Search Judgments

(Validity of Income Tax Assessment Proceedings against a Deceased Assessee)

Income Tax Act, 1961: Sections 148A(d), 156, 159(1), 159(2), 270A, 292B, 292BB. This writ appeal challenged an order dated 27.10.2025 by a learned Single Judge, which upheld the Revenue's jurisdiction but quashed and remitted assessment proceedings. The appellant had challenged an order under Section 148A(d), an Assessment Order dated 17.02.2025, and a demand notice under Section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that these actions were taken against a person who had died on 04.01.2024.

(Jurisdiction of Waqf Board over 'Waqf-alal-aulad simpliciter)

Waqf Act, 1995 (Sections 3, 32(a)(j), 63, 64, 83(1), 83(2)); Constitution of India (Article 227) - This revision petition challenged a resolution of the Tamil Nadu Waqf Board and a consequential order of its Chief Executive Officer, along with seeking an injunction against interference with Waqf administration. The central issue was whether a 1930 Waqf Deed constituted a 'Waqf-alal-aulad simpliciter' (private, for family) or a 'Waqf-alal-aulad composite' (including public/charitable purposes).

The petitioners argued the Waqf was private, created for the Wakif's daughter and male descendants, with Muthawalliship hereditary and restricted to the male line. They contended that minor provisions for feeding the poor were not a dedication for charitable purposes and the Board, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to interfere or appoint respondents 3 to 6 (who claimed through a female line).

New Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (Part-I) – Regulations 37, 53; Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards to Armed Forces Personnel, 2008 – Rules 5, 7, 10; Regulations for the Medical Services of Armed Forces, 2010 – Regulation 423(a) – The petitioner challenged the Armed Forces Tribunal’s rejection of his claim for disability pension due to Primary Hypertension (30% for life), after 34 years of Indian Army service. He argued that the disease arose from continuous high-pressure military duties, including during COVID-19, fulfilling Rule 10(b) of the Entitlement Rules, 2008, and invoking the presumption of attributability from Dharamvir Singh.

However, the Release Medical Board (RMB) had opined that the hypertension was “neither attributable to nor aggravated by military service,” noting its detection in a peace area in 2021 without relevant stress history. The respondent highlighted that the New Pension Regulations and Entitlement Rules, 2008, mandate specific conditions for disability pension, requiring the disease to both arise during service and be caused by service conditions.

The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Section 47A – A petitioner, successful bidder in an e-auction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), paid stamp duty and registration charges under protest for a sale certificate. The petition sought registration and release of the document, and a refund of the excess charges. The central legal question was the applicability of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, to properties purchased through transparent public auctions.

The petitioner argued that Section 47A is not applicable, citing Supreme Court judgments in V.N.Devadoss (concerning BIFR sales under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985) and ASL Vyapar (regarding court/liquidator sales), which established that market value determined in a public auction leaves no scope for undervaluation or fraudulent evasion.

Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree in Summary Suit – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order 37 Rule 4; Order 9 Rule 13 – The revision petitioner, the 1st defendant in a summary suit, challenged the trial court’s dismissal of his application to set aside an ex-parte decree. The petitioner contended that the ex-parte decree was passed because his junior advocate, entrusted with the vakalat, could not appear due to a medical emergency. Relying on UCAL Fuel Systems, the petitioner argued this constituted “special circumstances” under Order 37 Rule 4 CPC, and that he possessed a substantial triable defence against the claim for arrears of rent, including disputes over tenancy and the locking of the premises.

The respondents argued that Order 37 Rule 4 CPC requires “special circumstances,” a stricter standard than “sufficient cause” under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

(Tender Rejection for Non-Disclosure of Litigation)

Tamil Nadu Transparency In Tender Act and Rules, 2000; Clauses 4(i), 25, 26, and 37 of the Bid Document; Rule 28 of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules 2000 - This writ petition challenged the rejection of a technical bid submitted by a Class I contractor for a sewerage scheme tender floated by Mangadu Municipality. The petitioner's bid was declared "Not Responsive" due to alleged non-disclosure of litigation history, as per Clause 4(i) of the bid document. The respondent contended that the petitioner suppressed 14 out of 33 pending litigations, thus violating the mandatory disclosure requirements.

The petitioner argued that they had disclosed all litigations falling within the scope of Clause 4(i), which requires disclosure of litigation/arbitration "resulting from contracts executed...in the last eight years or currently under execution." The court interpreted Clause 4(i) literally, finding that "resulting" refers to the contract and not the litigation's pendency.

Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 – The petitioner, an absolute owner of property in Survey No.314/5A4P since 1983, sought a survey and patta mutation. Following a previous High Court direction, the first respondent refused the survey solely based on a third-party objection, without examining the merits of ownership or possession.

The petitioner contended that such refusal was arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to law. This was in violation of the High Court’s ruling in Asaithambi vs.