Quashing of Order by Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) – Writ Petition – Supreme Court judgment reversing High Court’s decision – ITSC order based on respondent-assessee group’s application under Section 245C of the Income Tax Act for settlement – ITSC erroneously accepted application despite inadequate full and true disclosure of income by respondent – Held, ITSC acted beyond its jurisdiction by approving application and granting immunity, as it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such applications without full and true disclosure – Order dated 9 June 2014 set aside. [Paras 32-57]

Jurisdiction of ITSC and Requirements for Application under Section 245C – Analysis – Held, ITSC can only consider applications under Section 245C that include full and true disclosure of income – Any lack of such disclosure deprives ITSC of jurisdiction to entertain the application or provide immunity from prosecution and penalties – Respondent-assessee group’s failure to fully disclose income resulted in ITSC exceeding its jurisdiction by approving application and granting immunity. [Paras 34-37, 50-57]

Disclosure of Income in Settlement Applications – Importance – Held, foundation of settlement applications under Section 245C is full, true, and honest disclosure of income and source of income – Inadequate disclosure leads to ITSC losing jurisdiction over the application – Respondent-assessee group’s application lacked full and truthful disclosure, rendering ITSC’s order and granted immunities legally unsustainable. [Paras 54-57]

Decision  – ITSC erred in approving application and granting immunity – Application under Section 245C requires complete and truthful disclosure – Order dated 9 June 2014 set aside, writ petition allowed [Paras 55-57].                      

Quo Warranto Petition - Dismissal - Public Interest Litigation challenging the authority of the Chief Minister of Delhi - Petitioner seeks removal of Chief Minister from office citing incapacity due to incarceration - Court finds earlier orders dismissing similar PILs seeking identical relief - Petitioner alleges breakdown of constitutional machinery - Court asserts inability to interfere with executive functions or declare breakdown of constitutional machinery - Petitioner's persistence despite knowledge of previous dismissals indicates motive for publicity - Frivolity of PIL evident - Reliance on precedent found misplaced - Supreme Court's caution against frivolous PILs reiterated - Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited with Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund. [Paras 1-10]

Parole Request in Pending Criminal Appeal – Dismissal of petition for parole – Petitioner, convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part I and Section 323 IPC, seeks parole to attend brother's marriage – Held, application for parole not maintainable during pendency of appeal, where appellant can seek suspension of sentence and interim bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. [Paras 6, 10, 12]

Role of High Court and Executive in Granting Parole – Analysis of judicial precedents – Emphasized that State cannot exercise powers to grant parole during pendency of statutory appeal – Rule 1209 of Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 restricts grant of regular parole when convict's appeal is pending – High Court's appellate powers not to be derogated by executive decisions on parole. [Paras 7, 8]

Judicial Interpretation of Parole Rules – Reference to Delhi Prison Rules, 2018 – Discussion on distinction between parole and furlough – Clarification on Rule 1209 barring parole during pendency of appeal – Importance of appellate court's powers in parole decisions highlighted. [Paras 7, 9]

Alternative Remedies for Convicts – Convicts can seek interim bail or suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. during pendency of appeal – High Court has the power to consider such applications on grounds similar to those for regular parole. [Paras 10, 11]

Decision – Petition for parole dismissed – Liberty granted to petitioner to file application for suspension of sentence and interim bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in pending appeal – Pending applications disposed of. [Para 12]

Appeal against Arbitral Award – Price Variation Dispute – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Appeal under Section 37(1)(c) against Commercial Court’s judgment upholding arbitral award – Dispute over price variation clause in construction contract – Tribunal and Court aligned in interpretation of clause, denying PCC’s claim – Appellant's argument regarding application of specific price index for South Zone rejected – Tribunal found no ambiguity in application of All India Price Index as per clause – Held, arbitral award is plausible and no interference warranted under Section 34 of A&C Act – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-31]

Price Variation Formula in Construction Contract – Interpretation and Application – Clause 10CA of General Conditions of Contract – Dispute over price index application for calculating cement price variation – Appellant argued for specific zone-based price index – Tribunal applied All India Price Index as per contract, rejecting zone-specific index – Held, interpretation of Clause 10CA by Tribunal falls within its jurisdiction and is a plausible view – Court finds no reason to interfere under Section 34 of A&C Act. [Paras 15-31]

Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards – Scope and Limitation – Analysis of limited scope of interference with arbitral awards under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Tribunal's interpretation of contractual clauses and factual findings – Held, unless grounds for setting aside an arbitral award are established, interference not warranted – In present case, Tribunal’s interpretation deemed plausible and within its jurisdiction – Appeal and application dismissed. [Paras 28-31]

Maintenance Review – Criminal revision filed against the order dated 25.01.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar, which granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,000 to revisionist No.1 and Rs.2,000 each to revisionist Nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – Revisionists seek enhancement of the maintenance allowance, alleging that the trial court did not adequately consider the income and assets of the opposite party No.2 [Paras 2-4].

Income and Earnings Assessment – Opposite party No.2's income from the family business underreported as Rs.7,000 per month – Evidence suggests substantial assets and higher income level, including NSCs, PPF, and ownership in a family business, justifying a higher maintenance allowance [Paras 4, 18-20, 26-28].

Legal Jurisdiction and Procedural Legality – Discussion on the appropriate forum for filing revisions under the Family Court Act, 1984 – Criminal revision held maintainable under Section 19(4) of the Act against orders passed under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C., including those concerning maintenance [Paras 10-15].

Determination of Maintenance – Court finds that maintenance calculated as 25% of the actual income of the husband for the wife and 20% for each child is appropriate based on revised assessments of husband's income – Maintenance for wife revised to Rs.15,000 per month and Rs.6,000 each for the children [Paras 29-31, 34].

Modification of Maintenance Order – Original maintenance order modified to reflect enhanced allowances, payable from the date of the initial application with arrears to be paid in four equal installments [Paras 33-35].

Decision: The criminal revision is partly allowed - The maintenance order dated 25.01.2023 is set aside in part and enhanced as described - The revised maintenance amounts are to be paid from the date of the original application, with arrears structured in four equal instalments. [Para 36].

Gift Deeds and Basic Amenities Requirement – Dispute over ownership and right to stay in flats gifted by father to son – The Maintenance Tribunal nullified gift deeds executed in favor of the petitioner son, based on allegations of non-provision of basic amenities by the son post-transfer – Analysis centers on whether gift deeds were subject to the conditions of providing basic amenities and physical needs, as required under Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act – Tribunal found conditions met due to explicit covenants allowing the father’s residence in the flats, indicating a conditional gift based on basic amenities provision - [Paras 1-54].

Tribunal's Jurisdiction Under Senior Citizens Act – Discussed necessity for specific conditions in gift deeds stipulating the provision of basic amenities for seniors as a prerequisite for invoking Section 23(1) of the Senior Citizens Act – The court opined that such conditions need not be explicitly stated in the deeds but may be established through evidence and proceedings, which aligns with the act’s objective to protect senior citizens’ rights to basic amenities post property transfer - [Paras 19-20, 40-43, 46-47].

Application and Implications of Section 23(1) – Senior Citizens Act envisages scenarios where senior citizens can reclaim gifted properties if basic needs are not met by the transferee – The court critiqued the broad application of Section 23(1), urging it should not be used to resolve general property disputes unrelated to the maintenance of senior citizens – Emphasized that legislative intent is to ensure senior citizens' basic needs are met, not just to nullify transfer documents - [Paras 50-52].

Decision: court set aside the Maintenance Tribunal's order to nullify the gift deeds and vacate the flats - It directed that the petitioner provides residence to the respondent father in one specified flat along with a monthly maintenance amount, aligning with the act’s purpose to ensure the senior’s welfare rather than merely annul property transfers - The judgment refines the interpretation of Section 23(1), emphasizing evidence over explicit conditions in deeds for the provision of basic amenities - [Para 54].

Judicial Review of Statutory Provisions – Challenge against Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012 – Alleged to be ultra vires the Constitution for conferring powers on the Additional Collector to dispossess persons based on mutation proceedings, affecting rights to property under Article 300A – Held, the impugned provisions confer excessive powers beyond legislative competence under Entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII, relating only to land revenue and records. The legislation improperly extends to adjudication of property rights, a function reserved for the judiciary – Impugned provisions struck down as unconstitutional. [Paras 2-49]

Property Rights and Mutation – Mutation of land records does not determine legal title or possession rights, solely administrative for revenue collection – The act of dispossession based on mutation violates established legal principles, where title and possession issues must be adjudicated by civil courts – Section 9(1) of the Act and relevant rules, allowing dispossession by the Additional Collector without judicial process, held to infringe on constitutional rights under Article 300A and principles of natural justice. [Paras 18, 20, 24, 48]

Principles of Natural Justice – Requirement for fair hearing and judicial process in matters affecting property rights – Mutation proceedings intended for administrative record-keeping, not for adjudicating title or possession – Dispossession without court order constitutes a violation of natural justice and the constitutional right to property, necessitating judicial intervention. [Paras 24, 36, 47]

Decision – The Court declares Section 9(1) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 and Rules 13(11) and 13(12) of the Bihar Land Mutation Rules, 2012, insofar as they empower the Additional Collector to dispossess individuals and confer possession to others, as unconstitutional. The provisions are beyond the legislative scope of Entry 45 of List II of Schedule VII and infringe upon the constitutional guarantee under Article 300A. [Paras 49-50]

Revisional Application Under Article 227 – Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987 – Challenge to Assessment of Property Tax – exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, adjudicated upon the revisional application challenging the order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal regarding the annual valuation for property tax of premises no. 99A, Humayun Kabir Sarani, Kolkata. The Tribunal’s order had modified the valuation determined by the Hearing Officer of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation. The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction appropriately and did not adhere to the mandatory statutory procedures under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. [Paras 1-21]

Misapplication of Jurisdiction by Municipal Assessment Tribunal – Held, the Municipal Assessment Tribunal improperly exercised its jurisdiction by failing to provide reasoned justification for modifying the Hearing Officer's order, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The Tribunal's reliance on past judgments without elucidating their relevance to the present case and its disregard for the procedural requirements under the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules thereof constituted a flagrant violation of statutory obligations. [Paras 15-17]

Decision – Remand for Fresh Adjudication – High Court sets aside the impugned order of the Municipal Assessment Tribunal and directs it to reconsider the matter in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (Taxation) Rules, 1987. [Paras 18-20]