Order 39 CPC – Non-compliance with Rule 3 – Subsequent ex parte injunction impermissible – Refusal to restore electricity supply upheld – Trial Court directed to decide injunction application expeditiously.

Civil Procedure – Temporary Injunction – Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Effect of Non-Compliance – Petitioners earlier granted ex parte injunction for restoration of electricity supply but failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Rule 3 – Interim injunction consequently vacated – Subsequent application seeking similar ex parte relief filed – Held: Grant of fresh ex parte injunction would nullify statutory mandate of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC – Trial Court justified in declining ex parte relief [Paras 3, 6].

Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – High Court does not act as an appellate court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 – Interference warranted only where order suffers from patent illegality or perversity – Order refusing ex parte injunction found to be reasoned and in consonance with procedural law – No ground for interference made out [Paras 4, 6].

Tenant’s Right – Electricity Supply – Business Necessity – Petitioners running cold storage business in tenanted premises – Electricity supply essential for carrying on trade – Though ex parte injunction declined, necessity of early adjudication on merits recognised – Held: Trial Court must decide injunction application expeditiously after hearing both parties [Para 6].

Procedural Balance – Natural Justice – While denying immediate interim relief, Court ensured balance by directing time-bound disposal of pending injunction application – Fair opportunity to both sides preserved – Procedural safeguards upheld [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Civil revision disposed of – No interference with impugned order – Trial Court directed to decide pending injunction application on merits after hearing both parties within 15 days – All pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Bail – UAPA – Section 43D(5) – Prima Facie True Test – At the stage of bail, Court is required to assess material on broad probabilities and not conduct a detailed trial – Documents and investigation material to be taken as they are, without testing admissibility or reliability – Held: Accusation against the appellant found prima facie true on cumulative assessment of material [Paras 17–18].

Criminal Conspiracy – Proof – Circumstantial Evidence – Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence – Meeting of minds can be inferred from conduct, communications, and surrounding circumstances – Absence from some meetings not decisive – Held: Appellant’s conduct before and after the incident indicates participation in conspiracy [Paras 14–15.1].

Social Media Messages – Instigation – Intention – Appellant circulated screenshot of deceased’s post with provocative and inflammatory message after altering mobile number to reveal identity – Message capable of provoking violence in communally sensitive atmosphere – Relevant under Section 14 Evidence Act to infer intention and state of mind – Held: Prima facie instigation and motive established [Paras 6–10].

Terrorist Act – UAPA – Formation of Terrorist Gang – Material indicates organised plan to avenge perceived insult to faith and to strike terror in society – Killing of deceased as part of wider design – Held: Prima facie applicability of Sections 16, 18 and 20 UAPA [Paras 12–13, 18].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Confession of co-accused not substantive evidence by itself – However, when supported by independent circumstantial material, it can lend corroboration – Held: Even dehors extra-judicial confessions, sufficient prima facie material exists against appellant [Paras 15–17].

Bail – Length of Custody – Article 21 – Though prolonged incarceration is a relevant factor, it cannot override statutory embargo under UAPA when accusations are prima facie true and evidence is of sufficient probative value – Held: Continued detention justified in view of gravity and nature of offence [Paras 18–18.1].

Precedents – Applicability – Vernon v. State of Maharashtra and Pancho v. State of Haryana distinguished on facts – Case governed by principles laid down in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India v. Barakathullah – Held: Bail rightly denied [Paras 16–17.3].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of Special Judge rejecting bail confirmed – Court holds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that accusations against the appellant are prima facie true – Statutory bar under UAPA attracted – No case for grant of bail made out.

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance Law – Divorced Muslim Woman – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) Section 127 / Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 (Act, 1986) Section 3(2) – Enhancement Allowed – A divorced Muslim woman is not precluded from invoking Section 127 Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance even if the initial order was passed under Section 3(2) of the Act, 1986 – The Act, 1986 is not in derogation of, but in addition to, the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. – The Family Court has jurisdiction under Sections 7(1)(f) and 20 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, to decide and enhance maintenance considering inflation and changed circumstances – Wrong nomenclature of a petition does not oust the Court's jurisdiction – The husband's objection to maintainability was rejected – The High Court affirmed the maintainability of the application for enhancement [Paras 8-10, 23].

Maintenance Law – Muslim Husband's Liability – Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 Section 3(1)(a) / Cr.P.C. Section 125 – Liability Extends Beyond Iddat Period – A Muslim husband's liability to make fair and reasonable provision and maintenance for his divorced wife extends beyond the iddat period and includes making provisions for her future sustenance – Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a secular provision applicable to all women, including divorced Muslim women, to prevent vagrancy and destitution – The 1986 Act does not supplant Section 125 Cr.P.C. but provides additional remedies – This interpretation ensures the constitutional validity of the 1986 Act in light of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution [Paras 3.2, 3.3, 5.4, 5.5, 8.3, 9, 9.1, 9.2].

Maintenance Law – Minor Children – Cr.P.C. Section 125 / Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 Section 3(1)(b) – Father's Duty Irrespective of Religion – A father has a duty to maintain his minor children irrespective of his religion – The rights of children to claim maintenance from their father are covered by Section 125 Cr.P.C. and are not abrogated by Section 3(1)(b) of the 1986 Act – The Court previously directed maintenance for the son under Section 125 Cr.P.C. until he attained majority [Paras 3.2, 3.3, 8.3].

Maintenance Law – Major Son's Educational Expenses – Cr.P.C. Section 125 – Father's Duty to Support Education – A father is duty-bound to provide maintenance until the completion of his son's or daughter's education, even if they attain majority during studies and lack independent income – A strict interpretation of majority as a cut-off date could lead to hardship and abandonment of studies – The Court previously upheld an order directing the father to pay Rs.8,00,000/- for his son's B.Tech educational expenses [Paras 3.9, 10, 17].

Maintenance Law – Enhancement of Maintenance – Cr.P.C. Section 127 – Enhanced to Rs.10,000/- – The determination and enhancement of maintenance depend on factors such as the parties' status, claimant's reasonable needs (food, clothing, shelter, medical), respondent's income and liabilities, claimant's income, number of dependents, and changed circumstances like inflation and increased salary of the husband – Considering the husband's basic salary of Rs.52,000/- per month, the Court applied the principle of awarding approximately 25% of the net income as just and reasonable maintenance – The Family Court's enhancement from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.8,100/- was deemed inadequate – The High Court further enhanced the maintenance to Rs.10,000/- per month, effective from 05.07.2016 (date of filing the petition) – The husband was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month towards differential arrears from January 2026 until full adjustment [Paras 3.7, 3.8, 5, 5.1, 5.3, 6.3, 12, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, 12.10, 15, 16, 19, 21].

Evidentiary Law – Claimant's Income – Maintenance Proceedings – Failure to Prove Alleged Income – The husband's allegations regarding the wife's income from rental property or a beauty parlour were not substantiated by concrete evidence – While the son was a graduate engineer and likely employed, conclusive proof of his exact income during the relevant period was absent – The Court held that maintenance enhancement could not be denied based solely on unproven allegations of the wife's or son's income [Paras 5.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 12.3, 12.4, 12.8, 14, 18, 19].

Maintenance Law – Future Adjustments – Cr.P.C. Section 127 – Liberty to Approach Court – Both parties retain the liberty to approach the Family Court for further enhancement, reduction, or stoppage of maintenance in the event of changed circumstances, including an increase in the husband's salary, employment or improved earnings of the son, or gainful employment/earning of the wife [Para 20].

Decision: Appeal allowed – RPFAM No.260 of 2017 allowed to the effect of enhancing maintenance to Rs.10,000/- per month and directing payment of arrears – RPFAM No.293 of 2017 dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 21, 23].

Income Tax – Reassessment – Search Cases – Applicability of Old Regime – Search conducted on 09.05.2024 falling between 01.04.2021 and 01.09.2024 – By virtue of Section 152(3), provisions of Sections 147 to 151 as they stood prior to Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 applicable – Reassessment notice issued under Section 148 governed by old regime [Paras 5, 7].

Section 148 – Limitation – First Proviso to Section 149(1) – Assessment Year involved was 2015-16, i.e. prior to 01.04.2021 – First proviso to Section 149(1) bars issuance of notice if notice under Section 148 or Section 153A/153C could not have been issued under old law due to limitation – Held: Reopening barred by statutory embargo [Paras 5.1, 7].

Search-Based Reassessment – Mandatory Reference to Sections 153A / 153C – Reopening emanated from search under Section 132 – Hence limitation must be tested not only under Section 149 but also under Sections 153A/153C as they stood prior to Finance Act, 2021 – Failure to satisfy limitation under Section 153A renders notice without jurisdiction [Paras 7, 7.1].

Computation of Six Years vs Ten Years – Distinct Methodology – Six assessment years under Section 153A(1)(b) computed as years preceding assessment year relevant to previous year of search – Ten assessment years under Explanation 1 to Section 153A computed from end of assessment year relevant to previous year of search – Statute prescribes two different starting points – Elastic interpretation impermissible [Paras 7.1–7.3].

“Relevant Assessment Year” – Interpretation – Expression “relevant assessment year” in Explanation 1 to Section 153A refers to assessment year relevant to previous year in which search is conducted – Ten-year block must be reckoned backwards from end of such assessment year – Not from date of notice or earlier years [Paras 7.1, 7.2].

Beyond Ten-Year Outer Limit – Jurisdictional Error – Search conducted in FY 2024-25 – Assessment Year 2025-26 becomes first year – Ten-year block extends backwards only up to AY 2016-17 – AY 2015-16 falls beyond ten-year outer limit – Held: Notice dated 31.03.2025 is without jurisdiction [Paras 8].

Incriminating Material – No Cure for Limitation Bar – Even assuming existence of incriminating documents indicating unaccounted cash consideration exceeding ₹50 lakhs – Jurisdictional limitation under Section 149 read with Section 153A cannot be bypassed – Limitation goes to root of authority [Paras 6, 7].

Consistency with Precedent – Binding Coordinate Bench – Issue squarely covered by earlier judgment of this Court in SCA No. 16615 of 2025 dated 05.01.2026 – Also relying on Delhi High Court (Ojjus Medicare) and Madras High Court (A.R. Safiullah) – No reason to take divergent view [Paras 2, 7.2].

Writ Jurisdiction – Notice Stage – Maintainability – Where lack of jurisdiction is apparent from statutory limitation – Writ petition maintainable at notice stage – Assessee not required to undergo reassessment proceedings [Para 7.2].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 quashed and set aside – Reassessment proceedings for AY 2015-16 annulled – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs.

Limitation – Condonation of Delay – Criminal Revision – Delay of 168 Days – Application by State Instrumentality – Applicant sought condonation on grounds of administrative lapses, non-availability of staff, late receipt of file and multiple legal opinions – No cogent, credible or plausible explanation furnished for prolonged delay – Bald assertions without documentary substantiation – Held: Delay inordinate and unexplained – Application dismissed [Paras 6–9].

Condonation of Delay – Principles Governing – Liberal Approach Not Unfettered – Though courts adopt a liberal approach to advance substantial justice, applicant must demonstrate bona fide effort and sufficient cause – Mere bureaucratic delay or administrative inefficiency does not constitute sufficient cause – Reliance placed on Deepak v. Noori and Supreme Court precedents – Held: Law of limitation cannot be diluted in absence of satisfactory explanation [Paras 4–5].

State and Its Instrumentalities – Delay Condonation – No Special Privilege – Government litigants not entitled to automatic or mechanical condonation of delay – Condonation remains an exception, not the rule – Courts must guard against casual and routine pleas of bureaucratic lethargy – Reliance placed on Pathapati Subba Reddy and Shivamma – Held: Identity of applicant cannot justify delay [Paras 5–7].

Criminal Revision – Consequence of Dismissal of Delay Application – Since application for condonation of delay dismissed, accompanying revision petition also dismissed as barred by limitation [Para 9].

Decision: Application for condonation of delay dismissed – Main revision petition dismissed as time-barred – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Lecturers in Government Polytechnics – Career Advancement Scheme – Academic Grade Pay (AGP) – Petitioners appointed as Lecturers between 1989–1999 and promoted to Selection Grade with AGP ₹9,000 – Junior Lecturers possessing Ph.D. granted AGP ₹10,000 – Petitioners challenged prescription of Ph.D. qualification as discriminatory – Held: No vested right to higher AGP in absence of prescribed qualification [Paras 3–5, 23–25].

Academic Policy – Prescription of Qualifications – Role of AICTE – AICTE, a statutory expert body under the AICTE Act, empowered to prescribe qualifications, service conditions and pay structures – Introduction of Ph.D. requirement for AGP ₹10,000 under Clarification dated 04.01.2016 held within statutory competence – Courts must defer to expert bodies in academic matters unless decision shown to be arbitrary or mala fide [Paras 7–10, 17–21].

Equality Clause – Articles 14 & 16 – Reasonable Classification – Classification between Ph.D. and non-Ph.D. Lecturers for grant of higher AGP based on higher academic attainment – Classification held intelligible and having rational nexus with object of improving academic standards and incentivising research – No violation of Articles 14 or 16 established [Paras 18–23].

Career Advancement – Incentive for Higher Qualification – Prescription of Ph.D. qualification intended to encourage faculty to acquire higher academic credentials – Policy decision aimed at enhancing quality of technical education – Such differentiation permissible in service jurisprudence [Paras 19–21].

Judicial Review – Limits in Academic and Policy Matters – Courts not equipped to substitute their views for those of statutory expert bodies on academic standards – Interference warranted only if decision is patently arbitrary, irrational or illegal – Reliance placed on Supreme Court precedents emphasising restraint in judicial review [Paras 17, 20–21].

Clarification vs. Amendment – Retrospective Effect – AICTE Clarification dated 04.01.2016 held to operate prospectively in governing eligibility for higher AGP – Does not divest any vested or accrued right of Petitioners – Distinction from cases involving retrospective alteration of service conditions [Paras 22–23].

Tribunal Orders – Validity – Central Administrative Tribunal correctly applied statutory framework and principles governing academic policy – Impugned orders dismissing Original Applications upheld – No perversity or illegality found [Paras 26–27].

Decision – Writ petitions dismissed – Prescription of Ph.D. qualification for grant of AGP ₹10,000 upheld as valid – No interference warranted with AICTE Regulations or Tribunal’s orders – Pending applications dismissed [Paras 27–28].

of Parents – Gift Deed – Implied condition of care – Failure to provide basic amenities – Tribunal can infer condition from conduct and circumstances – Cancellation of gift deed upheld under Section 23, Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Writ interference declined.

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 23 – Cancellation of Gift Deed – Implied Condition of Maintenance – Senior citizens executed a gift deed in favour of close relative out of love and affection and expectation of continued care – Gift deed did not contain an express clause regarding maintenance – Allegations of cruelty, neglect, denial of basic amenities and forcible ouster proved before Tribunal – Held: For applicability of Section 23(1), condition of maintenance need not be expressly written in the gift deed; it can be inferred from surrounding circumstances, relationship and conduct of parties – Beneficial legislation to be interpreted purposively – Gift deed rightly declared null and void [Paras 18–20].

Tribunal’s Jurisdiction – Power to Look Beyond Deed – Maintenance Tribunal empowered to examine real intent behind transfer and subsequent conduct of transferee – Tribunal can go beyond formal recitals of gift deed to determine existence and breach of condition for providing basic amenities and physical needs – Findings of fact based on material evidence upheld [Paras 7, 18, 20].

Composition of Maintenance Tribunal – Validity – Tribunal presided over by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) with other members – Held: Composition strictly in accordance with Section 7 of the Act and Rules framed thereunder – Objection to constitution of Tribunal rejected [Para 17].

Judicial Review under Article 226 – Limited Scope – Writ Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless orders suffer from perversity, jurisdictional error or patent illegality – Concurrent findings of Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal based on evidence – No perversity shown – Interference declined [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Orders of Maintenance Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal affirmed – Cancellation of gift deed upheld – Interim protection vacated.

Specific Performance – Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court reiterated that interference in second appeal is permissible only when findings of the First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence, or contrary to settled principles of law – Reappreciation of evidence not permissible [Paras 16, 31].

Specific Performance of Contract – Registered Possessory Agreement of Sale – Agreement of sale dated 09.03.1979 duly registered – Entire sale consideration paid and possession delivered on date of agreement – Certified copy admissible where original lost in cyclone – Execution of agreement not disputed by executant’s legal representatives – Decree for specific performance upheld [Paras 19, 22, 24].

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 16(c) – Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff proved oral demand for execution of sale deed during vendor’s lifetime and thereafter from legal representatives – Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex parte and did not dispute readiness and willingness – Requirement of notice held satisfied on facts [Paras 18–21].

Locus Standi – Third Party to Contract – Defendant No.3 not a party to the agreement of sale – Held, such defendant has no locus to challenge decree of specific performance granted against vendors’ legal representatives – Decree having attained finality as defendants 1 and 2 did not appeal [Paras 17, 22, 30].

Possession – Permissive Possession vs. Tenancy – Defendant No.3 claimed tenancy under original owner but failed to establish tenancy by evidence – Plaintiff proved permissive occupation after borrowing of money – Permissive possessor liable to vacate upon termination of permission [Paras 25, 29, 30].

Evidence – Conduct of Parties – Adverse Inference – Legal representatives of executant neither contested nor entered witness box – Presumption drawn against denial of execution and obligation to execute sale deed [Paras 20, 21].

Eviction – Consequential Relief – Once plaintiff held entitled to specific performance and execution of sale deed, permissive occupant/defendant No.3 liable to be evicted from suit schedule property [Paras 30].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court confirmed – No substantial question of law involved – Parties directed to bear their own costs

Writ Jurisdiction – Suspension of Membership – Society Dispute – Petitioner, a member of Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce, suspended pending inquiry on allegations of misconduct and complaints of financial irregularities – Petitioner submitted representation expressing regret, willingness to tender unconditional apology and withdraw allegations – Primary question whether writ court should intervene or relegate petitioner to civil remedy under Section 9 CPC [Paras 1–2].

Article 226 – Discretionary Relief – Alternative Remedy – Though disputes relating to suspension of membership may ordinarily be adjudicated in civil proceedings, High Court can exercise discretion under Article 226 where continuation of impugned action is unjustified in the given facts – Held: Existence of alternative remedy not an absolute bar [Paras 1, 5–6].

Suspension Pending Inquiry – Proportionality – Continuation of suspension not justified when petitioner unequivocally withdraws allegations, expresses remorse, and undertakes not to repeat unsubstantiated accusations – Held: Suspension quashed to prevent unnecessary precipitation of dispute [Paras 5–6].

Undertaking – Future Conduct – While quashing suspension, Court bound petitioner to his undertaking not to repeat allegations without substantiation – Liberty reserved to concerned authorities to act strictly in accordance with law if future cause arises [Para 6].

Election Process – Society Governance – Appointment of Returning Officer and pendency of election process not a valid ground to indefinitely continue suspension when equities favour intervention – Held: Decision to suspend cannot be insulated from judicial review merely because elections are underway [Paras 3–4, 6].

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Decision to suspend the petitioner’s membership quashed – Petitioner bound by undertaking to withdraw complaints and not repeat unsubstantiated allegations – Liberty reserved to respondents to take action in accordance with law if future circumstances so warrant.