Income Tax – Non-Competition Fee – Appeal by assessee challenging High Court decision that classified a non-competition fee as a revenue receipt – Supreme Court clarifies dichotomy between compensation for loss of agency (revenue receipt) and compensation for restrictive covenant (capital receipt) – High Court misinterpreted the precedent, failing to appreciate that payment under a negative covenant is a capital receipt [Paras 5-7].

Dichotomy of Receipts – Compensation for agency loss vs. negative covenant – Court references Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd. case, distinguishing between revenue receipt (agency loss) and capital receipt (restrictive covenant) – Assessee’s fee received under non-competition agreement classified as capital receipt, taxable post-2003 amendment [Paras 6-7].

Finance Act, 2002 – Section 28(va) – Clarification that non-competition fee taxable as capital receipt only from 1.4.2003 – Legislative amendment not retroactive – High Court erred in reversing Tribunal’s decision based on misinterpretation [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Supreme Court sets aside High Court judgment, restores Tribunal’s decision – Non-competition fee of Rs. 50 lakhs received by assessee deemed capital receipt, not taxable for relevant assessment year – Costs awarded to appellant [Para 8].

Principles of Natural Justice – Supply of UPSC Report – The respondent was dismissed for absence without leave, but the dismissal was quashed by the CAT, directing the supply of the UPSC report to the respondent – High Court upheld the CAT's order – Supreme Court emphasized that materials relied upon in departmental proceedings must be supplied in advance to the charge-sheeted employee for rebuttal, maintaining principles of natural justice [Paras 7-11].

Consultation with UPSC – Distinguishability from T.V. Patel's Case – The appellant argued the validity of supplying the UPSC report along with the dismissal order based on T.V. Patel's case – Supreme Court distinguished that T.V. Patel's decision does not apply when the UPSC report is relied upon by authorities – Preceding decision in S.N. Narula’s case mandates supplying the report in advance for rebuttal, establishing a binding precedent over T.V. Patel's case [Paras 8-13].

Binding Precedent – Prior Coordinate Bench Decision – Supreme Court clarified that a subsequent bench of equal strength must follow prior decisions unless referred to a larger bench – Since S.N. Narula’s case was not considered in T.V. Patel’s case, the latter was deemed judgment per incuriam [Para 13].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s order upheld – Authorities must supply a copy of the UPSC report in advance to the employee when relied upon for disciplinary action, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice [Paras 14].

Election Symbols – Recognition of Political Parties – Petitioners challenged the provisions of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, arguing it negatively impacted the recognition of state parties – The Supreme Court refused to stay the impugned provisions but noted the significant role of election symbols in the electoral process – Emphasized need for fair symbol allocation to ensure transparent elections [Paras 1-29].

Principles of Natural Justice – Interim Arrangements – Court considered the practicality of interim arrangements made in prior elections, acknowledging the increased number of parties seeking recognition and symbols – Declined to continue interim arrangements due to impracticality, but left room for Election Commission’s discretion in accommodating requests for common symbols [Paras 27-29].

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions – Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act – Court reiterated the Election Commission’s authority under these provisions to regulate the electoral process, including the allocation of symbols – Recognized the Commission's effort to minimize the fragmentation of votes and maintain order in elections [Paras 2-3, 7, 26].

Decision: The Court dismissed the request for interim arrangements for the upcoming General Assembly Elections but clarified that this decision would not affect the final outcome of the pending writ petitions and special leave petitions. The Election Commission was allowed to consider representations from political parties for common symbols, subject to practicality [Paras 29-30].

Property Law – Lease Agreement – Misuse Charges – The DDA issued multiple Show-Cause Notices to the respondent for allegedly misusing the basement and mezzanine floors of the leased property for purposes other than those specified in the lease agreement – No follow-up action taken by the DDA for 25 years – Demand of Rs. 17885001/- as misuse charges raised by the DDA – High Court quashed the demand as arbitrary and unfair due to unreasonable delay [Paras 3-9, 15-16].

Limitation and Reasonable Time – Even when no limitation period is prescribed, statutory authorities must act within a reasonable time – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's observation that a 25-year delay in taking action was unreasonable and inequitable – Reliance placed on the principle from State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd. [Para 22].

Equity and Administrative Fairness – The Court emphasized that inaction over a prolonged period by the DDA and sudden demand for hefty misuse charges after 25 years would be unjust – The respondent had taken steps against tenants for unauthorized use of the premises, mitigating his liability [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – No interference with the High Court judgments quashing the misuse charges – No order as to costs [Paras 23-24].

Labour Law – Implementation of Welfare Legislation – The Supreme Court addressed the failure of various States and Union Territories to implement the Building and Other Construction Workers Act and the Welfare Cess Act – Despite repeated directives, many States had not constituted Welfare Boards, appointed Registration Officers, or collected and utilized the cess for workers' welfare – Notice issued for contempt of court to officials of defaulting States and Union Territories [Paras 1-11].

Compliance and Enforcement – Judicial Directives – The Court reviewed the steps taken by States and found significant non-compliance – Specific directions were issued to ensure adherence to statutory provisions – Notices issued to senior officials to ensure compliance and personal presence in court [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Notice issued for contempt proceedings – Specific officials from the Central Government and defaulting States/Union Territories directed to be present in court on the next hearing date – Application to be listed after four weeks [Paras 11-12].

Preventive Detention – Legal Grounds – The appeals question the validity of detention orders under preventive detention laws when no bail applications were pending, and the detenue was already incarcerated – Conflict in judicial decisions regarding whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority can be based on potential bail in similar cases [Paras 5-8].

Judicial Conflict – Referral to Larger Bench – Conflicting judgments cited by both sides regarding the legality of preventive detention when no bail application is pending but detention is based on the possibility of bail in similar cases – Matter referred to a larger bench to resolve the difference of opinion [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Appeals referred to a larger bench – Chief Justice of India requested to constitute a larger bench at the earliest due to the imminent expiration of the detention period on 17.04.2011 – Temporary relief to be sought before the larger bench [Paras 11-12].

Property Law – Lease Agreement – Misuse Charges – The DDA issued multiple Show-Cause Notices to the respondent for allegedly misusing the basement and mezzanine floors of the leased property for purposes other than those specified in the lease agreement – No follow-up action taken by the DDA for 25 years – Demand of Rs. 17885001/- as misuse charges raised by the DDA – High Court quashed the demand as arbitrary and unfair due to unreasonable delay [Paras 3-9, 15-16].

Limitation and Reasonable Time – Even when no limitation period is prescribed, statutory authorities must act within a reasonable time – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's observation that a 25-year delay in taking action was unreasonable and inequitable – Reliance placed on the principle from State of Punjab v. Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd. [Para 22].

Equity and Administrative Fairness – The Court emphasized that inaction over a prolonged period by the DDA and sudden demand for hefty misuse charges after 25 years would be unjust – The respondent had taken steps against tenants for unauthorized use of the premises, mitigating his liability [Paras 21-22].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – No interference with the High Court judgments quashing the misuse charges – No order as to costs [Paras 23-24].

Labour Law – Implementation of Welfare Legislation – The Supreme Court addressed the failure of various States and Union Territories to implement the Building and Other Construction Workers Act and the Welfare Cess Act – Despite repeated directives, many States had not constituted Welfare Boards, appointed Registration Officers, or collected and utilized the cess for workers' welfare – Notice issued for contempt of court to officials of defaulting States and Union Territories [Paras 1-11].

Compliance and Enforcement – Judicial Directives – The Court reviewed the steps taken by States and found significant non-compliance – Specific directions were issued to ensure adherence to statutory provisions – Notices issued to senior officials to ensure compliance and personal presence in court [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Notice issued for contempt proceedings – Specific officials from the Central Government and defaulting States/Union Territories directed to be present in court on the next hearing date – Application to be listed after four weeks [Paras 11-12].

Preventive Detention – Legal Grounds – The appeals question the validity of detention orders under preventive detention laws when no bail applications were pending, and the detenue was already incarcerated – Conflict in judicial decisions regarding whether the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority can be based on potential bail in similar cases [Paras 5-8].

Judicial Conflict – Referral to Larger Bench – Conflicting judgments cited by both sides regarding the legality of preventive detention when no bail application is pending but detention is based on the possibility of bail in similar cases – Matter referred to a larger bench to resolve the difference of opinion [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Appeals referred to a larger bench – Chief Justice of India requested to constitute a larger bench at the earliest due to the imminent expiration of the detention period on 17.04.2011 – Temporary relief to be sought before the larger bench [Paras 11-12].