Taxation Law - Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer – Assessee challenges jurisdiction of non-jurisdictional AO, who proceeded with assessment in the absence of a valid transfer order under Section 127 – Initial centralization of assessee's case was not properly decentralized or officially transferred as per mandated legal process – Held, actions of the AO without proper transfer under Section 127 are void ab initio due to jurisdictional error – Impugned orders quashed - [Paras 1-32]

Jurisdiction - Transfer of Case under Section 127 – Emphasizes need for valid transfer orders for shifting jurisdiction between AOs – Without such order, any assessment made by non-jurisdictional AO is legally untenable – High Court sets aside both the initial assessment order and subsequent orders up to ITAT due to jurisdictional flaws - [Paras 26, 28, 31]

Administrative Procedures – Assessment under Income Tax – High Court emphasizes the procedural necessity for following statutory requirements in transferring cases between different AOs – Any deviation without compliance with Section 127 leads to jurisdictional errors, making subsequent assessments void - [Paras 12, 27, 28]

Non-delivery of Possession – Petitioner not provided possession of flat despite full payment – Respondent offered inadequate temporary solutions and refunds without interest – Court highlighted plight of petitioner who invested life savings and faced severe accommodation issues – Writ petition allowed with direction for full refund with interest and compensation for mental agony [Paras 1-23].

Contempt of Court – Alleged non-compliance with Court's earlier order for monthly compensation to petitioner – Respondent complied with orders by paying monthly sums and attempting to provide suitable alternate accommodations – Contempt petition dismissed due to respondent's compliance and efforts [CONT.CAS(C) 1294/2023 & CM APPL. 3311/2024, Paras 1-6].

Judicial Notice – Court noted exponential rise in property prices, deeming respondent's offer to refund only principal amount as inadequate – Emphasized duty of State-run enterprises to act fairly, granting additional compensation for mental agony [Para 18, 22].

Criminal Law – Application for Judge’s Recusal – De facto complainant, Sheshadri Goswami, requests the recusal of the current bench and reassignment to Hon’ble Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, who previously handled a related matter – Goswami alleges poor handling of a financial fraud case involving a company where he represents 17 victim investors – Initial FIR filed on 14^th August 2015 in Shakespeare Sarani Police Station under various sections of IPC – Final report by police finds no prima facie material against accused, accepted by the Magistrate without hearing complainant, leading to current revisional application – Hon’ble Justice Gupta denies the recusal request, stating judicial procedure and integrity must not cater to parties selecting preferred judges for their cases – Recusal denied based on principles of judicial conduct, impartiality, and maintenance of judicial independence. [Paras 1-26]’

Decision: Recusal Request Denied – Justice Gupta emphasizes the importance of the Chief Justice’s role in assigning cases to ensure fair judicial process and prevent ‘forum shopping’ – Case to proceed under the current bench, with a hearing scheduled post-summer vacation on 12^th June 2024. [Paras 23-26]

Civil Procedure - Execution Proceedings - Challenges to auction sale and procedural irregularities - Petitioner filed multiple CRPs against orders of the Executing Court related to a decree obtained by the respondents due to alleged irregularities in auction sale - CRP No.959 of 2020 challenges dismissal of application to set aside auction sale due to material irregularity and fraud - CRP No.2618 and CRP No.2621 of 2023 challenge orders confirming the auction sale and dismissing application for setting aside auction on deposit of decretal amount, respectively - Interim stay granted by High Court on further proceedings, pending adjudication of these CRPs - Execution court's orders found to be in contravention of interim stay orders, deemed a nullity and set aside - High Court held that CRP No.959 of 2020 against the order under Order 21 Rule 90 is not maintainable as appeal lies against such orders [Paras 1-25]

Decision: CRP No. 959 of 2020 dismissed as not maintainable, remedy by way of appeal suggested. CRP Nos. 2618 and 2621 of 2023 allowed, orders under challenge set aside due to contravention of High Court’s interim stay.

Civil Procedure – Appeal and Delay Condonation – Article 227 – Order 41 Rule 3A CPC – Non-joinder of Necessary Party - Appeal Process – Challenge against the appellate court's order overruling objections related to the maintainability of an appeal filed without a condonation of delay application – High Court upheld appellate court's decision to grant leave for appeal despite procedural objections raised by the petitioner – Court found substantial issues regarding whether the trial court's order was justifiable based on the material presented and existing legal precedents [Paras 1-6, 24-45].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Party – Petitioner's failure to include a necessary party in the initial suit resulted in procedural and substantive complications – The petitioner filed a caveat against the excluded party, contradicting his own argument of non-necessity – Court emphasized the importance of including all affected parties to avoid procedural defects and ensure just adjudication [Paras 3-5, 25-28, 45].

Legal Analysis – Application of Order 41 Rule 3-A CPC - Condonation of Delay – Court ruled that in the given circumstances, the requirement for a delay condonation application was not applicable as the respondent learned of the trial court’s order through a caveat and acted promptly – Deficiency in filing delay condonation application can be a curable defect, which was not relevant in this case as the appeal was filed within the limitation period from the date of knowledge [Paras 18-20, 38-43].

Suppression of Material Facts – High Court found that the petitioner suppressed material facts and misled the trial court by excluding a necessary party, thereby obtaining an interim order through misrepresentation – Such conduct was deemed as playing fraud with the court, warranting dismissal of the petition and imposition of costs [Paras 29-32, 50-52].

Decision – Dismissal of Petition – Held – The writ petition was dismissed in limine for lacking merit and being based on suppressed facts and misrepresentation – Costs imposed on the petitioner for attempting to mislead the court and abusing the judicial process – Emphasized the need for clean hands and full disclosure in seeking equitable reliefs [Paras 52-53].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order – Petition under Section 482 CrPC – Allegations of substandard fertilizer against dealer and others – Samples taken from sealed and properly stored fertilizer bags – Held dealer not liable for substandard fertilizer as responsibility lies with manufacturer – Complaint and summoning order quashed. [Paras 1-10]

Liability of Dealer vs. Manufacturer in Fertilizer Quality Control – Analysis – Held – Dealer and associated petitioners not responsible for substandard fertilizer contained in sealed bags – Liability, if any, attributed solely to manufacturer – Precedents from Punjab and Haryana High Court reaffirming dealer’s non-liability in similar circumstances. [Para 9]

Decision – Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order – Court quashes Complaint Case No. 14 dated 22.03.2018 and summoning order dated 07.04.2018, along with all consequential proceedings against the petitioners, on grounds that responsibility for substandard fertilizer lies with the manufacturer, not the dealer or associated parties. [Para 10]

Criminal Law – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act – The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court and the conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court – Petitioner issued cheques which were dishonored due to insufficient funds – Trial Court relied on the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act – Petitioner argued that cheques were issued as security for other transactions, not for clearing a debt [Paras 1-16].

Burden of Proof – Section 139 of NI Act – The Court reiterated that the accused must rebut the presumption of liability by leading cogent evidence – In this case, the petitioner successfully rebutted the presumption by establishing that cheques were issued as security, not for payment of a debt – Prosecution failed to produce invoices or any documentary evidence to prove the transaction [Paras 12-15].

Evaluation of Evidence – Invoices and Supply of Goods – The complainant failed to produce any invoices or documentation to substantiate the supply of goods claimed – Cross-examination of the complainant revealed admissions that contradicted the prosecution’s case – No sufficient evidence to establish that the accused owed the amount stated in the cheques [Paras 13-15].

Decision – Criminal Revision Petition allowed – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Trial Court and its confirmation by the Appellate Court set aside – Petitioner acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of NI Act – Bail bonds cancelled [Para 16].

Arbitration Law – Dispute resolution in commercial infrastructure projects – Appeals filed by NHAI challenging the arbitral decision favoring GMR Hyderabad Vijayawada Expressways Ltd, which was awarded a contract for highway development and claims subsequent financial adjustments due to “Change in Law” events affecting project costs and revenues – Claims include adverse impacts from legal and policy changes in sand mining and state bifurcation altering traffic patterns and financial forecasts – Tribunal and Single Judge findings focus on interpretation of “Change in Law” under the contract, the financial implications, and whether such changes necessitated adjustments to contracted payments and liabilities [Paras 41, 82-91].

Financial and Contractual Assessments – NHAI disputed the reductions in traffic and revenue claimed by GMR as not substantiated appropriately under the concession agreement – Tribunal and court evaluated the financial model and reports provided during the bid and project execution phases, highlighting reliance on traffic studies for financial projections – Both tribunal and court findings emphasized the role of the concession agreement in guiding the resolution of these financial discrepancies through a reevaluation of the financial impacts considering the actual project data [Paras 53, 86, 93].

Judicial Review – The High Court upheld the tribunal’s award, emphasizing the limited scope of intervention in arbitral awards under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act – Court found no reason to deviate from tribunal findings that were based on substantial evidence and agreement terms, particularly regarding the impacts classified as “Change in Law” [Paras 77, 101-102].

Decision – Upholding of Arbitral Award and Jurisdictional Affirmation under Section 34 – High Court confirms the correctness of the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the “Change in Law” provisions within the Concession Agreement – Validates the need for re-assessment of compensation claims by an independent arbitrator rather than the appellant, who is a party to the dispute – Acknowledges the comprehensive evaluation of legal and contractual terms by both the arbitral tribunal and the learned Single Judge – Appeals and related applications dismissed, with orders for the independent arbitrator to reassess the respondent’s financial claims. [Paras 103-104]

Eviction Proceedings – Non-Service of Summons Contested – Petitioner challenges eviction under Section 14(1)€ of the Delhi Rent Control Act, asserting improper service of summons – Respondent asserts summons were served through multiple modes including registered post and publication – High Court finds no infirmity in the service process – Service deemed proper despite petitioner’s non-appearance to contest; eviction upheld. [Paras 1-10]

Service of Summons – Methods and Efficacy – Summons served via postman, publication, and affixation after petitioner avoided service – Court finds process server’s and postman’s reports credible despite petitioner’s allegations of collusion with the respondent – Substituted service via affixation and newspaper publication validated by trial record. [Paras 5-7, 9]

Legal Proceedings – Conduct of Parties – Petitioner’s non-participation in eviction proceedings despite known pending legal actions criticized – High Court dismisses argument for service in presence of civil court, citing lack of authority to accept service on petitioner’s behalf – Statutory requirements of the Delhi Rent Control Act for serving summons strictly adhered to by the respondent. [Paras 8-9]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Eviction order upheld – High Court confirms proper service of summons, rejecting allegations of improper service and collusion – Petitioner’s failure to contest eviction proceedings after summons duly served leads to dismissal of revision petition. [Para 10]