Criminal Law – Right of Private Defence – Appellants involved in a fight resulting in deaths – Trial Court convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC – High Court upheld conviction for appellants – Supreme Court affirmed that the right of private defence was valid against Rameshwar's death but not against Prabhat's death, as appellants exceeded their right by chasing and inflicting fatal injuries on Prabhat [Paras 1-15].Legal Interpretation – Sections 96 to 105 IPC – Criteria for invoking right of private defence – Supreme Court emphasized that right of private defence is valid until the threat persists – Appellants not justified in exceeding this right after the threat subsided [Paras 13-14].Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment upheld – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for appellants confirmed [Para 15].

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].