Senior Citizens Act – Section 23 – Void Transfers – Sub-section (1) of Section 23 covers all transfers "by way of gift or otherwise" – Conditions: transfer must be subject to condition of providing basic amenities to transferor, and transferee must refuse or fail to provide such amenities – Both conditions must be fulfilled for the transfer to be voidable – Transfer often made out of love and affection without expectations – Conditions must be established before the Tribunal [Paras 1-14].

Legal Requirements – Pleading and Evidence – Petition did not plead transfer was subject to the condition of providing basic amenities – No such finding by Tribunal – Oral evidence not adduced – Order of Maintenance Tribunal unsustainable as conditions of Section 23(1) not satisfied – High Court failed to consider merits [Paras 14-15].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of the Maintenance Tribunal and High Court set aside – Petition under Section 23 of the 2007 Act dismissed – Rights of intervenor (developer) left open for appropriate proceedings [Paras 16-17].

Constitutional Law – Article 226 – Public Project and Land Allotment – High Court erred in holding the possession by Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation as illegal – Allotment for public project by the Collector was not challenged – Public project cannot be stalled due to pending civil suit on lease termination – Appeal allowed, High Court’s order set aside [Paras 1-7].

Section 39 Metro Railways (Construction of Works) Act – Jurisdiction of Civil Court – Bar applies only where adequate remedy is provided under the Act – Civil suit for title declaration not barred – High Court misinterpreted the provision [Para 3].

Disputed Facts – Writ Petition Not Maintainable – Presence of disputed facts regarding possession and lease termination – High Court should not have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 – Civil suit pending to resolve the lease termination dispute [Paras 6.1-6.2].

Public Interest – Land Allotment for Nagpur Metro Rail Project – Public interest and necessity for the project justified the land allotment – Public project cannot be halted pending resolution of civil rights in a suit [Para 6].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order quashed – Writ petition dismissed – Pending civil suit to be decided on merits [Paras 7-8].

Motor Vehicles Act – Enhancement of Compensation – Deceased’s income was based on Income Tax Return, fixed at Rs. 118,261 annually (approx. Rs. 9,855 per month) – High Court’s enhancement of income to Rs. 5,000 per month without considering ITR was erroneous – Deduction for personal expenses set at 1/5th for seven dependents – Future prospects added at 40% – Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,591,388 with 9% interest from application date till payment [Paras 1-19].

Just Compensation – Concept of ‘just compensation’ under Section 168 MV Act aims for fairness, reasonableness, and equitability – Determination can never be exact but should strive for fairness irrespective of amount claimed – Court awarded enhanced compensation based on statutory documents and established principles [Paras 10-12].

Future Prospects and Conventional Heads – High Court added 40% for future prospects correctly – Tribunal and High Court erred by not awarding proper amounts under conventional heads – Supreme Court increased conventional head amounts as per Pranay Sethi and applied 10% increment every three years [Paras 13-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,591,388 with 9% interest per annum from filing date to payment date [Para 19].

Criminal Law – Additional Evidence in Appeal – High Court allowed the accused to present additional evidence regarding his mental condition at the time of the incident – Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order – Mental condition and capacity to face trial were already examined and affirmed by this Court – Additional evidence not warranted without a hearing on merits of the appeal [Paras 1-20].

Section 391 CrPC – Appellate Court’s Power to Take Additional Evidence – Should be exercised after hearing on merits of the appeal – High Court must record reasons and may take evidence itself or direct it to be taken by a subordinate court – High Court's approach in this case found procedurally improper [Paras 13-14].

Section 84 IPC – General Exception for Acts of Unsound Mind – Plea of insanity covered under Section 84 IPC was previously considered and rejected by Trial Court and affirmed by Supreme Court – High Court's order allowing further evidence on the same issue without examining existing records was improper [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order dated 29.03.2022 set aside – Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 2019 restored for reconsideration on merits – Application for additional evidence to be considered at an appropriate stage by High Court [Paras 15-20].

Contract Labour – Reinstatement and Absorption – Contract labourers claimed direct employment with the appellant, asserting the contract was sham – Industrial Tribunal and High Court ordered reinstatement and absorption without notification under Section 10 of CLRA Act – Supreme Court held that without such notification and evidence proving the contract was sham, reinstatement and absorption were erroneous – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-5].

Contract Labour – Automatic Absorption – No provision under Section 10 of CLRA Act for automatic absorption – Employment relationship to be determined based on control over employment conditions, salary payment, and disciplinary power – Industrial adjudicator to decide if contract is sham, lacking such findings, reinstatement erroneous [Paras 3-4].

Applicable Laws – Conflict of Laws – CLRA Act provisions prevail over inconsistent state laws – Industrial adjudicator must apply CLRA Act criteria for determining employer-employee relationship, not state-specific industrial laws [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Civil Appeals allowed – High Court and Industrial Tribunal judgments set aside – Labour Court judgment restored, denying reinstatement and absorption under the CLRA Act [Para 5].

Criminal Law – Summoning Additional Accused – Trial court's power under Section 319 CrPC must be exercised before pronouncement of the order of sentence in case of conviction or before the order of acquittal – Summoning order must precede trial conclusion – If summoning order is passed after acquittal or sentence imposition, it is not sustainable [Paras 1-88].

Power Under Section 319 CrPC – Summoning additional accused during bifurcated trials of absconding accused – Power valid if based on evidence in split trial pointing to involvement – Main trial evidence cannot justify summoning if power not exercised during main trial [Paras 2-7].

Guidelines for Exercising Power Under Section 319 CrPC – Courts must pause trial upon finding evidence or application under Section 319 CrPC before acquittal or sentence order – Summoning decision must precede further trial steps – Courts must decide on joint or separate trial for summoned accused – Fresh or de novo trial necessary if joint trial decided – Summoning power in bifurcated cases requires fresh evidence in split trial [Paras 8-33].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Orders summoning additional accused after trial conclusion not sustainable – Summoning orders to be made before acquittal or sentence pronouncement in ongoing trials [Paras 34-35].

Excise Duty – Valuation of Goods – Dispute centered on the method of determining the value of goods for excise duty when sales were made to both independent and related parties – Revenue issued show cause notice invoking Section 4(1)(b) of CEA and Rule 11 of CEVR – CESTAT set aside notice, directing reliance on CBEC Circular of 01.07.2002, which mandates Rule 11 read with Rule 9 or 10 of CEVR [Paras 1-42].

Binding Nature of Circulars – CBEC Circular of 01.07.2002 is binding on the Revenue – Revenue must adhere to its own administrative directions for uniform application of tax laws – Courts and Tribunals are to interpret statutes independently, but the Circular cannot be ignored if consistent with statutory provisions [Paras 15-19].

Valuation Principles – Sales to independent buyers should be used as a benchmark for sales to related parties if no specific methodology is available – Transaction value to independent parties serves as the 'normal price' under Section 4(1)(a) of CEA – Rule 11 of CEVR mandates reasonable means for valuation, consistent with Section 4(1) principles [Paras 20-37].

Extended Limitation Period – Extended period of limitation under CEA applies if there is suppression of facts – However, due to Revenue’s unclear valuation method, only excise duty, not interest and penalties, should be levied on the Respondent [Paras 38].

Decision: Civil Appeal allowed – Value of goods sold to related parties to be determined based on prices to independent parties – Demand confirmed but interest and penalties not approved – Circular dated 01.07.2002 held consistent with CEA and CEVR [Paras 39-42].

Criminal Law – Bail in Tax Evasion Case – Petitioner accused of evading tax by transporting 90520 kgs of unmanufactured tobacco, allegedly for clandestine zarda manufacturing – High Court rejected bail application under Section 439 CrPC – Supreme Court granted bail, noting petitioner’s four-month incarceration, documentary and electronic nature of evidence, and low risk of tampering [Paras 1-7].

Tax Evasion – Allegations and Evidence – Allegations included transport of raw tobacco from Gujarat to Delhi for unaccounted zarda production – Respondent claimed tax evasion amounting to Rs. 155728345, based on projected zarda production – Petitioner disputed the quantum, asserting a tax liability of Rs. 19326020 based on actual transported quantity – Supreme Court emphasized these contentions would be addressed during trial [Paras 3-6].

Conditions for Bail – Petitioner directed to comply with trial court conditions, including passport deposit – Supreme Court highlighted the importance of diligent trial participation and adherence to imposed conditions to prevent tampering [Paras 7-9].

Decision: Special Leave Petition allowed – Bail granted – Petitioner to be released on bail, subject to trial court conditions, including passport deposit and regular trial participation [Para 7-9].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – High Court declared acquisition proceedings lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act due to non-taking of possession and non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court holds High Court erred, citing Indore Development Authority case – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-3].

Litigation Impact – Acquisition proceedings subject to prolonged litigation – Authority could not take possession due to pending legal challenges – Non-taking of possession not to benefit landowners in such context [Para 2.2].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Acquisition proceedings upheld [Para 3].