Defamation – Comments in Transcripts – False and Defamatory – [Para 37 to 39, 52 to 61] – Suit for defamation filed by plaintiff against Defendants No. 1 to 4 alleging false and defamatory comments inserted by Defendant No. 3 in the transcript of the interview titled “Operation West End” – Plaintiff holding the position of Major General in the Army – Allegations of corruption and bribery – Defamatory comments causing harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and character – Held, comments were indeed defamatory to the plaintiff and caused injury to his reputation.

Defamation – Permissible Defenses – Truth, Fair Comment, and Privilege – [Para 95 to 108] – Defendants failed to establish truthfulness of comments or good faith in making them – Defense of good faith rejected due to lack of evidence supporting authenticity of comments – Defendants unable to justify comments in the public domain – Held, no valid defense of defamation established.

Defamation – Telecasting of Program – Defendants No. 5 to 7 – [Para 122 to 126] – Suit against Defendants No. 5 to 7 (Zee Telefilm and others) for defamation – Defendants No. 5 to 7 merely telecasted program without inserting defamatory comments – Plaintiff failed to prove any act of defamation by Defendants No. 5 to 7 – Suit against Defendants No. 5 to 7 dismissed.

Damages – Award of – Compensation for Injury to Reputation – [Para 133] – Defamatory comments causing serious harm to plaintiff’s reputation – Plaintiff awarded damages of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- to be paid by Defendants No. 1 to 4 – Apology deemed inadequate and meaningless – Plaintiff suffered ill fame for over 23 years – Damages awarded to compensate for injury to plaintiff’s reputation and honor.

Purpose of granting interlocutory injunction – To protect the appellant against any injury by violation of his/her rights for which he/she could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in action if the uncertainty were resolved in his/her favor at the trial – Court must weigh the needs of the parties and determine the “balance of convenience” – Interlocutory remedy intended to preserve the status quo, based on a prima facie case. (Para 11, Para 12, Para 13)

Suit barred by law – Injunction sought in respect of actions taken or to be taken under the SARFAESI Act – Suit not maintainable as per Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act – Remedy lies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for any aggrieved person. (Para 25, Para 26, Para 28)

Equitable Relief – Equitable relief to be denied to a party who approaches the court with unclean hands – One who seeks equitable relief must do equity and demonstrate bonafides – A person guilty of suppression of material facts is not entitled to relief under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. (Para 27)

Court’s Discretion in Granting Temporary Injunction – The grant of an interlocutory injunction during the pendency of legal proceedings is a matter requiring the exercise of discretion by the court – Tests for granting interlocutory injunction: (i) existence of a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff, and (iii) likelihood of irreparable injury if the injunction is disallowed – Court must decide at a time when the legal right and its alleged violation are uncertain – Relief granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the plaintiff during this period. (Para 14)

Bar on granting injunction in respect of actions taken under the SARFAESI Act – Section 34 creates a bar on the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits or proceedings in respect of matters falling under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act – Remedy for any aggrieved person against actions under Section 13(4) is to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) or the Appellate Tribunal, not the civil court. (Para 28)

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) – Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) – Violation of – Seizure of cash from petitioner’s cloth store – Show Cause Notices issued alleging contravention of FERA provisions – First Show Cause Notice set aside in appeal – Second Show Cause Notice issued after the first one was set aside – No substantial evidence to prove petitioner guilty – Appellate Tribunal’s judgment and order dated 24^th March 2004 set aside by High Court.

Fair opportunity to defend – Impugned order passed in petitioner’s absence – Petitioner unable to attend hearing due to financial constraints – Unjust approach by Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) in issuing a second Show Cause Notice after the first one was set aside.

Refund of seized amount – High Court directs respondent to refund Rs.1,48,000/- seized on 12^th May 1988 – Simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of seizure to be paid to the petitioner.

(Para No. 2, 5, 21, 25, 28, 32)

Mutation of Names – Property Law – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Declaration of Title – Permissibility of Mutation based on Will – Mutation entries in revenue records do not confer ownership – Mutation entries relevant only for land revenue purposes – Competent civil court required for declaration of title.

Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Petition filed against order of Additional Commissioner, Revenue Division, Rewa – Appeal for mutation of names based on a Will – Partial allowance of application by Tehsildar – Appeal allowed by SDO Huzur, District Bhopal – Petitioners filed appeal before Commissioner for modification – Respondents filed application for impleadment in pending appeal – Application allowed by Additional Commissioner.

Supreme Court Decisions – Mutation entries not conferring or extinguishing title – Entries relevant only for the purpose of land revenue collection – Title to property can only be decided by competent civil court – Mutation on the basis of Will held per se illegal.

Jurisdictional Error – Petition filed against interim order – No jurisdictional error found – Petition dismissed.

Property Rights – Will-based mutation impermissible – Petitioners advised to seek declaration of title through competent civil court.

Importance of Civil Court – Mutation entries not creating or extinguishing title – Title to property to be determined by competent civil court.

Impermissibility of Mutation on the Basis of Will – Mutation entries not conferring ownership rights – Legal position established by series of Supreme Court decisions. Proper Approach to Establish Title – Petitioners to seek a declaration of title through a competent civil court – Mutation not a valid means to establish ownership based on a Will.

Mutation Entries – Fiscal Purpose Only – Mutation entries relevant for land revenue collection – No ownership conferred based on such entries. Dismissal of Petition – Petition seeking mutation on the basis of Will dismissed – Mutation based on Will held to be per se illegal.

Mental Health Act, 1987 – Section 76 – Appeal against order allowing appointment of psychiatrist to ascertain mental capacity of plaintiff – Disputed alienation of property – Plaintiff represented by next friend claiming unsound mind and mental disorder – Application filed under Section 50(1) and (4) of Mental Health Act, 1987 read with Section 151 of CPC – Trial Court considering NIMHANS report and previous psychologist assessment – Expert report sought for – Compliance with Section 50 of Act evident – Procedure followed – Appellant’s argument of relief under Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 rejected – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court directed to dispose of matter within one year. (Para 1-8)

Contempt Case – Respondents/contemnors wilfully disobeyed court orders dated 06.09.2022 and 22.12.2022 – Failure to implement the court’s orders in WP No.28407 of 2022 – Court finds respondents guilty of contempt – Sentences respondents No.2 and 3 to one month of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each – In default of payment of fine, respondents to undergo one week of simple imprisonment – Directed to surrender before the Registrar (Judicial) by 27.07.2023.(Para No. 4-7)

Judicial Decisions - Finality to Competent Court Judgments - Importance of Rule of Law:

The binding character of judgments pronounced by courts of competent jurisdiction is an essential part of the rule of law, and such decisions should be given finality. Even an erroneous decision on a question of law operates as res judicata between the parties and cannot be reopened, except in cases of fraud that vitiates the decision and renders it null and void. [Para 15]

Change in Law - Res Judicata - Effect on Earlier Judgments:

A change in law, even by subsequent judicial decisions, does not automatically overturn earlier judgments. The principle of res judicata continues to apply to the judgments rendered before the change in law. [Para 17]

Delay and Laches - Effect on Writ Petition - Discretion of the Court:

When a writ petition is filed with inordinate delay and unexplained laches, the court may decline to exercise its discretion in favor of the petitioner. The doctrine of res judicata and estoppel applies, and even subsequent judgments altering the law do not warrant the reopening of matters that have attained finality. Delay and laches extinguish the right to claim relief, and the court should not entertain stale causes. [Para 20, 21]

Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution - Discretionary Nature:

The jurisdiction exercised by the court under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and extraordinary. The court's innate sense of justice guides its decisions, and self-imposed limitations are exercised wisely, depending on the facts of the case. [Para 21]

Adversarial Litigation - Public Law:

Distinction between adversarial litigation and public law cases - Principles of res judicata and estoppel are applicable to adversarial litigation and bind the parties when a decision has attained finality. Public law cases involving challenges to the validity of provisions operate under different considerations and may involve public interest and equity. [Para 19]

Apex Court Decisions - Article 141 of Constitution - Binding Effect:

Decisions rendered by the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution have binding effect not only on the parties before the Court but also on similar issues involving other cases. However, this principle does not apply to adversarial litigation decided by coordinate benches where principles of res judicata and estoppel are applicable. [Para 19]

Discretion of the Court - Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience:

While the court exercises discretion based on justice, equity, and good conscience, these grounds are not sufficient to excuse gross delay and laches. The court should consider the impact of delay on the rights of other parties involved. [Para 21]

Relief Sought - Restoration of Possession - Inordinate Delay:

When the relief sought in the writ petition is the restoration of possession of a property, and the petitioner has caused an inordinate delay of several years, the court may decline to grant the relief on the ground of delay. [Para 21]

Erosion of Rights - Subsequent Developments:

Subsequent developments in a case may erode the rights of the petitioners, and the court should consider such developments while exercising discretionary jurisdiction. [Para 21]

Conclusion - Writ Petition Dismissed:

Based on the principles of res judicata, laches, and the inordinate delay of the petitioners, the court dismisses the writ petition. [Para 21]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 60(6), Section 96 – Personal Guarantee – Debt Recovery Proceedings – Writ of Prohibition – Validity of Demand Notice – Resolution Plan – Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas Principle.

Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas Principle – Applicability in Indian Context – Distinction from Present Case – Discharge of Principal Debtor’s Liability and its Effect on Personal Guarantor’s Liability – The Court elaborates on the Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas principle, which deals with the discharge of a principal debtor’s liability and its implications on the liability of the personal guarantor. It clarifies that the principle operates in a different legal domain than the present case’s concerns regarding the Reservation of Rights Clause in the Resolution Plan.

Resolution Plan – Exclusion of Personal Guarantee – Reservation of Rights Clause – Compatibility with Absolute Discharge – Impact on Creditor’s Rights – Jurisdictional Validity of Demand Notice – The Court analyzes the Resolution Plan in question, which specifically excludes the personal guarantee and includes a Reservation of Rights Clause for the creditor. It examines the compatibility of such a clause with the absolute discharge of the principal debtor’s liability and its impact on the creditor’s rights to proceed against the personal guarantor. The Court also discusses the jurisdictional validity of the demand notice in light of these contractual arrangements.

Jurisdiction – Debt Recovery Proceedings under IBC – Petition Challenging Demand Notice – Availability of Writ of Prohibition – Demonstrating Absence of Jurisdiction – Right of Guarantor to be Heard – The Court addresses the issue of jurisdiction in debt recovery proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and considers whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate. It explains that a petitioner must demonstrate the absence of jurisdiction in order to seek such a writ. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of allowing the personal guarantor the right to be heard at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – Competent Authority to Adjudicate on Merits – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Matters to be Decided by NCLT – Observations on Merits Prima Facie and Subject to NCLT’s Decision – The Court clarifies that the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is the competent authority to adjudicate on the merits of the case. It dismisses the writ petition and refers the matter to the NCLT for its consideration. The court’s observations on the merits of the case are considered prima facie and are subject to the NCLT’s final decision.

Petitioner’s Contention – Impugned Demand Notice Challenged – Barred Recovery due to Principal Debtor’s Liability Discharge – Reliance on Hutchens Principle – The Court acknowledges the petitioner’s contention that the demand notice is challenged based on the belief that the recovery is barred due to the discharge of the principal debtor’s liability, relying on the Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas principle.

Reservation Clause – Preservation of Creditor’s Rights – Incompatibility with Absolute Release of Principal Debtor – No Impact on Hutchens Applicability or Jurisdiction – The Court analyzes the Reservation of Rights Clause and its purpose in preserving the creditor’s rights to proceed against the personal guarantor. It clarifies that such a clause is incompatible with an absolute release of the principal debtor’s liability. However, it reiterates that this contractual aspect does not affect the applicability of the Hutchens v. State Bank of Kansas principle in the present case or the court’s jurisdiction.

Writ Petition – Dismissal – Matter Referred to NCLT – Right to be Heard Affirmed – Observations Prima Facie and Subject to Competent Court’s

Decision – The Court ultimately dismisses the writ petition and refers the matter to the NCLT for further consideration. It affirms the personal guarantor’s right to be heard at the appropriate stage of the proceedings. The court’s observations on the merits of the case are considered prima facie and are subject to the final decision of the competent court or tribunal, i.e., the NCLT.

Question of Law – The Court re-framed the issue as to whether the ITAT was justified in finding the assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bad, when no assessment proceedings were pending at the time of initiation under Section 153A. [Para 2]

Factual Background – The original assessment of the respondent for the year 2002-03 was completed under Section 143(3) and subsequently set aside by the 1st Appellate Authority under Section 263. A search under Section 132 led to initiation of Section 153A proceedings. [Para 3-4]

Legal Framework – The Tribunal relied on the High Court of Delhi's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kabul Chawla, summarized the legal position on assessment and re-assessment under Section 153A, stressing the significance of 'pending assessments' and 'completed assessments'. [Para 6]

Assessing Officer's Jurisdiction – The Assessing Officer is empowered to proceed with assessments under Section 153A only when some incriminating material is disclosed during the search or when an assessment is pending. [Para 7]

Decision – Affirming the Tribunal's findings, the Court held that the assessment for the year 2002-03 had been completed prior to the search and Section 153A proceedings. The Court answered the re-framed question in favor of the assessee and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue. [Para 8]