Cheque Bounce - Territorial Jurisdiction – Section 142(2)(a) of the N.I. Act – Complaint Maintainable at Payee’s Account Branch – The appellant filed complaints under Section 138 N.I. Act before the Judicial Magistrate in Mangalore after depositing dishonoured cheques in Mumbai, though his bank account was maintained in Mangalore – Magistrate returned the complaints for lack of jurisdiction, assuming appellant’s account was in Mumbai – High Court upheld the same – Held: As per Section 142(2)(a), jurisdiction lies where the payee maintains the account into which the cheque is deposited for collection – Since appellant's account was in Mangalore, complaints were rightly instituted there – Orders of Magistrate and High Court set aside – Complaints to be adjudicated on merits [Paras 5-9].

Criminal Law – Amendment in Complaint - Section 138 and Section 142 of the - Criminal Complaint – Amendment Permissible – Post-Cognizance Stage – Complaint initially stated that Desi Ghee was sold; amendment sought to correct it to "milk" – Trial Court allowed amendment on grounds of typographical error and no prejudice – High Court reversed citing GST avoidance and change in nature of complaint – Held: Criminal courts can allow amendment even post-cognizance if no prejudice is caused – Such corrections are curable irregularities when made at initial stages – Amendment upheld [Paras 3-6, 8-11, 17-20].

Scope of Amendment – S.R. Sukumar and Modi Distillery Cases Applied – Amendment allowed where it is formal, causes no prejudice, and is sought before conclusion of trial – High Court erred in assuming change in product altered legal nature of liability – GST implications irrelevant to Section 138 trial – Trial Court's discretion to allow amendment reinstated [Paras 8-13, 19-20].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Order of High Court set aside – Order of Trial Court restored – Trial to proceed expeditiously with liberty to parties to recall witnesses already examined [Paras 20].

Civil Writ - Delimitation Challenge – Article 14 – No Parity with Union Territory of J&K – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Petitioners challenged the exclusion of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana from delimitation under 2020 and 2021 Notifications, alleging arbitrary discrimination and violation of Section 26 of the AP Reorganisation Act – Supreme Court held that delimitation in States is governed by Article 170(3), which imposes a freeze until post-2026 census data is published – In contrast, J&K as a Union Territory is governed by Article 239A, and Article 170 is inapplicable – Held: There is no discrimination, and the claim of parity fails as States and Union Territories are governed by distinct constitutional frameworks [Paras 1–2, 9–22, 23–29, 38–39].

Statutory Mandate – Section 26 AP Reorganisation Act – Subject to Constitution – Petitioners relied on Section 26 for increased Assembly seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana – Held: Provision is expressly made subject to Article 170 – It is not self-executing and cannot override constitutional embargo – Delimitation in States must await post-2026 census under the constitutional mandate [Paras 11–17].

Legitimate Expectation – Doctrine Not Applicable Against Constitutional Bar – Petitioners claimed legitimate expectation of delimitation due to the AP Reorganisation Act – Held: Legitimate expectation cannot override express constitutional limitations – Article 170(3) defers readjustment of seats in States, thereby precluding any enforceable claim based on expectation – Expectation not justiciable under Article 32 [Paras 30–37, 40].

Union Territory vs State – Delimitation Frameworks Differ – Petitioners sought parity with J&K where delimitation was conducted post-reorganisation – Held: J&K is governed by Article 239A and not Article 170 – Different constitutional treatment for States and UTs is permissible – Delimitation in J&K does not justify similar treatment for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana [Paras 24–29].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Notifications upheld – No violation of Article 14 or Section 26 of AP Reorganisation Act – Pending applications also disposed of [Paras 41–42].

Taxation Law - Detention and Release under GST – Non-Issuance of Final Order – Violation of Section 129(3) CGST Act – Appeal Allowed – Consignment of goods was detained for alleged discrepancies during transit – Appellant filed objections and deposited tax and penalty under protest to secure release – Authorities failed to issue a final adjudication order in Form GST MOV-09 – Held: Even if penalty is paid, the proper officer is statutorily obligated to pass a speaking order under Section 129(3) – This ensures the taxpayer’s right to appeal under Section 107 CGST Act is not defeated – High Court erred in denying relief – Matter remanded for adjudication [Paras 1–3, 12, 14–21].

Waiver and Acquiescence – Must Be Clear and Unequivocal – Not Presumed from Payment – Appellant’s objections on record, and mere oral claim of withdrawal by respondent not substantiated – Payment made under protest due to business urgency cannot be construed as abandonment of rights – Authorities were duty-bound to adjudicate – Statutory rights cannot be waived by implication, particularly when there’s no legal mechanism to record protest on Form DRC-03 [Paras 12, 15–16.2].

Statutory Procedure – Rule 142 and CBIC Circular Binding – Mandatory to Issue Orders in MOV-09 and DRC-07 – The CGST Rules and CBIC’s Circular dated 13.04.2018 mandate passing of a reasoned final order upon payment of penalty under Section 129(1) – Summary of order must be uploaded to enable electronic liability register update – Respondents failed to follow this procedure [Paras 9.3, 10, 14].

Principles of Natural Justice – Need for Speaking Order – Right of Appeal Illusory Without It – Recording reasons is a constitutional requirement rooted in fairness and due process – A speaking order is indispensable for the right to appeal – Failure to issue a reasoned order is contrary to Article 265 and the rule of law – High Court’s refusal to issue mandamus was contrary to established principles [Paras 18, 18.1, 19].

Final Decision – Statutory Duty Must Be Complied With – Appeal Allowed – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order – Directed the respondent to pass a reasoned order under Section 129(3) in Form MOV-09 after granting an opportunity of hearing and upload the summary in Form DRC-07 within one month – Appellant is entitled to pursue legal remedies thereafter [Paras 20–22].

Double Taxation – Permanent Establishment – India-UAE DTAA – PE Confirmed – The appellant, Hyatt International Southwest Asia Ltd., a UAE-based entity, entered into Strategic Oversight Services Agreements (SOSA) with Indian hotel owners to provide consultancy and strategic services – The Assessing Officer, ITAT, and High Court found that the appellant had a fixed place of business in India and constituted a Permanent Establishment (PE) under Article 5(1) of the India-UAE DTAA – Supreme Court affirmed this finding – Held: Appellant exercised significant operational control through its contractual rights and regular presence of employees in India – Income earned under SOSA held attributable to the PE and taxable in India under Article 7 of the DTAA – Appeals dismissed [Paras 1, 10, 16, 24–25].

Permanent Establishment – Interpretation of Article 5(1) of DTAA – Fixed Place PE Established – The appellant, a UAE-based company, entered into long-term Strategic Oversight Services Agreements with Indian hotel owners to render consultancy services – The agreements gave the appellant extensive rights over hotel operations, personnel decisions, marketing, and financial matters – The Court held that such rights demonstrated a fixed place of business at the disposal of the enterprise – PE held to exist under Article 5(1) of DTAA [Paras 10–17].

PE Test – Disposal and Control – Exclusive Use Not Mandatory – The Court reiterated that a fixed place PE does not require exclusive possession – Even temporary or shared access qualifies if core business is carried out through the premises – Here, employees of the appellant were regularly present, and strategic and operational functions were exercised from the premises – This satisfied the ‘disposal’ and ‘control’ tests as laid down in Formula One case [Paras 13–18].

Functional Distinction – Role of Separate Indian Entity – Not Sufficient to Deny PE – The Court rejected the argument that daily operations were conducted by Hyatt India Pvt. Ltd., a distinct legal entity – Held that substance prevails over form and the appellant’s strategic and operational control meant it conducted business through the hotel premises – PE established despite corporate separation [Paras 19–20].

Frequent Employee Visits – Aggregated Business Presence – Satisfies Article 5(2)(i) – Court held that while no individual employee exceeded the 9-month threshold, the coordinated, continuous presence and role of multiple employees across years constituted sufficient aggregate business activity – Satisfies service PE clause under Article 5(2)(i) [Para 21].

Taxability under Article 7 – Income Attributable to PE Taxable in India – The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that the income derived under the SOSAs was attributable to the PE and therefore taxable in India under Article 7 of the DTAA – Revenue sharing structure and nature of control reinforced tax nexus [Paras 22–24].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld Delhi High Court’s finding that appellant had a fixed place PE in India and that income under SOSA was taxable – Appeals dismissed without costs [Para 25].

Taxation Law - Section 9(1)(i), 9(1)(vi), 9(1)(vii), 92F(iii-a), 143(3), 144C, and 260A of the Income Tax Act - Permanent Establishment – Interpretation of Article 5(1) of DTAA – Fixed Place PE Established – The appellant, a UAE-based company, entered into long-term Strategic Oversight Services Agreements with Indian hotel owners to render consultancy services – The agreements gave the appellant extensive rights over hotel operations, personnel decisions, marketing, and financial matters – The Court held that such rights demonstrated a fixed place of business at the disposal of the enterprise – PE held to exist under Article 5(1) of DTAA [Paras 10–17].

PE Test – Disposal and Control – Exclusive Use Not Mandatory – The Court reiterated that a fixed place PE does not require exclusive possession – Even temporary or shared access qualifies if core business is carried out through the premises – Here, employees of the appellant were regularly present, and strategic and operational functions were exercised from the premises – This satisfied the ‘disposal’ and ‘control’ tests as laid down in Formula One case [Paras 13–18].

Functional Distinction – Role of Separate Indian Entity – Not Sufficient to Deny PE – The Court rejected the argument that daily operations were conducted by Hyatt India Pvt. Ltd., a distinct legal entity – Held that substance prevails over form and the appellant’s strategic and operational control meant it conducted business through the hotel premises – PE established despite corporate separation [Paras 19–20].

Frequent Employee Visits – Aggregated Business Presence – Satisfies Article 5(2)(i) – Court held that while no individual employee exceeded the 9-month threshold, the coordinated, continuous presence and role of multiple employees across years constituted sufficient aggregate business activity – Satisfies service PE clause under Article 5(2)(i) [Para 21].

Taxability under Article 7 – Income Attributable to PE Taxable in India – The Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that the income derived under the SOSAs was attributable to the PE and therefore taxable in India under Article 7 of the DTAA – Revenue sharing structure and nature of control reinforced tax nexus [Paras 22–24].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld Delhi High Court’s finding that appellant had a fixed place PE in India and that income under SOSA was taxable – Appeals dismissed without costs [Para 25].

Land Acquisition - Fraud on Court – Suppression of Material Facts – Exclusive Compensation Awarded – Order Set Aside – Reddy was found to have manipulated judicial processes by suppressing prior litigation and asserting contradictory claims to secure compensation – Held: The High Court order and subsequent judgment in Reddy Veerana (2022) were vitiated by fraud and declared nullities – Judicial orders obtained by deceit cannot be allowed to stand [Paras 30-60, 138-139].

Maintainability – Writ Petition under Article 32 – No Violation of Fundamental Rights – Dismissed – The Supreme Court held that a loosely drafted writ petition without clear allegations of fundamental rights violation under Article 32 is not maintainable – Vishnu’s property rights fell under Article 300A and could have been agitated under Article 226 – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 66-80].

Doctrine of Merger – Exception in Case of Fraud – Civil Appeal Maintainable – The impugned High Court order had allegedly merged with the Supreme Court judgment in Reddy Veerana – However, the Court held that fraud nullifies the merger doctrine – Fraud being an exception, the appeal was maintainable and allowed [Paras 89-124].

Procedural Law – Inherent Powers of Supreme Court – Relief Granted – Court reiterated that procedural rules are handmaid of justice – Registry’s refusal to register review petition on technical grounds overridden – Petition allowed to be regularised upon curing defects [Paras 125-131, 137].

Simultaneous Proceedings – Appeal and Review – No Bar – Vishnu’s civil appeal and review petition targeted distinct but interlinked orders – Court held there was no legal prohibition since the appeal and review addressed different aspects of the fraudulently obtained judgments [Paras 132-134].

Forum Shopping – Allegation Rejected – Court held that initiating multiple proceedings in different fora did not constitute forum shopping where the litigant was responding to evolving judicial obstacles and procedural constraints – Petition was a legitimate response to fraud [Paras 141-143].

Relief – Impugned and Related Orders Set Aside – Matter Remanded – The impugned High Court order dated 28/10/2021 and the Supreme Court judgment in Reddy Veerana (2022) were both recalled – The matter remanded to the High Court with directions to implead all co-owners and redetermine compensation – All pending proceedings to be brought to logical conclusion [Paras 144-146].

Criminal Law - Sections 3(1)(viii), 3(1)(ix), and 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST Act – Quashing of Proceedings under Section 482 CrPC – High Court Order Upheld – Appellant alleged mala fide prosecution by public officials for opposing wrongful land allotment – High Court found no evidence of caste-based discrimination or mala fide intention – Held: The initiation of proceedings under the SC/ST Act lacked legal foundation – Quashing Upheld [Paras 1-4, 19-22].

Mala Fide Allegation – Intra-Caste Dispute – No Offence Attracted under SC/ST Act – Dispute involved two Scheduled Caste groups – Allegations failed to show targeting of appellant solely for caste identity – Held: Prosecution does not satisfy the essential ingredients of offences under the SC/ST Act – Criminal complaint rightly quashed [Paras 16, 21-22].

Scope of Section 482 CrPC – High Court Jurisdiction Properly Exercised – Allegations were vague, delayed, and not supported by prima facie evidence – Held: High Court correctly exercised inherent powers to prevent abuse of legal process – Interference by Supreme Court unwarranted [Paras 12, 25].

False Prosecution – Safeguards Against Abuse of SC/ST Act – Court referred to precedents warning against misuse of the Act for settling personal scores – Held: Courts must intervene where allegations do not reveal caste-based intent or are filed with oblique motives – False implication under SC/ST Act cannot be permitted [Paras 23-24].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court’s Quashing of Proceedings Upheld – Allegations found baseless and unsupported by evidence – No interference warranted by Supreme Court – All pending applications also disposed [Paras 25-27].

Criminal Law - Section 193, 406, 418, 420, 423, 468, 469 of IPC - Criminal Complaint – Second Quashing Petition – Not Maintainable – Review Impermissible – The High Court allowed a second quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC, despite an earlier petition on identical grounds having been dismissed – Held: Raising previously available pleas in a second petition constitutes a review which is barred under Section 362 CrPC – High Court exceeded jurisdiction in entertaining the subsequent petition [Paras 11-14].

Inherent Powers of High Court – Limits Under Section 482 CrPC – Bar of Section 362 CrPC Applies – The High Court cannot invoke Section 482 to do what is expressly prohibited under CrPC – Held: Inherent powers cannot be exercised to override express statutory bar – Review of earlier final order not permissible through second petition under Section 482 [Paras 13-15].

Change in Circumstances – Mandatory for Maintainability of Second Petition – No New Grounds Raised – Accused failed to show any change in circumstances or fresh cause – Held: Entertainment of successive quashing petition without new grounds amounts to abuse of process – High Court’s order quashing proceedings unjustified [Paras 12, 14, 16].

Quashing of Complaint – Order Set Aside – Criminal Proceedings Restored – The High Court’s second order dated 13.09.2022 quashing Complaint No. 1828 of 2019 found to be legally unsustainable – Held: Complaint restored before Trial Magistrate – All defences open to accused at appropriate stage [Paras 17-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s Order Set Aside – Complaint Restored – The appeal succeeds – Complaint proceedings reinstated before Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai – Pending applications also disposed [Paras 17-20].

Criminal Law - Sections 342 and 376 IPC - Conviction for Rape and Wrongful Confinement – Delay in FIR – Explanation Satisfactory – Conviction Upheld – FIR lodged after 20 hours due to young age of victim and long distance to police station – Victim’s statement consistent and corroborated by medical and documentary evidence – Held: Delay not fatal – Conviction under Sections 342 and 376 IPC sustained [Paras 1-4, 7-8].

Hostile Witness – Not Material – Victim’s Testimony Corroborated – Witness who turned hostile was not an eyewitness – Court found no reason to disbelieve the prosecutrix – Medical findings and clothing further substantiated the offence – Held: Hostile testimony immaterial where direct evidence is credible [Paras 8-9].

Prosecutrix’s Sole Testimony – Sufficient for Conviction – Corroboration Not Mandatory – Court reiterated settled law that uncorroborated testimony of prosecutrix can suffice for conviction if credible – Supported by cases including Mohd. Imran Khan, Phool Singh, and Ganesan – Held: Conviction can rest solely on victim’s trustworthy testimony [Para 10].

Plea of Juvenility – Raised for First Time Before Supreme Court – Maintainable – Appellant asserted he was 16 years, 2 months, and 3 days on date of offence – Court directed judicial inquiry – Held: Plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage including post-conviction – Not barred by delay or procedural stage [Paras 5-6, 12-13, 15].

Juvenile Justice Act – Applicability Confirmed – Sentence Set Aside – Age proven by school records and confirmed by inquiry – Held: 2000 Act and 2007 Rules applicable even if person is no longer a juvenile during proceedings – Sentence imposed by Trial Court and upheld by High Court set aside accordingly [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Conviction Maintained – Sentence Set Aside – Matter Referred to Juvenile Justice Board – Appellant directed to appear before Board for proceedings under Sections 15 and 16 of the 2000 Act – Appeal disposed – Pending applications also disposed [Paras 16-19].