Kerala Building Tax Act – Exemption for buildings used principally for religious, charitable, or educational purposes – Interpretation of the phrase “charitable purpose” in relation to medical relief – Whether free medical relief is the only form of medical relief that qualifies as a charitable purpose – Previous judgments in SH Medical Centre Hospital v. State of Kerala and Unity Hospital – Scope and ambit of exemption provision – Liberal interpretation of beneficial provisions – Compliance with the requirement of free medical relief for exemption – Appellant’s building not primarily used for providing free medical relief – Appellant’s claim for exemption based on providing medical relief at concessional rates – Consideration of income-expense statement of appellant’s institution – Figures showing a nominal amount expended for charitable purposes – Appellant’s contention as a charitable institution under the Income Tax Act – Full Bench decision in Mother Superior Adoration Convent affirming Unity Hospital – High Court’s deference to its previous judgments and principles of interpretation – Strict construction of exemption provision at entry stage – Inclusive definition of “charitable purpose” and use of the term “includes” – No lesser form of medical relief than “free” medical relief qualifies as charitable purpose – Dilution of the prescription regarding medical relief not warranted – Interpretation of the term “include” as a word of limitation and exhaustion – Extent of free medical relief provided by the appellant insufficient for a liberal interpretation – Appellant’s building does not qualify for exemption – Writ appeal dismissed. (Para 1-16)

Arbitration - Appointment procedure - Broad-based panel - Impartiality and independence - Counterbalancing of power - Scope of appointment procedure in government contracts - Principles laid down in Voestalpine case - Panel should include engineers from the private sector, legal professionals, and individuals from other fields - Need to create a healthy arbitration environment - Panel must be broad-based and instill confidence in parties - Restrictive panels not in conformance with principles - Counterbalancing achieved when both parties nominate arbitrators - Exclusive appointment power may impinge upon party autonomy - Appointment procedure lacking counterbalancing - Appointment of an independent and impartial Arbitral Tribunal - Nominated arbitrators and presiding arbitrator to be appointed - Parties free to raise claims before the Arbitral Tribunal - Merits of substantive disputes left open. [Para 24-48]

Regular Bail - Grant of - Petitioner under Sections 21/27-A of the NDPS Act - Allegations of possession of 6 grams of smack - Previous instances of petitioner absconding from trial proceedings - Bail granted and subsequently breached - Petitioner's application for bail rejected by Trial Court - Petitioner in custody for a significant period - No other pending case under NDPS Act against petitioner - Bail granted with conditions. (Para 4)

Conditions for Bail - Additional conditions imposed to prevent misuse - Petitioner bound by conditions including not misusing the granted liberty, not tampering with evidence, not absenting himself from trial, not committing similar offenses, depositing passport with trial Court, providing cellphone number to police authorities, and not delaying the trial - Breach of conditions may result in cancellation of bail. (Para 5)

Criminal Bail Application – Grant of Bail – Petitioner denied bail by trial Court – Nature of charges under various sections including IPC, NDPS Act, and Arms Act – Prosecution alleging involvement in illegal activities – Co-accused already granted bail – Prolonged preventive custody – Likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses – Balance between individual liberty and the interest of justice – Held, petitioner's release on bail justified in the absence of substantial evidence of tampering or influencing – Co-accused already granted bail – Petitioner's life and career at stake – Bail granted subject to conditions – Passport surrender ordered. [Para 10, 12]

Personal Liberty – Importance of individual liberty in bail decisions – Purpose of bail to maintain freedom until guilt or innocence determined – Allegations a matter of trial – Prolonged preventive custody – Co-accused already granted bail – Grant of bail in the absence of substantial evidence of tampering or influencing – Balance between individual liberty and the interest of justice. [Para 8, 9]

Arrest – Power to arrest – Considerations for granting bail – Likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses – Importance of individual liberty – Co-accused already granted bail – Bail granted in the absence of substantial evidence of tampering or influencing. [Para 7, 10]

Bail Granted – Nature of charges, evidence, and co-accused's bail considered – Prolonged preventive custody unjustified – Bail granted subject to conditions – Passport surrender ordered – Observations and submissions limited to bail hearing. [Para 13, 14]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Extension of time for investigation - Grant of default bail - Conditions for extension of time - Independent application of mind by Public Prosecutor - Non-receipt of FSL report as a compelling reason - Compliance with Section 36A(4) - Applicability of Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. - The Public Prosecutor is required to independently apply his mind and submit a report indicating the progress of the investigation and compelling reasons for seeking detention beyond 180 days (para 14). Notice to the accused is necessary (para 18). The non-receipt of the FSL report can be a compelling reason for extension (para 23). The investigating agency cannot be faulted for non-completion due to external factors. The orders allowing extension and rejecting default bail upheld (para 26).

Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 – Detention Order – Representation – Delay in disposal – Unexplained delay – Validity of detention order – Writ of Habeas Corpus – High Court of Manipur held that the detention order issued under the NDPS Act for a period of 12 months was challenged on the ground of violation of mandatory provisions and inordinate delay in disposing of the representation – Court observed that the State Government had complied with the mandatory provisions of the Act, but the Central Government failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 12 days in considering the representation – Relied on precedent cases and held that unexplained delay in considering the representation invalidates the detention order – Consequently, the detention order and the confirmation order were set aside, and the detenu was ordered to be released forthwith from custody if not required in any other case – Writ petition allowed. (Para 1-12)

Jurisdiction of eviction petition under Wakf Act - Whether eviction petition against Wakf property maintainable before Civil Court - Supreme Court held in Ramesh Gobindram vs Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf that eviction petition against Wakf property maintainable before Civil Court - 2013 amendment of Wakf Act not applicable retrospectively - Eviction petition filed prior to amendment maintainable before Rent Controller. [Para 5]

Bonafide requirement of landlord - Suitable alternate accommodation - Disclosure of financial affairs - In an eviction petition, disclosure of landlord's entire financial affairs not essential - Focus on availability of suitable alternate accommodation - Sufficiency of income not an issue - Wife's business and financial affairs not to be disclosed by landlord - Independence and privacy of wife to be respected - Bonafide requirement pivoted on need and not mere wish. [Para 10]

Dependency of daughters and their financial aspirations - Married daughters as dependents - Daughters' right to financial independence and pursuing business ventures - Wife retains individual identity and pursuit of aspirations - Paternal/maternal home as sanctuary for daughters - Bonafide requirement of dependents - Test of bonafide requirement not based on financial well-being of landlord or dependents - No interference in personal aspirations and desire for financial independence. [Para 21]

Examination of nature of business - In an eviction petition, focus on suitable alternate accommodation - Inquiry into credibility of landlord and his wife's business unnecessary - Husband not entitled to know all details of wife's business and financial affairs - Nature of proposed business venture to be assessed by landlord and daughters - Assessment of suitable accommodation for proposed business venture best left to the person proposing to start the business. [Para 12]

Tenanted premises on the ground floor - Footfall and suitability for business - Shop on the ground floor receives more footfall - Suitable alternate accommodation to be assessed based on business requirements - No requirement to indicate nature of business in eviction petition. [Para 14]

Financial well-being of landlord - Not test of bonafide requirement - Dependency and need for suitable alternate accommodation to be determined - Dependency of daughters on father for space - Law provides for eviction of a tenant on need of dependants - Bonafide requirement not undermined by financial well-being of landlord or dependents. [Para 20]

Order - Eviction petition allowed - Tenant directed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of tenanted premises to landlord - Order non-executable for six months from date of receipt of order. ( Para No. 22&23)

Education Law - Writ of Mandamus and Certiorari – Petitioner sought release of Class XII results withheld under the category 'Not Eligible' – Held, Clause 42(v) of CBSE Examination Bye-laws, which requires students to clear compartment exams in the first attempt, is valid – No grounds to rewrite the clause – Petitioner's challenge to the clause is legally untenable and fails to show a legal right for multiple attempts. [Paras 1-8]

Principle of Estoppel – Analysis – Court notes that the petitioner did not challenge Clause 42(v) prior to appearing for the examination – Challenge at this belated stage is barred by estoppel – Relief sought by the petitioner would not further his case since the clause he challenges is the one allowing provisional admission in Class XI. [Para 8]

Decision – Validity of CBSE Bye-laws Upheld – Court upholds the CBSE bye-laws as formulated by the expert body – No legal provision or precedent allows rewriting of the said bye-law – Concealment of material facts by the petitioner further disentitles him to relief. [Paras 8]

Criminal Appeal No. 609 of 2016 – Appeal against the judgment and order of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC – Appellant convicted for the offense of setting his wife on fire resulting in her death – Appeal filed challenging the maintainability, sustainability, and legality of the judgment – Grounds raised questioning the credibility of the dying declarations, lack of reliable evidence, absence of motive, and absence of independent witnesses – Respondent argued that the dying declarations consistently named the appellant as responsible for the burns – Prosecution relied on the dying declarations as the basis for the crime. (Paragraphs 1-6)

Inconsistencies in the dying declarations – Critical analysis of the first dying declaration recorded by the Investigating Officer and the second dying declaration recorded by a Special Executive Magistrate – Discrepancies and shortfalls in the evidence – Lack of consistent information about the occurrence, nature of ill-treatment, and timing of the incident – Failure to examine the medical expert and failure to identify the thumb impression on the dying declaration – Doubts raised by the appellant’s burns and his statement that the wife set herself on fire – Lack of support from neighbors and the landlady in whose house the appellant and deceased resided. (Paragraphs 7-20)

Principles governing the evidentiary value of dying declarations – Reliance on Supreme Court judgments – Dying declarations to be evaluated based on the circumstances, consistency, opportunity of observation, capacity to remember, and absence of tutoring – Each case to be determined on its own facts – No absolute rule requiring corroboration of dying declarations – Dying declarations recorded by a competent Magistrate given higher weight than oral testimony – Reliability of dying declarations to be tested based on surrounding circumstances. (Paragraph 15)

Insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Lack of consistency in the dying declarations, discrepancies in the evidence, and shortcomings in the investigation – Failure to establish the sole responsibility of the appellant for the burns suffered by the deceased – Prosecution’s case not free from doubt – Appellant’s acquittal warranted. (Paragraphs 16-20)