Muslim Law - Wakf - Creation of wakf - Requirements - Property dedicated for pious, religious, or charitable purposes - Express dedication or inferred from facts and circumstances - Long usage for religious or public charitable purposes - No evidence of express dedication or long usage in present case - Suit land not established as wakf property. [Para 25-30]

Wakf Act, 1954 - Notification declaring property as wakf - Procedure - Conducting surveys, settling disputes, submitting reports - Notification must follow prescribed procedure - No evidence of compliance with prescribed procedure in present case - Notification not conclusive proof of suit land being wakf property. [Para 32-35]

High Court's direction in writ appeal - Validity - Appellant Committee's acquiescence and participation in subsequent proceedings - Estopped from disputing jurisdiction or validity of direction - Principle of acquiescence and estoppel - Cannot approbate and reprobate. [Para 38-45]

Appeals - Lack of merit - Dismissal without costs. [Para 46]

Bail application - Rejection of - Co-accused released on bail not surrendering - Whether a relevant factor to decline bail to the appellant - Held, no - Co-accused's actions cannot be attributed to the appellant - Matter requires reconsideration by the High Court.

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Offenses under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - Bail application - Rejection of - Co-accused released on bail not surrendering - Not a germane factor to decline bail to the appellant - High Court directed to reconsider the application and pass orders expeditiously.

High Court - Reconsideration of bail application - Direction to dispose of the same - Preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of the order - Urgency in the disposal of the case.

Criminal Appeal - Bail application rejected - Impugned order set aside - High Court directed to take up the application and pass orders in view of framed charges and proposed examination of prosecution witnesses - Urgent disposal of the case requested.

Land ownership dispute - Nature of Sale Deed - Inconsistent stand by Respondents - Need for clarification on whether it pertains to sale of leasehold rights or title per se - High Court's parallel findings on the nature of Sale Deed criticized - Sale Deed appears to indicate sale of title rather than leasehold rights. (Para 34-38)

Determination of 1924 Lease Deed - Breach of condition of prior approval and expiry of initial lease period - Appellants' contention of breach of clause (e) regarding prior approval highlighted - Records indicating lack of prior approval - Contradictions in the records regarding approval and mutation - High Court's finding on validity of approval unsupported by evidence - Issue of determination of lease remains unresolved. (Para 40-49)

Respondents' claim through tenancy law - Validity of revenue entries - Respondents recorded as 'Occupancy Tenants' in revenue entries - Transferability of 'Occupancy Tenant' status under Section 33 of 1939 Act examined - Exceptions to transferability - Lack of evidence for transfer of status to predecessor of Respondents - High Court's sweeping remarks on tenancy status unsupported by proper analysis - Lack of clarity on proceedings granting occupancy tenant status and its relation to 'Sirdar' status under Zamindari Notification. (Para 50-54)

Lack of conclusive findings and need for remand - Ownership rights in immovable property require careful consideration

Lack of appropriate records hindering decisive conclusion - Appeal remanded to High Court for fresh adjudication on formulated issues and observations - Emphasis on examining original or certified copies of relevant records - Parties directed to maintain status quo during fresh adjudication. (Para 57-61)

Pendency and delay in proceedings - Long duration of appeals - Reluctance to give a final opinion without thorough examination of documents - Need for prompt disposal by High Court - Request for disposal within 12 months - Requisition of original records, including revenue entries and Deputy Commissioner's office records - Direction to Appellant State to assist in early disposal of matters. (Para 59-60)

Appeals allowed in part - Impugned judgments of High Court set aside - Matters remanded to High Court for fresh adjudication - Observations in judgment not treated as final determination - Parties instructed to produce relevant records - Status quo to be maintained during fresh adjudication. (Para 61-62)

Judicial Review - Scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings - The High Court exceeded its scope of judicial review by reappreciating the entire evidence as if it were a criminal trial - Judicial review is limited to evaluating the decision-making process and ensuring fairness - Interference is warranted only in cases of violation of natural justice, statutory rules, absence of evidence, perversity, or mala fides. [Para 6]

Tampering with bid documents - In the case of a tender for the job of 'Repair of Surface Drain and Tank Pad and Tank No. 235, 236 and 237 inside Refinery,' tampering with the bid documents was found to be fully established - The changed form of quotation contained the original signature of the respondent, establishing his involvement - The Division Bench failed to consider this crucial evidence. [Para 7]

Fair opportunity of hearing - The respondent was provided a fair opportunity of hearing at every stage of the inquiry - This was acknowledged by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition challenging the punishment - The Division Bench erred in reexamining the evidence as if it were the first stage of the case. [Para 6]

Standard of review - The Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional court, in exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review, should not interfere with findings of fact arrived at in departmental enquiry proceedings, unless there is mala fides or perversity - As long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary authority, it must be sustained. [Para 7]

Correcting injustice - The respondent argued that he was made a scapegoat by other employees, and the Division Bench of the High Court rightly corrected the injustice done to him - However, the Supreme Court found that the respondent's involvement in tampering was established, and the Division Bench had erred in setting aside the punishment. [Para 5]

Setting aside of impugned order - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and restoring the order of the learned Single Judge - The punishment imposed on the respondent was upheld. [Para 8]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 23 - Civil Appeal - Challenge to the judgment and order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission - Insurance company repudiating the claim of the insured - Appellant alleging loss caused by malicious act - Burden of proof on insurer - Insurer failed to establish loss caused by malicious act - Surveyor's report opined loss due to insured peril - Insurer failing to provide cogent reasons for rejecting surveyor's report - Appeal dismissed. [Para 9, Para 14, Para 17, Para 18]

Insurance Law - Policy Exclusions - Malicious Act - Interpretation of Clause V(d) of the insurance policy - Exclusion of loss or damage caused by malicious act - Burden of proof on insurer - In case of ambiguity, contract of insurance to be construed in favor of insured - Insurer failed to establish loss caused by malicious act on part of insured. [Para 11, Para 14]

Insurance Law - Surveyor's Report - Admissibility - Finality - Surveyor's report not final or sacrosanct - Insurer required to provide cogent reasons for rejecting surveyor's report - Failure to do so undermines insurer's claim. [Para 17]

Insurance Law - Construction of Policy - Ambiguity - Construction in favor of insured - Where an exclusionary clause exists in an insurance policy, insurer bears the onus to demonstrate that the case falls within the purview of such clause - In case of ambiguity, contract of insurance should be construed in favor of insured. [Para 15]

Insurance Law - Burden of Proof - Loss caused by malicious act - Burden of proof lies with insurer to establish loss caused by malicious act - Failure to establish such causation results in denial of claim. [Para 9]

Appeal Dismissed.

Railway accident – Compensation – Bona fide passenger – Burden of proof – Claimants filed claim petition seeking compensation for death of deceased in untoward incident – Initial burden on claimants to prove deceased was a bona fide passenger – Claimants established deceased’s status as bona fide passenger [Para 18] – Burden shifted to Railway Administration to disprove the same – Failure of Railway Administration to provide evidence refuting deceased’s status as bona fide passenger – Findings of Claims Tribunal and High Court set aside as perverse [Para 19].

Untoward incident – Investigation report – Acceptance by Divisional Railway Manager – Investigation report acknowledging occurrence of untoward incident [Para 15] – Station Master’s statement supporting occurrence [Para 16] – Findings of Claims Tribunal and High Court not considering investigation documents and final report – Findings set aside as perverse [Para 17].

Compensation – Amended Compensation Rules – Calculation of compensation – Liability for compensation arising before amendment – Amount applicable on the date of accident with reasonable interest – Higher of two amounts to be awarded – Entitlement to higher amount if original compensation with interest exceeds amended amount [Para 20] – Rina Devi and Radha Yadav judgments applied [Para 21].

Directions – Payment of compensation – Appellants entitled to compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at 7% per annum – Final figure less than Rs. 8,00,000/- - Appellants entitled to Rs. 8,00,000/- [Para 23] – Respondents directed to pay compensation within eight weeks.

Income Tax - Assessment Year 1995-1996 - Appellants were engaged in the transportation business and were found to be in possession of bitumen without proper documentation - Assessing Officer treated the value of the bitumen as unexplained money and made additions to the appellant's income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act - Commissioner of Appeals deleted the addition - High Court reversed the decision of the Commissioner of Appeals - Appeal before the Supreme Court.

Para Numbers: 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 16

Income Tax - Section 69A - Interpretation - Whether bitumen can be considered as an "other valuable article" under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act - Principles of Ejusdem Generis and Noscitur a Sociis - Meaning of the words "money, bullion, jewellery" in the provision - Definition of "valuable" - Requirement of marketability and worth a good price or a great deal of money for an article to be considered valuable - Examples of mobile phones and expensive cameras - Evolution of the concept of other valuable articles - Analysis of bitumen as an article - Definition and common use of bitumen - Low price of bitumen - Conclusion that bitumen cannot be treated as a valuable article.

Para Numbers: 73, 77, 78, 79

Income Tax - Addition of income - Burden of proof - Requirement to establish ownership of the article in question - Assessing Officer's finding that the appellant was the owner of the bitumen - Court's disagreement with the finding based on possession under a contract of bailment and lack of power of alienation - Assessment Officer's reasoning found to be incorrect.

Para Numbers: 62, 63

Income Tax - Assessment of income from illegal business - Legitimacy of taxing income derived from illegal business - Inapplicability of Section 69A in the absence of ownership of the article in question.

Para Numbers: 62

Income Tax - Scope of Section 69A - Intent of the legislature to target income not reflected in the books of account and belonging to the assessee - Requirement of ownership and existence of other valuable articles - Exclusion of documents of title to immovable property and fixed deposit receipts as other valuable articles.

Para Numbers: 62, 65

Income Tax - Relevance of context and dictionary definitions - Definition of valuable as worth a good price or a great deal of money - Interpretation of the words money, bullion, valuable, and article - Contextual analysis of the provision.

Para Numbers: 68, 69, 70, 71, 72

Income Tax - Decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bhagwandas Narayandas case - Approval of the view that documents of title to immovable property and fixed deposit receipts do not qualify as other valuable articles.

Para Numbers: 65

Income Tax - Examples of watches and tender coconuts - Watches as articles that do not belong to the genus of money, bullion, or jewellery - Marketability and value as criteria for an article to be considered valuable - Distinction between articles worth a good price or a great deal of money and articles with value.

Para Numbers: 74, 75

Income Tax - Conclusion - Bitumen cannot be treated as a valuable article under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act - Appeals allowed, impugned judgment set aside, and order of the Commissioner of Appeals restored.

Para Numbers: 79

Execution of decree – Objections raised by third parties – Exclusive jurisdiction of executing court – Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) mandates that the court executing the decree shall determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit or their representatives in relation to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree – Rules 97 to 106 of Order XXI of the CPC provide a complete code for adjudicating resistance or obstruction by third parties – Purpose is to prevent needless litigation and achieve speedy disposal of execution-related issues – Executing court empowered to conduct an enquiry into the legality of obstruction by third parties – Various precedents support this position. [Para 17]

Doctrine of lis pendens and Rule 102 of Order XXI of the CPC – Applicability to resistance or obstruction in execution of decree – Doctrine of lis pendens and Rule 102 do not bar adjudication of objections raised by third parties in execution proceedings – Case-specific examination required to determine if transfers made by judgment-debtor attract Rule 102 – Evidence needs to be led to ascertain the validity of transfers made during the period when there was no pending lis – Previous decree and finality of disputes between appellants and respondents do not justify rejecting objections raised by respondents. [Para 24-25]

Effect of purchase certificate obtained from Land Tribunal – Impact on claims of third-party purchasers – Purchase certificate issued in accordance with the Kerala Land Reform Act (KLR Act) raises questions regarding respondents' title – Executing court should examine the effect of the purchase certificate and absence of challenge or disclosure by the plaintiff during civil proceedings – Inquiries involving evidence should be conducted to determine respondents' claims. [Para 26]

Discretion to entertain appeals – Bypassing High Court – Supreme Court's discretion to entertain special leave petitions directly from lower courts should be exercised sparingly – High Court remedies should be exhausted unless substantial questions of general importance or similar issues pending before the Supreme Court exist – Instant case does not meet these criteria. [Para 29]

Direction to the executing court – Timely disposal of proceedings – Executing court directed to proceed with application under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the CPC and examine objections raised by respondents on merits – Observations in the judgment should not influence the executing court – Request for expedited proceedings and completion within 18 months. [Para 32]

Contempt petition – Dismissal – Contempt petition against respondents for willful disobedience of previous Supreme Court order – Petition dismissed as it does not survive in light of the judgment. [Para 33]

Contempt of court - Guilt of contemnor - Lack of remorse and disrespect for court's orders - Contemnor found guilty of contempt - Detailed findings recorded in judgment and order - Last opportunity given to contemnor to make amends - Contemnor failed to show signs of remorse - Scant respect for court's orders - Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 340­342 of 2022. [Para 1]

Failure to comply with court orders - Contemnor's obligations - Undertaking given by contemnor to bring back child to India - Failure to bring back child as directed by court - Non-renewal of child's passport - Failure to seek extension of time - Opposing mirroring of court's order - Interference with administration of justice and obstruction of justice. [Para 5]

Claim of acting in best interests of minor - Inappropriate discussion of pending litigations with child - Attempt to prejudice child's mind against petitioner - Violation of court's directions - Gross error on part of contemnor - Consideration of child's welfare. [Para 6]

Civil and criminal contempt - Contemnor's acts and omissions - Finding of never intending to bring back child - Failure to apply for passport renewal - Non-submission to court's jurisdiction - Defiance of court's orders - Contumacious conduct established - Need for strict action. [Para 10]

Sentencing - Imposition of fine and imprisonment - Fine of Rs. 25 lakhs - Simple imprisonment for six months - Further imprisonment for two months in case of non-payment of fine - Fine amount to be deposited with court registry - Use of fine amount for welfare and benefit of minor child - Government and CBI directed to secure contemnor's presence for serving sentence and paying fine. [Para 12, 13]

Compliance reporting - Listing of case in first week of August 2023. [Para 14]