Criminal Law – Requirement of Prior Approval for Recording Information under TADA – Criminal Appeals against Convictions – TADA CaseHeld: The Supreme Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 20-A(1) of TADA, which mandate prior approval from the District Superintendent of Police before recording information about the commission of an offense under TADA, are mandatory. Any approval granted by an authority other than the designated one is invalid. In this case, approvals were granted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, and the Additional Police Commissioner, Surat, instead of the District Superintendent of Police. Consequently, the prosecution under TADA was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 20-A(1). [Paras 16-27]

Compliance with Statutory Requirements – Exercise of Authority by Designated Officials – AnalysisHeld: The statutory requirement of obtaining approval from the designated authority (District Superintendent of Police) under Section 20-A(1) of TADA cannot be substituted by approvals from higher authorities such as the Additional Chief Secretary or the Additional Police Commissioner. The approval from the designated authority is essential to ensure the proper application of mind and adherence to the statutory scheme. Non-compliance with this provision renders the subsequent proceedings under TADA invalid. [Paras 17-22]

Effect on Convictions under IPC and Explosive Substances Act – Insufficient Evidence – Impact of Non-compliance with TADAHeld: While the prosecution under TADA was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 20-A(1), the Supreme Court also examined whether the convictions under IPC and the Explosive Substances Act could be sustained independently. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions under these statutes, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. [Paras 28-29]

Decision:Appeals Allowed: The appeals filed by the accused (Criminal Appeals No. 92, 110, 658-659 of 2009) were allowed, and the convictions were set aside. The appellants were ordered to be released from custody unless required in any other case.Appeals Dismissed: The appeals filed by the State of Gujarat for enhancement of sentences (Criminal Appeals No. 303-304, 305, 432-433 of 2009) were dismissed. [Para 29]

Transfer of Property Act - Validity of Gift Deed - Conditional Gift - Civil Appeal against the High Court judgment affirming the validity of a gift deed where the donor retained the right to use and enjoy the property during her lifetime - Supreme Court examined the applicability of Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Held, Section 123 does not mandate delivery of possession for a valid gift of immovable property; a registered instrument duly signed and attested suffices - Retention of possession by the donor for life does not invalidate the gift - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-25]

Retention of Possession - Analysis - Held - Donor’s retention of the right to use and receive rents from the property during her lifetime does not affect the validity of the gift - A valid gift under the Transfer of Property Act requires a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least two witnesses, along with acceptance by the donee - Gift deed in question fulfilled these requirements, making the gift valid despite the donor’s life interest. [Para 10-19]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts validating the gift deed and dismissed the appeal - Affirmed that ownership in property can be transferred without delivery of possession under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - No orders as to costs. [Para 20-22]

Negotiable Instruments – Quashing of Complaint – Criminal Appeal against High Court order quashing complaint under Section 138 NI Act on grounds of non-service of demand notice – High Court found no specific recital in the complaint regarding the service of notice – Supreme Court held that presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 applies – It is not necessary to specifically aver in the complaint about the service of notice – High Court erred in quashing the complaint – Complaint restored. [Paras 1-12]

Presumption of Service – Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act – Held – When notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, service is presumed unless proven otherwise – High Court's requirement for a specific recital in the complaint regarding service of notice is not in line with the law – Matter of evidence to be considered at trial. [Paras 7-10]

Decision – Restoration of Complaint – Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act reinstated – Appeal allowed. [Para 12]

Constitutional Law - Reservations in Promotions - Validity of Office Memorandum – Civil Appeals against the withdrawal of relaxed qualifying standards for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in departmental competitive examinations – Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 22.7.1997 withdrawn provisions that allowed relaxed standards for SC/ST candidates – The Supreme Court held that such relaxation is permissible under Article 16(4A) and Article 335 of the Constitution – The withdrawal of these relaxations without considering Article 16(4A) is deemed unconstitutional – The appeals are allowed, and the 1997 O.M. is declared illegal – Directions issued for the modification of results in the Section Officers/Stenographers (Grade B/Grade-I) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 1996 to include reservations for SC/ST candidates. [Paras 1-12]

Article 16(4A) and 335 – Interpretation – Analysis – Held – Article 16(4A) permits reservations in promotions for SC/STs with relaxed standards, countering the previous ruling in S. Vinod Kumar that rejected such relaxation under Article 16(4) in view of Article 335 – The insertion of Article 16(4A) by the Constitution (Seventy-Seventh Amendment) Act, 1995, and subsequent amendments, were to address the inadequacies recognized in the Vinod Kumar judgment – The decision in S. Vinod Kumar is declared per incuriam for failing to consider Article 16(4A) – The validity of the constitutional amendments upholding reservations in promotions is reaffirmed. [Paras 3-4, 7-9]

Decision – Reinstatement of Relaxed Standards for SC/ST Candidates – The Court invalidates the 1997 O.M. that withdrew relaxed standards for SC/ST candidates – Directs the Union of India to modify results of the relevant departmental examination, ensuring reservations are applied with all consequential benefits to the appellants – The Civil Appeals are allowed with no costs imposed. [Paras 10-12]

Criminal Law – Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC – Family Court’s Order – Appeal against Family Court order granting maintenance from the date of application – Consideration of adjournments and delays in proceedings – Held that Family Court should not grant adjournments liberally as it delays justice – Maintenance to be granted from the date of application due to prolonged delay caused mainly by husband’s adjournments – High Court's decision affirmed – Order modified to allow phased payment of arrears. [Paras 2-16]

Delay in Adjudication – Maintenance Proceedings – Analysis – Held – Prolonged delays in maintenance proceedings defeat the legislative intent and impact the livelihood of the wife and children – Family Courts must expedite proceedings – Legal precedents affirm maintenance can be granted from the date of application, especially when delays are caused by the husband. [Para 14-15]

Decision – Maintenance from Date of Application – Appeal Dismissed – Maintenance to be paid from the date of application – Arrears to be paid in installments over three years – High Court's decision upheld. [Para 16-17]

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal by High Court – Appeal against Conviction – Appeal filed against the High Court’s judgment reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellants under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's interference with the trial court's order of acquittal was justified. It emphasized that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision was perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence.

Held: High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without substantial evidence pointing to guilt. Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt given inconsistencies and lack of conclusive proof. High Court's order set aside; trial court's acquittal restored. [Paras 1-19]

Principles of Appellate Review – Analysis – Supreme Court reiterated principles regarding appellate court powers while dealing with appeals against acquittals, emphasizing the double presumption of innocence and the necessity of compelling reasons for reversing an acquittal.

Decision – Restoration of Acquittal – The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and reinstated the trial court's acquittal of the appellants. [Para 19]

Foreign Exchange Management - Delay in Appeals - Applicability of FERA or FEMA - Criminal Appeals against High Court order affirming the Tribunal's dismissal of appeals for being filed beyond 90 days from the service of adjudication order under FERA. Supreme Court holds that for appeals filed after the repeal of FERA, the procedural provisions of FEMA apply. Consequently, appeals should be evaluated under FEMA's more flexible time limits. Held, Tribunal and High Court erred in applying FERA's rigid timelines. Appeals filed under FEMA may be condoned beyond 90 days if sufficient cause is shown. [Paras 1-18]

Statutory Interpretation - Transition Provisions - Analysis of Section 49 of FEMA and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act clarifies that ongoing proceedings initiated under FERA continue under FERA’s substantive provisions, but procedural aspects, including appeal timelines, are governed by FEMA. Held, procedural rights are protected under the General Clauses Act, ensuring continuity and fairness. [Paras 9-10, 12-13]

Decision - Remand to Tribunal - Supreme Court sets aside the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court, remitting the case to the Tribunal for a decision on the merits. Appeals are allowed, recognizing procedural flexibility under FEMA and the General Clauses Act to ensure justice. [Paras 17-18]

Landlord and Tenant - Lease Agreement - Destruction of Premises – Civil Appeal against High Court decision affirming lower courts' finding that tenancy rights lapsed after the destruction of the tenanted premises – Supreme Court examines the interpretation of Section 108(B)(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and similar provisions under Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Held that tenancy does not extinguish upon destruction of the premises if the land on which it stood continues to exist – Lease includes both the land and the structure - Appellant's tenancy rights not extinguished – High Court and lower courts' judgments set aside - Compensation awarded to appellant for deprivation of enjoyment of suit property. [Paras 17-35] Interpretation of Statutory Provisions - Section 108(B)(e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Held – Lease continues to exist as long as the land exists, even if the structure is destroyed – Doctrine of frustration not applicable to lease agreements where privity of estate is involved. [Paras 30-32] Compensation for Loss of Possession - Court awards compensation to the appellant due to long deprivation of enjoyment of the property – Rs. 20,00,000/- directed to be paid by respondent, with interest if not paid within stipulated time. [Para 34-35]

Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law – Second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC – High Court's jurisdiction in interfering with factual findings of lower appellate courts – High Court formulated a substantial question of law regarding misappreciation of evidence by the first appellate court – High Court's intervention justified as the lower appellate court's decision was not supported by evidence – Second appeal entertained and allowed. [Paras 1-12]

Evidence Law - Proof of Marriage - Validity of Documentary Evidence – Analysis of evidence regarding alleged marriage – Documents produced by the appellant, including temple receipt and voter lists, were found insufficient to prove marriage – High Court held that mere cohabitation and unilateral description of marital status in documents do not establish a valid marriage under Section 7A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – No reliable evidence to support claim of valid marriage. [Paras 6-9]

Property Law - Inheritance Rights - Legal Heirs – Dispute over property acquired by succession and purchase – Appellant's claim to property based on alleged marriage with deceased – High Court confirmed trial court's decree in favor of respondents (legal heirs) for both schedule "A" and "B" properties – Appellant failed to establish entitlement to property through valid marriage. [Paras 2-5, 13-15]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's judgment affirmed – Appellant's claim dismissed due to lack of credible evidence proving the alleged marriage – Decree in favor of respondents upheld. [Paras 14-15]