International Law – Jurisdiction – Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) – Incident of firing by Italian marines on Indian fishing vessel St. Antony, resulting in death of two Indian fishermen – Occurred 20.5 nautical miles off Kerala coast, within India's EEZ – Kerala police registered FIR, arrested marines – Italy claimed sovereign immunity, exclusive jurisdiction [Paras 1-15].Criminal Law – Applicability of Indian Penal Code – Contiguous Zone – Notification dated 27th August 1981 extended IPC and CrPC to EEZ – Supreme Court affirmed that Indian courts have jurisdiction over offences committed in EEZ – Interpretation of Maritime Zones Act, 1976 in harmony with UNCLOS [Paras 53-58].Sovereign Immunity – Functional Immunity – Claim by Italy that marines acted in official capacity under Italian law and international agreements – Supreme Court held that Indian courts have jurisdiction, and functional immunity not applicable – Sovereign acts must be judged under Indian law in Indian courts [Paras 66-70].Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Supreme Court upheld jurisdiction of Indian courts to try the marines – Sovereign immunity and exclusive jurisdiction claim by Italy rejected – Directions for trial to proceed in accordance with Indian law [Paras 71-76].

Service Law – Implementation of Agreements – Government of Bihar's repeated assurances to implement agreements with Federation for parity in pay and benefits with government staff – Strike by Federation due to non-implementation – High Court directed Chief Secretary to ensure implementation – Supreme Court upheld High Court's direction, finding Government's commitment binding and necessary to honor in the interest of educational institutions [Paras 1-18].Judicial Review – Government's Executive Decisions – Validity of commitments made by Government representatives in meetings – Supreme Court emphasized that government must honor commitments made by authorized representatives, even if not formally expressed in the name of the Governor under Article 166 – Directives to implement agreements within three months [Paras 7-18].Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's order directing implementation of agreement upheld – Government of Bihar to implement order within three months – No costs [Paras 18].

Service Law – Pension Computation – Inclusion of 'Dearness Allowance' – Appellants contested the State's decision to include 'dearness allowance' as 'dearness pay' only for employees retiring on or after specific dates – Trial courts ruled in favor of including 'dearness allowance' for all retirees – Supreme Court upheld these decisions, emphasizing equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 1-34].Legal Interpretation – Rule 30 Tamil Nadu Pension Rules – 'Dearness pay' definition and inclusion criteria – Judicial precedents on non-discriminatory pension computation – Supreme Court confirmed that excluding certain retirees based on arbitrary dates violated constitutional rights [Paras 14-31].Decision: Appeals allowed – Government orders limiting 'dearness allowance' inclusion based on retirement dates set aside – All retirees to receive pension computed with 'dearness allowance' included as 'dearness pay' – Directions issued for recalculation and payment of arrears [Paras 32-34].

Insurance Law – Compliance with Policy Terms – Appellant (insurer) denied claims by respondent (insured) due to failure to declare overdue payments within stipulated period as required under Clause 8(b) of the insurance policy – NCDRC partially allowed claims – Supreme Court upheld NCDRC's decision for two claims where compliance was met – Remaining claims dismissed for non-compliance [Paras 1-14].Legal Interpretation – Strict Construction of Insurance Contracts – Terms of insurance policies to be strictly construed – Courts cannot add, delete, or substitute words in contract – Strict adherence to policy terms required for claim validity – Supreme Court emphasized that policy terms are binding and must be followed as agreed [Paras 8-11].Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Only two claims (Civil Appeal Nos. 1547 and 1557 of 2004) granted – Remaining claims dismissed due to non-compliance with Clause 8(b) of the policy – Parties to bear their own costs [Paras 13-14].

Constitutional Law – Defection – Powers of the Speaker – Respondent, President of State Unit of NCP, filed disqualification petitions against four NCP MLAs who defected to BJD – High Court held petitions maintainable by non-Members – Supreme Court upheld, stating any interested person can bring disqualification facts to Speaker's notice – Rules 6(1) and (2) must be read down to allow such interpretation [Paras 1-20].Judicial Interpretation – Tenth Schedule – Interpretation of rules concerning disqualification – Importance of facilitating the Speaker’s role in determining disqualifications – Rules as subordinate legislation must align with substantive constitutional provisions [Paras 18-19].Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Speaker empowered to decide on disqualification based on information from any interested person, not just Members – No order as to costs [Paras 20-21].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for the murder of Trilokchand with stones, sustaining fatal injuries – Trial court’s judgment affirmed by High Court for A-1, but acquitted A-2 – Supreme Court finds the High Court erred in acquitting A-2 based on his participation in the crime by sitting on the chest of the deceased, facilitating the murder – Appeal by State of Rajasthan against acquittal of A-2 allowed, and appeal by Shri Ram (A-1) dismissed – Convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC upheld [Paras 1-14].Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Clarified that common intention requires a shared intent and participation in the criminal act – Emphasized that different acts by co-participants, such as sitting on the chest of the deceased, can be considered part of the common intention – Supreme Court reinforced the application of Section 34 IPC, highlighting prior enmity and concerted action by the accused [Paras 9-13].Witness Testimony – Reliability – Sole eyewitness PW-6 provided credible evidence that both A-1 and A-2 participated in the murder – PW-6's testimony deemed reliable and consistent under cross-examination – Supreme Court rejects the High Court’s rationale for acquitting A-2 based on the perceived lack of active participation [Paras 8, 10].Decision: Appeal by State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2008) allowed – Appeal by Shri Ram (A-1) (Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2008) dismissed – Conviction and sentence of both accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC confirmed – High Court judgment set aside – A-2 directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence – Trial Court to report compliance [Para 14].

Tax Law – Block Assessment – Respondent's premises were searched and documents were seized indicating undisclosed income – Respondent argued that payment of advance tax implied disclosure of income – Supreme Court held payment of advance tax is based on estimated income and does not amount to disclosure of actual total income required to be filed in a return under Section 139 – Appeal allowed, emphasizing the distinction between estimated income for advance tax and actual total income to be disclosed in returns [Paras 1-45].

Income Disclosure – Advance Tax – Payment of advance tax is based on an estimate and not final total income – Disclosure of total income must be made through filing returns – Supreme Court held payment of advance tax does not indicate intention to disclose total income, particularly when the return was not filed by the due date [Paras 19-41].

Section 158BD of Income Tax Act – Conditions and Applicability – For invoking block assessment, satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that seized documents show undisclosed income is mandatory – Court highlighted prerequisites for invoking Section 158BD and held that without such satisfaction recorded, proceedings are void [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgments set aside – Block assessment proceedings upheld – Payment of advance tax does not amount to disclosure of income – Revenue entitled to costs quantified at Rs. 50,000/- in each set of appeals [Paras 41-45].

Tax Law – Depreciation – Assessee claimed depreciation on vehicles leased out to customers – Assessing Officer disallowed claims arguing Assessee merely financed the purchase – Tribunal allowed Assessee's claim, holding it was the owner and used vehicles for business purposes – High Court reversed Tribunal's decision – Supreme Court restored Tribunal's decision, confirming Assessee's ownership and usage for business purposes, entitling it to claim depreciation under Section 32 [Paras 1-32].

Ownership – Lease Agreement – Supreme Court emphasized that ownership under Section 32 should be construed as legal right or title – Assessee retained ownership as per lease agreements, with rights to inspect, repossess, and retain legal title – MV Act's registration requirements do not determine ownership for Income Tax purposes [Paras 19-26].

Higher Depreciation – Business Use – Leasing out vehicles is considered use for business purposes – Assessee entitled to higher rate of depreciation – Supreme Court upheld Tribunal's view that leasing business qualifies for higher depreciation under Section 32 [Paras 30-31].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgments set aside – Tribunal's decision affirmed – Assessee entitled to claim depreciation and higher rate of depreciation on leased vehicles – Substantial questions of law answered in favour of Assessee [Paras 32].

Service Law – Dismissal – Respondent dismissed from service by State Bank of India following a departmental inquiry – High Court set aside the dismissal order citing procedural lapses – Supreme Court restored dismissal order, holding that procedural requirements were followed and adequate opportunities were provided to the Respondent – High Court erred in interfering with disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 [Paras 1-27].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Inquiry Procedure – Inquiry conducted ex parte after Respondent failed to participate and inspect documents – Supreme Court upheld ex parte inquiry findings, emphasizing that procedural fairness was observed and charges were proved based on documentary evidence [Paras 6-20].

Principles of Natural Justice – Non-participation in Inquiry – Respondent failed to avail opportunities to defend himself – Supreme Court held that principles of natural justice were not violated – High Court's interference unwarranted as Respondent did not exhaust alternative remedy of appeal [Paras 17-26].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Dismissal order restored – No order as to costs [Para 27].