This is a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court hearing an Original Petition (Forest Tribunal) under Article 227 challenging Ext.P5—the Forest Tribunal Kozhikode’s 23 April 2021 order in I.A.63/2021 in O.A.6/2017. Ramathal, the petitioner-owner of 1.0690 hectares in Survey No.1125/2, seeks to set aside the order that allowed impleadment of the 1st respondent (the applicant in OA 50/2018) as a party in OA 6/2017. The Tribunal had held that Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act confines its inquiry to whether the land is vested forest and permits impleadment to avoid complications since the property is involved in another case. The High Court recalls Article 227’s supervisory scope and various precedents emphasizing that interferences are circumscribed, non-appeal-like, and must avoid undermining tribunals’ functioning. The Court cites Shalini Shyam Shetty, Jai Singh, K.V.S. Ram, and Sobhana Nair K.N. to underscore the limited, preventive character of superintendence, and the need for caution. Ultimately, Ext.P5 is partly set aside: impleadment of the 1st respondent is annulled, and OA 6/2017 and OA 50/2018 are to be consolidated by the Tribunal at its discretion for possible common enquiry or separate consideration. The petition is disposed of accordingly.
This Kerala High Court Motor Accidents Claims Appeal concerns the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, in OP(MV) No. 977/2011 for the death of Radhakrishnan in a road accident on 28.12.2009, where the claimants (wife, children and mother) sought Rs. 10,76,000 but were granted Rs. 21,39,000 under multiple heads. The appellant insurer challenged the award on grounds of excessive compensation and the right to recover amounts from the 5th respondent (the rider) alleging he did not have a valid license at the time of the accident; Ext.A3 (Charge Sheet) did not record the license status. The insurer contended that the license issue warranted remitting the case for a fresh decision on pay-and-recovery. The respondents defended the Tribunal’s award, emphasizing the deceased’s youth and the loss to dependents. The High Court found merit in the license contention and remitted pay-and-recovery to the Tribunal, while also tightening several heads of compensation in light of established precedents. It curtailed Funeral Expenses, combined Loss of Love and Affection with Loss of Consortium within Rs. 40,000 per dependent, reduced Loss of Estate to Rs. 15,000, and revisited Loss of Dependency with a notional income, future prospects, and deductions in line with Pranay Sethi, Ramachandrappa and others. The appeal was allowed in part with directions for recalculation and remand on pay/recovery.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 539 of 2014) before the Kerala High Court arising from an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) No.2232/2006. The petitioner, M.P. Ramadasan, sought enhancement of compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 22.06.2006 involving a bus driven by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal held the driving of the offending vehicle negligent and awarded Rs. 4,13,450, distributing compensation across heads such as loss of earning, medical expenses, pain and suffering, and disability, with the insurer liable to pay. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal wrongly fixed the notional income at Rs. 4,000 per month, contrary to the notional income for a bus driver in 2006 and the landmark Ramachandrappa decision. He submits that notional income should be Rs. 7,000 per month, applying 25% future prospects and a multiplier of 14 (per Sarla Verma). The appellant also urged higher awards for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life, and seeks modest uplifts for nourishment and clothing. The respondents contended that the Tribunal’s findings were sound and the income fixation reasonable. The High Court applied the established principles, re-fixating income at Rs. 7,000, confirming 34% disability, applying 25% future prospects and multiplier 14, and enhancing several heads. The appeal is allowed in part; total compensation is increased to Rs. 8,51,260 with deposit/disbursement directions and interest.
Ramakrishnan Nair v. Surendan, The State of Kerala, Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Collector, W.A. No. 789 of 2021, is a Kerala High Court division bench appeal challenging a Single Judge’s order that allowed a writ petition filed by the 1st respondent and set aside a maintenance-tribunal cancellation of a settlement deed under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The appellant, aged 95, entered into a settlement deed in favor of his nephew Surendran (the 1st respondent) invoking love and affection as consideration and states there were no reservations or express maintenance obligations. The tribunal, and subsequently the learned Single Judge, held that Section 23 could be invoked only if the document contained a recital imposing a duty to maintain; the Single Judge relied on Radhamani v. State of Kerala (2016) and Subhashini v. District Collector (FB) to support this view. The Division Bench, however, distinguished Radhamani on the peculiar facts of this case—where the settlor had no successors and the deed rested on affection—finding that the Radhamani ratio does not enure to the appellant’s benefit. The court ultimately dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the tribunal’s cancellation and reversing the Single Judge’s interference. The decision underscores that absence of a maintenance obligation in a settlement deed may limit invocation of Section 23 absent matching factual recitals.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 227 challenging an interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, in IA No.1 of 2022 in OP No.533 of 2022. The respondent-wife had moved OP 533/2022 seeking maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and return of gold ornaments; IA 1/2022 sought interim maintenance at Rs.30,000 per month. The Family Court granted interim maintenance to the respondent at Rs.25,000 per month. The petitioner-husband contends that the interim maintenance order was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard, that the respondent left the matrimonial home of her own volition, and therefore is not entitled to interim maintenance; also that the questioned amount and the interim order cannot be decided at the interim stage and must await trial. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, evaluates whether there is patent illegality, error in exercise of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice. It relies on established jurisprudence that Article 227 containment is cautious, powers are supervisory and not ordinarily appellate, and should be exercised sparingly to preserve public confidence in the machinery of justice. The Court notes disputed income claims and that the main issues require a trial. Finding no patent illegality or misapplication, the High Court declines to interfere and dismisses the petition, upholding the Family Court’s order as not running afoul of legal principles.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from O.P.(MV).No.969/2006 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, concerning the death of Titus in a 04.03.2006 accident involving a mini lorry and a bus. The appellants, being the petitioners (parents and siblings of the deceased), challenged the Tribunal’s quantum of compensation, arguing the insurer’s liability was miscalculated and policy violations should not limit the award. They contended that the Tribunal adopted an inadequate monthly income (Rs.2,500) and a multiplier based on the mother’s age, whereas the deceased was a 23-year-old driver; they urged the inclusion of future prospects (40%), and higher compensation under heads such as loss of estate, loss of love and affection, and loss of consortium. The insurer defended liability and policy conditions, urging deductions for policy violations and questioned certain heads of damages. The High Court, applying Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, fixes a higher monthly income (Rs.5,500) and applies 40% future prospects, with the multiplier tied to the deceased’s age. It also revisits funeral expenses in light of Pranay Sethi and recognizes loss of consortium for the parents per Satinder Kaur, while denying double counting for pain and suffering. The Court ultimately enhances compensation by Rs.5,20,100 and directs the insurer to deposit this amount within three months, with recovery rights against the first Respondent preserved.
BAIL APPL. NO. 325 OF 2023 Priyanlal C.P. @ Chinju, the third accused in Crime No. 731/2022 of Kanjar Police Station, Idukki District, seeks regular bail under Section 439 CrPC before the Kerala High Court. The prosecution case arises from an incident on the night of 3 December 2022, near the residence of Manganattu Raghavan, where three accused allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant (Sam), leading to Sam’s death. The first accused is said to have stabbed Sam; the second accused brandished a knife causing injury to Kishore; the third accused is alleged to have restrained Sam, thereby facilitating the first accused to inflict fatal injuries. Postmortem reportedly noted eight ante-mortem injuries in addition to the fatal stab wound. The petitioner contends innocence and argues his overt act was comparatively minor, having been in custody since 04 December 2022, with no prior criminal antecedents, and he offers to cooperate with the investigation and trial. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, contending that the petitioner’s involvement, albeit within a group, is on par with the other accused, and that investigation is at a midway stage. The court, after perusing case diary materials and the postmortem certificate, acknowledges a prima facie case but, considering the absence of antecedents and progress in investigation, grants regular bail subject to conditions: bond and two sureties of Rs 50,000 each, non-interference with witnesses, cooperation with inquiry and trial, weekly IO appearances, surrender of passport, and prohibition from other offences.
This Regular First Appeal arises from a decree of specific performance granted in OS 625/2001 (II Add'l Sub Court, Ernakulam) and challenged by the defendant, R. Vijayakumar. The plaintiff, S N Prajapathy, relied on Ext. A1, an agreement dated 14.07.2001 by which the defendant agreed to convey three cents of property with a building for a total consideration of Rs 10,25,000, after an advance of Rs 2,75,000. The agreement fixed performance within three months, expiring 15.10.2001, and required the plaintiff to pay Rs 1,25,000 to the Housing Board before 30.07.2001 to clear a mortgage, with the Housing Board remittance to be handled by the defendant. The plaintiff contends that despite approaching the defendant repeatedly for loan details and to facilitate payment to the Housing Board, the defendant did not cooperate, and notices (Ext. A2, A9) were ignored. The defendant asserts the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform as required. The trial court found the plaintiff ready and willing and decreed specific performance, while the appellant challenged (i) the sufficiency of the trial court’s finding of the defendant’s non-performance, and (ii) the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court ultimately upholds the trial court’s decree, rejects the appeal, and refuses remand, noting that the plaintiff’s readiness and the defendant’s non-cooperation justify grant of relief.
WP(C) Nos. 17933 & 16184 of 2021 UKF College of Engineering & Technology challenged the State government’s policy not to grant No Objection Certificates (NOC) for starting new diploma courses in private self-financing engineering colleges, after AICTE extended approvals for courses in Civil & Environmental Engineering, Robotic Process Automation, and Renewable Energy for 2021-22. The AICTE approval required an NOC from the affiliating university/board, but the government’s policy barred private self-financing institutions from starting new diploma programs. The petitioner sought quashing of the policy and directions to grant approval/affiliation, arguing violation of fundamental rights (education as a life-and-liberty interest) and reduction of opportunities for students. The court framed two questions: (i) whether the State can maintain a policy not to permit new private-self-financing institutions to start diploma courses; (ii) whether the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) affiliated college requires NOC from the DTE before new courses and whether the University’s views are necessary. Relying on Kerala and Supreme Court precedents, the court held that such policy contravenes fundamental rights and that universities may impose enhanced norms, but AICTE norms must be respected. The court set aside prior orders, directing the DTE to reconsider NOC/approval after inspecting the college and considering University and committee reports, with a four-week deadline for fresh orders.
Cheriyan J. Puthiyadam filed WP(C) 1760 of 2010 challenging Exts. P15 and P21 and praying that the State and its instrumentalities not interfere with his possession of land purchased under Ext. P9 from the 5th respondent Bank, where rubber and pineapple are cultivated. The factual matrix traces Rubber Board licenses and powers of attorney for the 6th and 7th respondents, a 1986 money decree in favor of the Bank, and the 1990 insertion of Section 19C in the Kerala General Sales Tax Act (KGST) with retrospective effect from 29.08.1989. Protective assessment provisions under Section 19C enabled recovery from persons acting in name or in association with a dealer (including power of attorney holders). The land was attached under the Revenue Recovery Act, and the Government bought it in a 1992 auction, with the Bank later purchasing the property. The petitioner contends there was no independent tax assessment against the 7th respondent, who had ceased to hold a Power of Attorney by 02.07.1989, and hence Section 19C cannot be retroactively invoked against him; the petition further argues that the transaction and land registry transfer cannot be nullified by retroactive tax recovery. The High Court held that Section 19C cannot be invoked against the 7th respondent given the timing, that the asset’s recovery proceedings were illegal, and that Exts. P15 and P21 are set aside. The writ petition is allowed, permitting the petitioner to pay land tax and seek registry transfer if eligible.
R.F.A.No.623 of 2012 (Indigent) This Regular First Appeal (Indigent) arises from a suit for specific performance of sale of plaint schedule property under Ext. A1. The Additional Sub Court, Kottayam, decreed O.S.213/2008 on 08.11.2021 in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to execute a sale deed within a month, deposit the balance price, and awarding costs. The defendant/appellant challenges the decree arguing Ext.A1 was executed only as security for a loan, and not with an intention to execute, and that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness as required by Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The appellate court examined the evidence, including Ext.A1 and the pleadings, and considered whether time was the essence of the contract. It discussed the terms of Ext.A1, including the deadline of 31.03.2008 for payment of the balance sale consideration and the condition precedent for the defendant to prepare and register the sale deed. The court evaluated the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show readiness and willingness, as well as the distinction between signing and execution of a document, and relied on various authorities on signing, readiness, and time. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, reversed the trial court’s decree, and held that the plaintiff failed to establish essential requirements under Section 16, aligning with established jurisprudence on specific performance.
The petitioner, Rangorath Gokul Prasad, a resident of Palakkad, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus to compel the State of Kerala to constitute a Special Land Conservancy Unit at the office of the Malabar Devaswom Board and to direct urgent action to recover encroached land. Ext.P3, a representation to that effect, is central to his prayer. The petition emphasizes that Devaswom properties are properties of God and must be safeguarded by trustees, archaikas, and authorities, warning against misappropriation and encroachment. In support of the broader protection of Devaswom assets, the Court traverses several binding and persuasive authorities: A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board (2007) 7 SCC 482; Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair (2013 (3) KLT 132); Nandakumar v. District Collector (2018 (2) KHC 58); A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Secretary, Cochin Devaswom Board (2018 (3) KHC 549); and related observations in Prayar Gopalakrishnan and others v. State of Kerala (2018 (1) KHC 536). The Court also cites Mrinalini Padhi v. Union of India (2018 SCC OnLine SC 667) to underscore possible central and state responsibilities in shrine management, and invokes Section 92 CPC and Seventh Schedule List III Item 28 to justify judicial directions in aid of charitable/religious institutions. The proceedings reveal a focus on parens patriae and guardianship principles, recognizing the temple as a guardian entity and the High Court as protector of Devaswom lands. The Court disposes the petition by directing the State to decide Ext.P3 within two months from the certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner a hearing, and to take appropriate steps expeditiously.
WP(C).18059/2020(F); WP(C).25973/2020(V) This joint judgment by Hon. Justice Devan Ramachandran decides two connected writ petitions concerning appointments in the MK L.M.H.S.S., Kannanalloor, Kollam, and compliance with the Kerala Education Rules (KER). In WP(C).18059/2020, Bizar B., appointed as a Full Time Menial (FTM) after a predecessor’s promotion, challenges the denial of approval, contending that the Manager resourced the post under the KER Rule 7(3), Chapter XXI, and that objections were based on technical noncompliance. He argues that, even if the post needed surrender, the Manager acted to satisfy statutory obligations. In WP(C).25973/2020, three teachers claim their appointments await approval, asserting that the Manager pledged to surrender posts and that Directorates already directed reconsideration based on a bond, so approvals should be granted. The Court, finding that the Manager set apart the FTM post to be filled by a protected hand and that two nominated protected hands did not join, holds that the rigorous requirement can be met and that open-market appointments may be valid in absence of a protected hand. It declares that the Manager has complied with Rule 7(3) and directs DEOs to reconsider approvals, setting aside certain prior orders and directing timely action. The judgment cites Nadeera and Moosakkutty as supportive authorities and emphasizes adherence to statutory provisions while ensuring due benefits to petitioners.
Judgment debtors Markose alias Baiju and Sara Paul challenged an execution sale conducted in pursuance of a money decree in O.S No. 68 of 2014 of the Sub Court, Muvattupuzha. The decree holder, KMLM Chits India Ltd., sought to realize the decree by executing E.P.No. 30 of 2016. The property was auctioned on 26 February 2021 after the decree holder bid, and the court granted permission under Order XXI, Rule 72 to participate in the auction. The appellants contend that the sale was conducted with irregularities: the petition seeking permission to bid did not have a copy served on them; the auction price was far less than the market value; the upset price was fixed too low without taking the Tahsildar valuation or market value into account; as a result, substantial injury allegedly occurred and the sale should be set aside. The appellants rely on decisions of the Supreme Court in Jaswantlal Natvarlal Thakkar, Lal Chand, Desh Bandhu Gupta, Rajender Singh, and Siddagangaiah to support the necessity of notice and the requirement of substantial injury before setting aside a sale. The Kerala High Court examined these authorities and held that mere price inadequacy or an irregularity without substantial injury is not sufficient to set aside the sale, upheld the Sub Court’s order, and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
MACA No. 2921 of 2009; MACA No. 1779 of 2009 Two MACA appeals arise from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara, challenging the same award in OPMV 484/2006. On 14 March 2006, Kanaran, a coolie, was struck by a pickup van owned by M.V. Shafeeq and insured by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. He sustained grievous injuries, including the amputation of his left leg, rendering him permanently disabled. He claimed Rs. 10 lakh as compensation. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,87,100 with interest at 7.5% p.a. The insurer (MACA 1779/2009) attacked the quantum, notably objecting to Rs. 50,000 for “loss of predominant happy life,” while the claimant (MACA 2921/2009) sought enhancement based on jurisprudence including Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram (2011) to re-fix income and recalibrate heads of compensation. The High Court, applying Ramachandrappa, fixed the petitioner’s monthly income at Rs. 6,000 and recalculated disability compensation to Rs. 5,05,440, allowing for an enhanced amount of Rs. 1,80,480 (with interest). The Rs. 50,000 awarded for loss of predominant happy life was set aside as unsustainable. Resultantly, MACA 2921/2009 was allowed in part (enhanced compensation) and MACA 1779/2009 was allowed in part (removal of the contentious head). The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd was directed to pay the enhanced amount. The decision relies on Ramachandrappa’s doctrine to determine income for MACT purposes.
Two questions arose for interpretation and decision in this case: (i) whether, despite having availed the alternate remedy under Section 62(9)(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, before the Arbitration Court against the order of removal dated 4-06-2020 (Ext. P12), the petitioner can seek a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution; and (ii) whether it would be futile to pursue arbitration when the impugned order lacks jurisdictional competence. The petitioner, Sini V.D., was in charge as Manager/Senior Clerk and, after suspension in 2019, faced a memo of charges and a subsequent removal order. The Disciplinary Sub Committee passed the removal (Ext. P12), which the petitioner challenged. The respondent Bank argued that misappropriation existed and that arbitration was the proper forum, while the petitioner argued that Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Society Rules vests the disciplinary sub-committee with inquiry powers, but the Managing Committee alone possesses the competence to pass major penalties; Ext. P12 lacked jurisdiction. The Court held that the Sub Committee cannot impose major penalties and that the order was void for want of jurisdiction, relying on earlier decisions (W.P(C).22228/2019; W.P(C).19884/2020; W.P(C).6133/2021; Kodenchery Bank v. Jos hy Varghese). Consequently, Ext. P3 and Ext. P12 were quashed, the writ petition allowed, and the petitioner restored to her position prior to 13 May 2019, with directions to comply strictly with Rule 198 in future proceedings.
This writ appeal arises from a challenge to a single judge’s order in W.P.(C) No.30238 of 2019, which directed CBSE to correct the marksheet/certificate so that the birth details and names of the parents in the CBSE certificate would align with a birth certificate produced later in 2019. The appellants, CBSE and its regional officers, contend that CBSE bye-laws and regulations, notably Regulation 8 and Bye-laws 69.1(ii) and 69.2, govern corrections; these provisions restrict corrections to typographical or clerical errors and fix a time-limit, with amendments applicable prospectively. They argue that birth-date/name corrections lie outside the narrow category of corrigible errors and that a late birth certificate cannot override the records already issued when the relevant rules have not been complied with. The respondents—Abhishek T. Varghese and Sree Budha Central School—assert that the inconsistent entries cause substantial prejudice to the student’s future education and employment, including abroad; the court must exercise equitable jurisdiction to reconcile the entries with the birth certificate, especially where delay has occurred. The High Court ultimately holds that while bye-laws can be binding, they are not absolute or determinative in every case, especially where genuine birth certificates are concerned; it directs correction with safeguards and imposes costs. The WA is dismissed, with the writ petitions disposed by directing correction and related conditions to be satisfied.
This is a Kerala High Court revision under RPFC 457 of 2016 challenging the Family Court, Nedumangad’s order dated 30-07-2016 in M.C. 90 of 2016, which awarded maintenance to Jasna under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner-wife Jasna had alleged desertion and neglect by her husband, Muhammed Siyad, a Civil Police officer, who allegedly earned substantial income, and she claimed maintenance of Rs. 15,000 per month, with Rs. 10,000 granted by the Family Court from the date of the petition. The respondent-husband contended that after marital discord, Talaq was pronounced on 22-01-2016, followed by Ext. R1, an agreement settling all financial claims, including maintenance. The Family Court held that Ext. R1 did not estop Jasna from seeking maintenance and that the statutory right under Section 125 Cr.P.C. remained inviolable; it directed Rs. 10,000 monthly maintenance. The revision court examined evidence, including attested Ext. R1, and noted that while Ext. R1 contains admitted signatures, the crucial issue is whether waiving maintenance is permissible. The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s finding that waiving the statutory right under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is contrary to public policy and void to that extent. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed, upholding the maintenance order. The decision underscores that statutory maintenance rights cannot be extinguished by private agreement, even post-separation or talaq.
BAIL APPL. NO. 3990 OF 2021 Anjuraj alias Anju, the 2nd accused in Aryanad Police Station Crime No. 457 of 2021, approached the Kerala High Court seeking regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. The crime, registered on 24.03.2021, charges the accused along with others with the murder of her husband Arun at her aunt’s house on 23.03.2021. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, who had an illicit relationship with Unnikuttan (the 1st accused), lured Arun to the residence where a confrontation occurred and a weapon was used, resulting in Arun’s death around midnight on 24.03.2021. The applicant resided at her aunt’s home with her minor child; the relationship with the husband had deteriorated with Arun reportedly living at a lodge. The defense contends that the true facts are not fully explored and that the deceased trespassed into the residence armed with a weapon, while the applicant was possibly defending herself and intervening in a melee. The prosecution asserts that the applicant hand over the weapon to the 1st accused, and that she may tamper with witnesses if released. The court cites established bail principles from Prahlad Singh Bhati, Amarmani Tripathi, Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh and State of Kerala v Raneef, emphasizing presumption of innocence and the precautionary nature of bail. Ultimately, the court finds no need for further detention, but imposes stringent conditions and grants bail with safeguards to ensure presence and prevent tampering. This bail order underscores that imprisonment before conviction is an exception to the general rule of bail.
OT Rev Nos. 41/2015 & 42/2015 This Kerala High Court session concerns O.T. Rev. Nos. 41/2015 and 42/2015, challenging VAT penalties under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003, arising from searches in 2006 and subsequent penalty orders for 2005-06 and 2006-07. The petitioner Southern Ispat and Energy Ltd. argues that penalties for alleged suppression of turnover were improperly calculated and, in any event, barred by the one-year limitation proviso to Section 67. The Appellate Authority and VAT Tribunal had upheld the penalties, including additions for suppressed turnover, foreign exchange transactions, unaccounted raw-material purchases, and production. The central legal questions focus on limitation, the validity of determining suppressed turnover via trial runs, and whether best-judgment estimates can be used in penalty proceedings, as opposed to assessment proceedings (Section 25). The judgment cites U K Monu Timbers and Scot-Free Steels to reaffirm the distinction between best-judgment assessments and penalties, and to hold that directing a trial run for estimation under Section 67 is impermissible. The Court partly allows OT Rev 41/2015 and partly allows OT Rev 42/2015, remitting certain issues to the Intelligence Officer for reconsideration and directing fresh orders within three months from receipt of the judgment copy.
