Transfer of Property – Sale During Pendency of Partition Suit – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Appellant purchased property from second Respondent during pendency of a partition suit filed by first Respondent – Trial court, appellate court, and High Court rejected suit in entirety citing Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act – Held: Sale not void but subject to decree in pending suit – Appellant entitled to title and injunction only for portion of property ultimately allotted to his vendor in final decree [Paras 5–12, 16].

Partition Suit – Division of Property by Final Decree – Suit property (house and site) divided on equitable basis – Portion containing house allotted to second Respondent; remaining vacant portion to first Respondent – Held: No collusion or illegality in final decree – Equitable division justified by value allocation, not subject to challenge by third-party purchaser [Paras 6–8].

Lis Pendens – Rights of Pendente Lite Purchaser – Sale not invalid but does not affect rights of parties to pending litigation – Transferee’s rights limited to extent of transferor’s share determined in final decree – Court recognises partial title in favour of transferee based on final allocation in decree proceedings [Paras 10–11].

Evidence and Procedure – Validity of Sale Deed – Sale by second Respondent was not fraudulent – Sale of undivided share during pendency of suit is not per se illegal – Courts below erred in entirely rejecting purchaser’s claim without recognising his limited entitlement to part of property [Paras 12, 16].

Law Reform – Title Verification Mechanism – Court recommends legislative reform to address hardships faced by bona fide purchasers unable to verify pending litigation over immovable properties – Suggests model adopted in Maharashtra for registration of notice of pending suits under Section 52 TPA – Advocates for compulsory registration of sale agreements to reduce property fraud and litigation [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Appellant entitled to declaration of title and injunction in respect of portion of suit property allotted to second Respondent (A-B-I-H-A in Ex.C-5 sketch) – Suit dismissed as to remainder – Parties to bear their own costs.

Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability – Statutory Remedy – Writ petition under Article 226 filed against order of the Appellate Tribunal refusing waiver of pre-deposit of penalty – High Court dismissed petition for lack of territorial jurisdiction – Supreme Court held writ petition was not maintainable as statutory appeal under Section 35 of FEMA was available – Held: Writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when efficacious statutory remedy exists [Paras 1-5, 8-9, 14, 33-34, 41].

FEMA – Section 35 – Appeal from Tribunal Orders – Scope – Section allows appeal from “any decision or order” of the Appellate Tribunal to the High Court on a question of law – Held: Word “any” is to be read as inclusive of interlocutory as well as final orders – Argument that only final orders are appealable rejected [Paras 21-24, 28-29].

Interpretation of Statutes – Use of “Any” – The word “any” in Section 35 must be given its plain and expansive meaning in absence of contrary intention – Supported by precedents and interpretation in Black’s Law Dictionary and earlier Supreme Court judgments [Paras 25-28].

Article 226 – Judicial Review – Limits – Writ jurisdiction part of basic structure but cannot be used to circumvent statutory procedure – High Court should not entertain writ petition where statutory appellate forum exists under a fiscal legislation like FEMA [Paras 33-34, 36-38].

Alternate Remedy – Principle – When a statute creates a right along with a special remedy, such remedy must be pursued – Writ jurisdiction not maintainable unless exceptional circumstances like lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice shown – No such exception made out in this case [Paras 42-44].

Case Law Distinction – Monotosh Saha, Kusum Ingots, and Ambica Industries not applicable – Either based on different facts or dealt with questions of territorial jurisdiction, not maintainability of writ in face of alternate statutory appeal [Paras 45-48].

Decision:

Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court held writ petition was not maintainable – Liberty granted to appellant to file statutory appeal under Section 35 of FEMA before appropriate High Court within 30 days – Delay in filing to be considered sympathetically under Section 14 of the Limitation Act [Paras 49-51].

Election Law – Corrupt Practice – Bribery – Distribution of Money in Name of Pension – Section 123(1)(A) of the Representation of the People Act – Allegations made against appellant (former Minister) for distributing pension benefits and appointing Anganwadi workers to induce voters – Evidence led showed pension sanctioned during tenure as Minister prior to nomination date – Held: Acts done in discharge of official duty before becoming a candidate cannot amount to corrupt practice – Allegation of pension distribution after nomination unsupported by credible and independent evidence – No conclusive proof of bribery or inducement [Paras 43–47, 55–56, 66–67]

Representation of the People Act – Section 83 – Material Facts and Particulars – Defective Pleadings – Challenge raised regarding lack of material particulars in election petition – Held: Election petition must disclose complete cause of action – However, requirement depends on facts of each case – In this case, petition disclosed cause of action and was not liable to be dismissed for want of particulars – Evidence admissible as per pleadings [Paras 34–40]

Burden of Proof – Corrupt Practice – Standard of Evidence in Election Disputes – Charges of corrupt practices require strict proof beyond reasonable doubt – Evidence must be unimpeachable and from independent sources – Testimony of partisan or interested witnesses insufficient – Held: Evidence of PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 insufficient to establish corrupt practice – No corroboration from official records or bank documents – Allegations of cash distribution on 10–12 February 2002 not established [Paras 48–52, 55–57, 62–63]

Misuse of Official Position – Appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Grant of Pensions – Official Acts Not Constituting Corrupt Practices – Appointments and pension disbursals traced to period before nomination when appellant was Minister – Held: Acts within official capacity prior to candidature cannot be treated as electoral misconduct – No evidence linking such acts to electoral inducement [Paras 44–46, 64]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Section 116A – Scope of Supreme Court’s Review – Supreme Court in election appeal has jurisdiction to reappreciate evidence and interfere with High Court’s findings if legally flawed – In this case, High Court failed to adequately scrutinize evidence and relied on uncorroborated testimony – Held: Findings perverse and unsustainable [Paras 48–49, 65–66]

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court setting aside appellant’s election reversed – Allegations of corrupt practices not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Election result restored – Parties to bear their own costs. [Para 67]

Constitutional Law – Tenth Schedule – Expelled Legislators – Deemed Membership – Writ petition challenges legal fiction created by Explanation (a) to Paragraph 2(1) of Tenth Schedule whereby expelled members are deemed to continue as members of their original political party – Petitioners argue this interpretation exposes expelled members to party whip despite cessation of affiliation – Held: G. Viswanathan’s decision requires reconsideration in light of legislative history and intent behind exclusion of expulsion clause in 52nd Amendment – Matter referred to larger Bench [Paras 5–16]

Tenth Schedule – Interpretation – Explanation (a) to Paragraph 2(1) – Legislative debates revealed deliberate exclusion of expulsion as ground for disqualification – Clause 2(1)(c) dropped to avoid injustice and arbitrary party control – Despite this, Viswanathan ruling effectively reintroduced expulsion as disqualifying ground – Held: Such judicial interpretation may override legislative intent – Question framed whether deeming fiction of party membership can survive expulsion [Paras 10–13, 15]

Parliamentary Privilege – Expelled MPs – Exposure to Whip – Expelled MPs face vulnerability to party’s will without being heard or protected – Deemed continued membership restricts independence of expelled legislators and suppresses dissent – Such interpretation raises constitutional concerns under democratic principles – Interim protection granted to petitioners from application of Viswanathan doctrine [Paras 13, 17]

Judicial Review – Reference to Larger Bench – Seven questions framed regarding status of expelled members, applicability of Tenth Schedule, and validity of deeming clause post-expulsion – Pending decision, Viswanathan shall not apply to Amar Singh and Jaya Prada – Matter referred to Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of larger Bench [Paras 16–18]

Dowry and Cruelty – Sections 498A and 306 IPC – Reversal of Acquittal by High Court – Alleged demand of gold chain and cruelty by husband and in-laws leading to wife’s suicide – Trial Court found no consistent or credible evidence of cruelty or dowry demand – High Court reversed acquittal without dislodging Trial Court’s findings – Held: Witness statements were full of contradictions, embellishments, and uncorroborated allegations – No clear motive or cruelty proved – Reversal of acquittal unjustified – Conviction set aside [Paras 1–3, 25, 29, 34–36].

Mental Health – Suicide – Medical Evidence – Deceased was under psychiatric treatment for depression and epilepsy – Doctors prescribed serious psychiatric drugs and ECT – Medical witnesses confirmed mental illness, suicidal tendencies, and long-standing disorder – Held: Suicide more likely due to mental condition than cruelty – High Court failed to appreciate expert testimony properly [Paras 10–12, 26–28].

Appreciation of Evidence – Contradictions and Improvements – Witnesses made major improvements in court over prior police statements – Allegations of dowry demand and cruelty not stated in FIR or initial statements – Letters exchanged between parties showed no dowry harassment – Held: Material contradictions and embellishments fatal to prosecution case – Testimony of interested relatives lacked credibility [Paras 8, 17–21, 29–32].

Presumption – Service of Letter – Letter by father-in-law alleging wife’s misconduct sent via registered post – Complainants denied receiving it – Postal proof of dispatch not rebutted – Held: Presumption under Section 27 of General Clauses Act and Section 114 of Evidence Act applies – Service presumed – Prosecution failed to rebut [Para 33].

Reversal of Acquittal – Interference by Appellate Court – High Court reversed acquittal despite two possible views – Trial Court had extensively discussed evidence and found no cruelty or demand – Held: Appellate court should not casually overturn acquittal unless findings are perverse – High Court failed to show compelling reasons – Reversal unsustainable [Paras 22–24, 35–36].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 306 and 498A IPC set aside – Judgment of Trial Court acquitting the appellants restored – Bail bonds discharged.

Landlord and Tenant – U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 – Ejectment and arrears of rent – Petitioner (tenant) challenged title of landlords and alleged fraudulent transfer of property – Held: Small Cause Court rightly refused to frame issues on ownership or title – Under Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Small Cause Court cannot adjudicate upon questions of title – Tenant or sub-tenant cannot dispute landlord’s ownership when tenancy is admitted – Only a person claiming title may challenge the transfer before a competent civil court [Paras 4–7].

Jurisdiction – Section 23, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 – Explained – Small Cause Court has limited and preferential, not exclusive, jurisdiction – Where determination of relief depends upon proof or disproof of title to immovable property, plaint may be returned for presentation before competent civil court – Findings of Small Cause Court on title do not operate as res judicata – Budhu Mal v. Mahabir Prasad AIR 1998 SC 1772 followed [Paras 6–9].

Civil Procedure – Scope of revision and review – High Court rightly confined itself to issues of arrears of rent and sub-letting – Issues not argued at hearing cannot be adjudicated later – Recall and reconsideration applications based on unsubstantiated allegations against the Chief Justice held mala fide and devoid of merit – Courts not to entertain scandalous and reckless allegations against judicial officers [Paras 11–12].

Res Judicata – Supreme Court had earlier upheld the impugned judgment in SLP (C) No. 28029 of 2009 – Entertaining present petitions would amount to review of earlier decision – Same cause and same parties – Impermissible in law [Para 13].

Decision – No illegality or jurisdictional error in trial court or High Court orders – Small Cause Court rightly decreed eviction and arrears of rent – Petitions dismissed with costs [Para 14].

Land Acquisition – Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 – Solatium and Interest – Non-statutory grant – Whether permissible – Held: Although the Act does not expressly provide for solatium or interest, where there is inordinate delay (16 years) in appointment of arbitrator for determining compensation, equitable principles justify award of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for first year and 15% thereafter till payment – Delay caused unjust deprivation of property and benefit of possession – Hence solatium and interest rightly awarded [Paras 3–8].

Constitutional Validity – Comparison with Land Acquisition Act – Not permissible – Court reiterated that acquisitions under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act cannot be equated with those under the Land Acquisition Act – Yet, equitable relief may be granted in exceptional circumstances of gross delay [Para 4].

Precedents – Applied – Hari Krishan Khosla (1993 Supp (2) SCC 149), Chajju Ram (2003) 5 SCC 568, Prabhu Dayal (1995) 4 SCC 221 and Parmal Singh (2009) 1 SCC 618 followed – Principle reaffirmed that interest and solatium may be awarded on equitable basis in cases of delayed arbitration [Paras 4–8].

Compensation – Enhancement – Land situate near Pathankot acquired in 1970 – Arbitrator awarded Rs. 50–200 per marla – High Court confirmed Rs.150 per marla – Supreme Court held owners entitled to enhancement to Rs. 350 per marla based on parity with similarly situated owners in Shankar Singh v. Union of India (1988 (1) PLR 163) and Inder Singh v. Union of India (LPA 1918/1989) – Uniform compensation warranted for similarly acquired lands – Solatium and interest to apply on enhanced amount [Paras 9–11].

Relief – Civil Appeals of owners allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 350 per marla with proportionate solatium and interest – Union of India’s appeals dismissed – No order as to costs [Paras 11–12].

Land Acquisition – Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 – Solatium and Interest – Delay in Appointment of Arbitrator – Equitable Relief – Lands requisitioned and later acquired for defence purposes – Arbitrator appointed after 16 years’ delay – Awarded compensation ranging from Rs. 50/- to Rs. 200/- per marla with solatium (30%) and interest (9% and 15%) – Held: Though the 1952 Act contains no express provision for solatium or interest, long and unexplained delay in appointment of Arbitrator justifies equitable award of solatium and interest following Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 149 – Principle reaffirmed in Union of India v. Chajju Ram and Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India – Benefit of parity extended to similarly placed landowners [Paras 5–9].

Interest on Compensation – Equity and Fairness – Even where statute is silent, equitable principles demand award of interest for delayed payment of compensation – Interest becomes payable from date of acquisition, not from date of requisition – Doctrine reaffirmed with reliance on Union of India v. Parmal Singh and Satinder Singh v. Amrao Singh [Paras 8–9].

Compensation – Enhancement – Comparable Awards – Lands situated on outskirts of Pathankot acquired for same defence purpose and under proximate notifications (Jan–Mar 1970) – High Court erred in denying uniform enhancement granted in Shankar Singh v. Union of India and Inder Singh v. Union of India – Held: Compensation enhanced from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 350/- per marla with corresponding solatium and interest benefits – Principle of parity applied where circumstances identical [Paras 10–12].

Article 14 – Equality in Compensation – Discrimination in awarding lower compensation for similarly situated landowners offends Article 14 – Where acquisitions are identical in purpose, time, and locality, uniform compensation must be ensured [Paras 9–11].

Administrative Delay – Governmental Lapse – Sixteen-year delay in appointment of Arbitrator deprecated – Delay cannot prejudice landowners’ equitable entitlement to solatium and interest – State cannot benefit from its own default [Paras 3–5, 9].

Held:

(1) Landowners entitled to solatium @30% and interest @9% for first year and @15% thereafter due to inordinate delay in appointment of Arbitrator.

(2) Compensation enhanced to Rs. 350/- per marla for appellants’ lands, with proportionate solatium and interest.

(3) Appeals by Union of India dismissed; appeals by landowners partly allowed [Paras 12–13].

Decision:

Civil Appeals Nos. 9198–9202/2010 and 9218–9219/2010 (Owners’ Appeals): Allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 350/- per marla with solatium and interest.

Civil Appeals Nos. 9203/2010, 9204/2010, 9205–9209/2010, 9210–9215/2010, and 9216–9217/2010 (Union of India’s Appeals): Dismissed – No recovery of solatium or interest permitted.

Costs: Owners entitled to proportionate costs before all courts.

Tax Exemption – Meaning of ‘Investment’ – Small Scale Industrial Unit – Term “investment” under Notification No. 1428-F.T. dated 26.05.1994 and Rule 41 of West Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1995 interpreted as actual capital outlay on plant and machinery – Depreciation not deductible in computing investment – Expression “investment” denotes gross acquisition cost, not net depreciated value – Since appellant’s investment exceeded ₹5 lakhs, exemption rightly denied [Paras 13–19].

Interpretation – Exemption Notifications – Liberal Construction – Though object of notification was to promote small industries, eligibility criteria must be strictly construed – Liberal interpretation not applicable unless taxpayer clearly satisfies all preconditions – Held: Appellants, not fulfilling ₹5 lakh cap, not entitled to benefit [Paras 20–26].

Tax Law – Interest – Liability Without Prior Assessment – Liability to pay interest arises from date of tax default based on self-assessment return – Statutory interest under Section 10A of 1941 Act and Section 31 of 1994 Act is automatic – Not dependent on assessment order or demand notice – Interest is compensatory and payable for delayed tax payment even before formal assessment [Paras 27–30].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Exemption denied on factual ground of investment exceeding statutory limit – Statutory interest upheld – No costs [Para 31].