would be a misuse of process - High Court observed that the primary object of Section 138 is compensatory and not punitive - Held - Section 147 of the NI Act being a special law with a non-obstante clause prevails over the general procedure of Section 320 CrPC - Offence under Section 138 NI Act can be compounded at any stage including the revisional stage even after dismissal of an appeal - Conviction and sentence annulled - Petitioner acquitted and ordered to be released from jail forthwith - [Paras 1-51].

Criminal Law - Compounding of Offences - Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Section 147 - Power of High Court to compound at revisional stage - Distinction between Section 320 CrPC and Section 147 NI Act - Section 147 NI Act does not carry explicit guidance on the stage of compounding unlike Section 320 CrPC - The compensatory aspect of the NI Act must be given priority over the punitive aspect - The threat of imprisonment is intended as a mode to ensure recovery of money - Held - High Court is empowered to record a compromise and compound the offence to secure the ends of justice and provide justice at the doorstep - [Paras 33-47].

Criminal Law - Inherent Powers - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Exercise of power post-conviction - Use of inherent powers to prevent miscarriage of justice - Court noted that inherent powers can be invoked when no other statutory remedy is available or to give effect to an order under the Code - While quashing is an exception the court can intervene to avoid failure of justice - Held - In view of the amicable settlement and the nature of the offence as a private wrong the court is inclined to exercise its power to bring a quietus to the litigation - [Paras 26-31].

Decision: Criminal Revision Case disposed of in terms of the compromise – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 NI Act annulled – Petitioner acquitted – Direction issued to release the petitioner from jail forthwith.

Tax Law - Computation of Deduction - Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 80-I and Section 32AB - Interplay between investment deposit and industrial undertaking deductions - Appellant assessee engaged in manufacturing detergent cake claimed deductions under both Section 32AB and Section 80-I - Assessing Officer initially disallowed Section 80-I claim - CIT Appeals allowed the claim - Tribunal subsequently ruled that Section 80-I deduction must be calculated after reducing profits by the relief granted under Section 32AB - Matter remanded by Supreme Court for fresh consideration in light of Vijay Industries vs Commissioner of Income Tax (2019) - High Court analyzed the statutory scheme distinguishing between the concepts of profits and gains versus income - Court noted that Section 80-I provides for a deduction from profits and gains derived from an industrial undertaking - Such profits are arrived at after making actual expenses as per Sections 30 to 43D - Deduction under Chapter VI-A is an incentive on fulfilling eligibility conditions - Ratio decidendi established that deductions under Section 80-I are to be computed on the profits and gains of the undertaking without reference to net income adjusted for other Chapter VI-A deductions - Held - Tribunal was not justified in reducing the Section 80-I claim by the investment deposit under Section 32AB - Appeals allowed in favor of assessee - [Paras 1-14].

Tax Law - Statutory Interpretation - Income Tax Act 1961 - Section 80AB and Section 80HH - Prospective application - Revenue contended that Section 80AB was clarificatory and required all deductions to be made with reference to net income included in gross total income - Supreme Court in Vijay Industries overruled earlier contrary views in Motilal Pesticides - Court held that Section 80AB was brought on the statute book with prospective effect from April 1 1981 - It cannot apply to assessment years prior to its enactment - Distinction maintained between any income and profits and gains as understood in tax law - Held - Change in legal position via Section 80AB does not override the specific calculation method for profits and gains under Section 80-I for the relevant periods - [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of the Tribunal set aside – Question answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 - Maintainability through Power of Attorney - Applicant Rakesh Mehra sought quashing of FIR No. 0177 of 2022 for offences under Sections 420 506 and 120B IPC through his power of attorney holder Mr. Akhil Arora - Applicant was declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 CrPC and a Look-out Circular was issued due to non-cooperation with investigation - Complainant raised a preliminary objection that an accused intentionally evading law cannot seek extraordinary jurisdiction through a proxy - Court observed that Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act cannot override specific statutory provisions requiring the appearance of an accused - Reliance placed on T.C. Mathai vs. District and Session Judge where the Supreme Court held that appearance through a power of attorney holder is not permissible in criminal proceedings - Held - A petition under Section 482 CrPC or a writ petition filed through a Power of Attorney holder by an accused who is an absconder and a proclaimed offender is not maintainable - [Paras 34-41].

Criminal Law - Nature of Dispute - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 420 and 506 - Co-existence of Civil and Criminal Liability - Dispute between firms owned by the applicant and the complainant regarding non-supply of materials despite payments - Petitioners argued that the dispute was civil and contractual involving an arbitration clause - Investigation revealed that huge amounts totaling approximately Rs. 31.25 crore were siphoned and transferred into the accounts of the applicant's married daughters shortly after the lodging of the FIR - Court noted that the presence of commercial relations does not exclude criminal liability if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence - Held - If a transaction has a civil flavor but involves fraudulent intent and siphoning of funds it must be tried as a criminal offence - Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be used to meticulously appreciate evidence at the threshold stage - [Paras 42-44].

Criminal Law - Freezing of Bank Accounts - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 102 - Validity - Petitioners Anushka Arora and Madhvi Mehra challenged the freezing of 14 bank accounts alleging they were opened post-transaction and were part of a family settlement - Investigating Agency submitted that funds were diverted to these accounts to circumvent the judicial process and evade recovery - Court found sufficient material to proceed with trial noting that the siphoning occurred within a short span after FIR registration - Held - Freezing of accounts was legal as they were directly linked to the alleged siphoning of funds by the main accused - [Paras 13-15 and 43].

Criminal Law - Proclaimed Offender - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 82 - Effect on Inherent Jurisdiction - Applicant argued that the proclamation was illegal as the offence did not fall under Section 82(4) CrPC - Court observed that the process of Look-out Circular and proclamation is to ensure availability of the accused and prevent circumvention of judicial process - Applicant failed to join investigation despite notices under Section 41A CrPC - Held - An accused who intentionally evades the process of law is not entitled to the court's extraordinary jurisdiction - [Paras 39-40].

Decision: Petitions dismissed – All interim orders vacated – Trial Court directed to proceed with the trial as per law.

Intellectual Property Law - Trade Marks - Trade Marks Rules 2017 - Rule 45 - Mandatory versus Directory deadline - Petitioner challenged Registrar order allowing Evidence Affidavit filed by Rectification Applicant after three year delay - Petitioner relied on Delhi High Court rulings in Sun Pharma and Mahesh Gupta asserting that Rule 45(2) creates a mandatory deadline with a deeming fiction of abandonment - Respondent relied on IPAB ruling in Sahil Kohli and Gujarat High Court ruling in Wyeth asserting the deadline is directory - Court examined the scheme of Rules 44 to 51 and Section 131 of TM Act - Found that Rule 48 explicitly grants Registrar discretion to permit further evidence at any time - Observed that Rule 45 is a procedural provision and not a provision of limitation - Held - The deadline in Rule 45(1) of 2017 Rules is directory and not mandatory - Section 131 of the parent Act provides an overriding power to the Registrar to extend time for any act not expressly provided in the Act - Deadlines in subordinate Rules do not constitute time expressly provided in the Act - Ratio in Delhi High Court judgments distinguished as they primarily interpreted 2002 Rules or specific factual matrices - Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-98].

Intellectual Property Law - Statutory Interpretation - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 131 - Extension of time - Scope of Registrar power - Court analyzed the phrase not being a time expressly provided in this Act in Section 131 - Comparison made with Sections 91 and 128 which use the phrase under this Act or the rules made thereunder - Absence of reference to Rules in Section 131 indicates Parliament did not intend to exclude deadlines stipulated in subordinate legislation from the Registrar extension powers - Rule 109(1) of 2017 Rules confirms this by listing specific Rule-based exclusions which do not include Rule 45 - Held - Registrar possesses statutory jurisdiction under Section 131 to extend Rule-based deadlines even after expiry - [Paras 46-61].

Intellectual Property Law - Deemed Abandonment - Trade Marks Rules 2017 - Rule 45(2) - Deeming fictions - Interpretation - Petitioner argued that failure to file evidence within two months leads to automatic abandonment of opposition - Court held that deeming fictions must be restricted to the purpose for which they are created - Procedural prescriptions are handmaids of justice and not tyrants - Held - Abandonment under Rule 45(2) cannot travel beyond the main provision and cannot nullify the Registrar power under Section 131 to condone delay for sufficient cause - Deemed abandonment only operates if no extension is sought or granted - [Paras 41-45].

Intellectual Property Law - Appealability - Trade Marks Act 1999 - Section 131(2) - Ministerial acts - Respondent argued appeal was not maintainable due to explicit bar in Section 131(2) - Court observed that while an order simply allowing time extension is generally ministerial and non-appealable - orders having repercussions like deemed abandonment might become appealable under Section 91 - Held - Since the petition raised a pure question of law regarding jurisdiction and interpretation of the 2017 Rules - the Court examined the merits but affirmed the bar on appeals against ministerial extensions - [Paras 81-86].

Decision: Petition dismissed - Order of the Registrar of Trade Marks dated August 26, 2025 upheld - No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Land Acquisition - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34 - National Highways Act 1956 - Section 3G(5) and 3-J - Entitlement to Solatium - Appellants challenged District Court order dismissing Section 34 application where Arbitrator failed to award solatium - Appellants relied on Tarsem Singh case declaring Section 3-J of National Highways Act ultra vires Article 14 of Constitution of India - Respondents argued limited scope of Section 34 and 37 and highlighted Supreme Court Review Petition clarifying interest on solatium starts from date claims raised - High Court found Civil Court failed to decide Section 34(4) application for fresh adjudication by Arbitrator - Held - Non-grant of solatium constitutes a ground for challenge under Section 34(2)(3)(ii) as being against fundamental policy of Indian law - Quantum of compensation remains Arbitrator's domain - Impugned order set aside and matter remanded to Arbitrator for decision on solatium in light of Tarsem Singh and subsequent Review Petition - [Paras 1-12].

Civil Law - Remand - Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 34(4) - Failure to Adjudicate Solatium - District Judge failed to deal with application under Section 34(4) and relief for just compensation including solatium - Supreme Court settled law that land owners under National Highways Act are entitled to solatium - Held - Civil Court ought to have remanded matter to Arbitrator under Section 34(4) to decide quantum of compensation and solatium application - Matter remanded for decision in consonance with Union of India Vs Tarsem Singh - [Paras 7-9].

Civil Law - Arbitral Award - Rectification of Errors - Khasra Numbers - Appellants pointed out clerical or typographical mistakes in identity of land regarding Khasra numbers in specific appeals AA 53/2024 and AA 55/2024 - Held - Arbitrator directed to look into identity of property and verify whether mentioned properly in award - [Para 10].

Decision: Appeals allowed to a limited extent – Order of 24th District Judge Jabalpur dated 05.03.2024 set aside – Matter remanded to Arbitrator for fresh decision on solatium and interest – Parties directed to appear before Arbitrator on 16.07.2026.