Telangana High Court Judgments — 2013

The Court held that the matter in controversy had been resolved by the Division Bench of the Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Expro Gulf Limited. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the law laid down in that decision. The notice issued to the petitioner under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by a higher bench of the same court, subsequent cases with identical facts and legal questions should be decided in line with that precedent. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.

The High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision, finding that Fundamental Rule 22B(1)(a) and its proviso entitled the respondent to pay protection during his probation period. The tribunal's interpretation that the respondent was holding a substantive post and had a lien on it, thus qualifying for presumptive pay, was deemed correct.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings were initiated without sufficient material or a valid 'reason to believe' that turnover had escaped assessment. It also found no justification for imposing tax on Bitumen given the evidence presented.

The High Court held that it cannot re-appreciate the evidence considered by the Tribunal. Since the Tribunal's decision was based on appreciation of evidence, no substantial question of law was involved.

The Court held that the matter in controversy had been resolved by the Division Bench of the Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s Expro Gulf Limited, ITA No. 34 of 2015. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the law laid down in that decision. The notice issued to the petitioner under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue has been decided by a higher bench of the same court, the present court should follow that precedent. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.

The High Court found that the trial court failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly by granting insufficient ad interim maintenance. The court enhanced the maintenance to Rs. 95,000 per month and litigation expenses to Rs. 1,10,000, relating it back to the date of the application.

The High Court dismissed these three appeals. However, it granted the appellant liberty to raise all relevant points in future appeals concerning the main matter.

The High Court held that continuing criminal proceedings after exoneration in a departmental inquiry, especially when co-accused were acquitted, amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. The court relied on Supreme Court judgments to support this.

The tribunal held that the offending vehicle was indeed involved in the accident. It also found that the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation, including future prospects, and that a prior Personal Accident claim amount should be deducted.

The High Court upheld the Appellate Authority's finding that the revenue record (pahani) was tampered with. Consequently, the claim for occupancy rights based on this tampered record was negated.

The High Court noted that a memo was filed on behalf of the appellants (Revenue) seeking to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh appeal before the Delhi High Court. The memo was taken on record. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal with the liberty as sought for by the Revenue. The Court directed the office to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the Revenue forthwith. No decision was made on the merits of the questions of law originally intended to be decided.

The tribunal recorded the submission of the appellant's counsel. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to file a fresh appeal.

The tribunal held that the modified notifications were not justified by superior public interest and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied. The government failed to demonstrate prejudice to public interest or contra-legislation.

The tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 18 instead of 17 for the deceased's age of 28. The judgment and award were modified to apply the correct multiplier, recalculating the compensation payable.