Land Dispute & Title Confirmation – Civil suit filed by Ram Balak Singh for confirmation of possession over land originally settled on his predecessor by a lease agreement – Suit land recorded under the appellant’s name by the Consolidation Officer, an order which achieved finality and was not contested by the state – Initial trial court decision in favor of appellant, but reversed by appellate court and upheld by High Court – Supreme Court restores trial court’s decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the appellant, holding that rights determined by the Consolidation Officer under the Consolidation Act cannot be ignored or reversed by civil courts. [Paras 1-26]

Consolidation Act & Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Discussion on the scope of Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, which bars civil courts from varying or setting aside any decisions or orders passed under the Act – Supreme Court clarifies that the civil suit filed was not to challenge the consolidation order but to affirm the rights granted by it, thus not barred under Section 37 – The civil courts lack competence to alter the final orders of the consolidation authorities regarding land rights. [Paras 12-25]

Role of Appellant and State Authorities – Appellant confirmed as the adopted son and rightful possessor of the disputed land – State’s claim on the land as pond land rejected due to lack of challenge against the consolidation order and failure to assert any rights during legal proceedings. [Paras 17-24]

Decision – Restoration of Trial Court’s Decree – Supreme Court set aside appellate judgments, restored trial court’s decree confirming plaintiff’s title and possession – Held that consolidation authorities’ decision is final and conclusive, barring civil courts from challenging or ignoring such decisions, underlining the sanctity of consolidation proceedings – Suit filed by plaintiff declared maintainable, contrary to appellate courts’ judgment – Appeal allowed without order as to costs. [Paras 26-27]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 4A(b) - Control and management of company - Determination - Principles of law - Control and management must be de facto and not merely theoretical - Domicile or registration of the company irrelevant - Determining factor is where the sole right to manage and control lies. [Para 8]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 147/148 - Reassessment - Escaped income - AO empowered to assess or reassess escaped income - Reassessment possible if there has been under-assessment based on information in possession of AO. [Para 11]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 234A - Interest on default in furnishing return of income - Mandatory and automatic - No power of waiver or reduction - Levy of interest outside purview of settlement under Chapter XIX-A. [Para 12]

Burden of proof - Claim of income earned in specific jurisdiction - Burden on assessee to establish and prove - Failure to produce evidence results in adverse inference. [Para 9]

Jurisdiction - Validity of notice issued by AO - Control and management of company relevant in determining jurisdiction - Notices valid when served on person with control and management of company. [Para 9]

Tax liability - Income earned by way of commission - Burden on assessee to prove genuineness of commission - Non-compliance by persons allegedly paying commission results in adverse inference - Burden not shifted to AO to prove otherwise. [Para 10]

Interest - Levy of interest as per workings in assessment order sufficient - Interest under Section 234A mandatory and automatic - Constitution Bench decision in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala applicable - Subsequent decisions following the same. [Para 12]

Appeals - Findings of AO, CIT(A), and High Court - No error in overturning ITAT's findings - Supreme Court in agreement with conclusions on control and management, jurisdiction, income earned, and levy of interest. [Para 14]

Appeal Dismissed.

Preventive Detention - Applicability and Compatibility of Judgments - Friction between Two Sets of Judgments - Resolution - Provisions of Preventive Detention Acts - Detaining Authority and Government as Separate Entities - COFEPOSA Act and Preventive Detention Act - Symbiotic Application of Judgments - No Conflict - No Need for Reference to Larger Bench. Para No: 30-35

Delay in Consideration of Representation - Grounds for Quashing Detention Order - Applicability of Article 22(5) of the Constitution - Illegible Documents in Foreign Language - Prejudice to Detenue's Right to Representation - Principle of Parity - Quashing of Detention Order - Principle of Parity Applies When Similarly Placed Co-detenue Granted Relief - Relief Extended to Similarly Placed Detenues. Para No: 36-43

Importance of Procedural Rigidity - Checks and Balances on Government's Power in Preventive Detention - Protection of Civil Liberties - Preserving Constitutional Ethos - Duty of Courts to Safeguard Individual and Civil Liberties - Act of Preserving Constitutional Ethos Against Arbitrary Power. Para No: 44

Setting Aside Detention Order - Release of Appellant - Clarity on Point of Law - Appellant's Release on Grounds of Expiry of Detention Period - Impugned Detention Order Liable to be Set Aside - Appeal Allowed. Para No: 45   

Judicial discretion - Exercise of - Observations against judicial officer - Cancellation of bail - High Court making adverse observations against appellant, a judicial officer, regarding exercise of discretion in a criminal petition related to cancellation of bail - High Court directing appellant to undergo training at Judicial Academy - Supreme Court setting aside directions and expunging observations - Emphasis on providing opportunity to person concerned before making adverse orders affecting career and esteem.

Opportunity of hearing - Adverse orders - Career and esteem of person affected - Supreme Court indicating that orders affecting career and esteem should not be made without providing opportunity of hearing to the person concerned - Setting aside directions and expunging observations made against appellant without such opportunity - Emphasis on fairness and due process.

High Court directions - Observations against appellant - Set aside - Supreme Court setting aside directions contained in High Court's order and expunging observations made against appellant, a judicial officer, regarding exercise of discretion - Directions found unjustified - Observations against appellant expunged.

Appeal allowed - Directions and observations set aside - Supreme Court allowing appeal of appellant, a judicial officer, insofar as adverse directions and observations made against her by High Court are concerned.

Constitutional Challenge Against Borrowing Restrictions – Kerala challenges Amendment Act No. 13 of 2018 amending Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003, and subsequent Union's letters imposing borrowing ceilings - Asserts Union exceeded powers under Article 293 - Seeks interim injunction to borrow INR 26,226 crores [Paras 1-3, 5]

Challenging Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act Amendments and Borrowing Ceilings – State of Kerala v. Union of India – Constitutional Law – Article 131 – Plaintiff, State of Kerala, institutes suit against Union of India under Article 131 of the Constitution, challenging the amendments to the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 and the imposition of a borrowing ceiling on states. Raises substantial questions on interpretation of Constitution, particularly regarding state’s rights under Article 293 and the Union government’s powers. Court refers matter to larger bench for authoritative interpretation. [Paras 1-10]

Interim Relief for State Borrowing Request Denied – Analysis of Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Injury – The Plaintiff seeks interim injunction for restoring previous borrowing position and to borrow INR 26,226 crores immediately. Supreme Court, applying the Triple-Test, finds that the State fails to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury. Observes that granting interim relief may adversely affect national fiscal health, hence interim relief denied. [Paras 11-37]

Referral to Larger Bench – Key Constitutional Questions Identified – Court identifies pivotal questions regarding the interpretation of Article 293 and its impact on fiscal federalism and the Union government’s regulation of state borrowings. Matter referred to a five-judge bench for comprehensive examination. [Paras 8, 10]

Decision – Interim Application Dismissed, Main Case Referred to Larger Bench – The Court holds that the State of Kerala is not entitled to the interim injunction it sought and refers the main case to a larger bench for decision on constitutional questions. Clarifies that observations made are for limited purpose of deciding interim application and do not affect final outcome. [Paras 38-40]

LCD panels - Classification - Interpretation of General Rules of Interpretation of Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - LCD panels classifiable under Chapter Heading 9013.8010 - Specific description prevails over general description - Goods falling under Chapter 90 excluded from Chapter 85 - General Note 3(a) and Note 1(m) of Chapter 85 clarified - Customs Tariff Act, 1975, General Rules of Interpretation, Section Notes 1(m) and 2(b) to Chapter 85, Chapter 90, and case law discussed and applied - Para [22]-[26].

Application sought directions - High Courts to fill vacancies from service judges or the bench up to 50% of their total strength of judges if a vacancy from the Bar Quota has been lying vacant for more than 6 months, appropriate directions to fill vacancies from the Judicial Service Quota as expeditiously as possible, and clarification to ensure that the ratio of quota of judges from the Service Judges/Bench remain the same in any given High Court at least to 1/3rd of the total vacancies in that High Court, irrespective of transfer to or from such a High Court.

Held - Refused to issue directions to fill up 50% of the seats in the High Court from the service quota - open for the applicants to pursue remedies before such forum as permissible in law.

Fill vacancies from the Judicial Service Quota as expeditiously as possible and to ensure the ratio of quota of judges from the Service Judges/Bench remain the same in any given High Court at least to 1/3rd of the total vacancies in that High Court to be reasonable - High Courts to strictly maintain that ratio - all the High Courts to take immediate steps in recommending the names for elevation from the service cadre prior to the occurrence of such vacancies, so that there is no delay in elevation of the Judges from the service cadre. The application was disposed of with these observations and directions.

Criminal Procedure Code – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – The Supreme Court evaluated the High Court's exercise of power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in quashing criminal proceedings based on a settlement agreement. The case involved the quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings in a case of serious offences including abduction and assault. [Para 1-8, 12]

Involvement of Original Complainant in Settlement – Noted –  Court observed that the original complainant, who was also an injured victim, was neither a party to the settlement agreement nor consented to it. The importance of the complainant's consent in quashing proceedings involving non-compoundable offences was emphasized. [Para 7, 11-12]

Jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Limitation –  Court reiterated the principles governing the exercise of High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, particularly in cases where the offences are of a serious nature and have a societal impact. The Court clarified that such powers should be exercised judiciously, ensuring justice and preventing abuse of the legal process. [Para 11-12]

Restoration of Criminal Proceedings – Directed –  Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the FIR and proceedings, restoring the original criminal case to the trial court. The Court instructed the trial court to expedite the trial, considering the long duration since the filing of the FIR. [Para 13]

Decision – Supreme Court, in reversing the High Court's decision, upheld the importance of considering the original complainant's stance in cases involving serious crimes, where settlement agreements do not necessarily lead to quashing of proceedings. [Para 9, 12-14]

Arbitration Law – Limitation Period – Applicability to Section 11(6) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – The Supreme Court examined the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to applications for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court clarified the distinction between the limitation for filing a Section 11(6) application and for raising substantive claims in arbitration. It held that the limitation for a Section 11(6) application begins only after a valid notice invoking arbitration is issued and the other party fails to comply with the appointment procedure agreed upon. [Paras 43-54]

Arbitration Proceedings – Commencement and Limitation – Petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for the appointment of an arbitrator in a dispute arising from a franchise agreement – Analysis of when the right to apply for arbitration accrues and the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963 to arbitration proceedings – The present petition not barred by limitation as it was filed within three years from the date of respondent's failure to comply with the notice of invocation of arbitration [Paras 90-91, 94-95].

Cause of Action and Limitation – Determination of the accrual of cause of action on 28.03.2018, when the respondent showed unwillingness to continue discussions on payments related to the ICCR project – The claims not ex-facie dead or time-barred on the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, considering the extension of limitation due to the Covid-19 pandemic [Paras 75-81, 83-88].

Appointment of Arbitrator – Shri Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, appointed as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties [Para 92].

Decision – The petition under Section 11(6) was allowed, and the appointment of an arbitrator was made. The claims sought to be arbitrated were not found to be ex-facie time-barred on the date of commencement of the arbitration proceedings. [Paras 90-94]