Civil Procedure – Compromise of Suit – Application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed jointly by parties requesting a consent decree – Trial Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat where consent decree was passed – High Court erred in setting aside the consent decree on grounds of alleged fraud without substantial evidence [Paras 6-10].

Genuineness of Consent Decree – Referring Matter to Lok Adalat – Merely referring the matter to Lok Adalat cannot be grounds to doubt genuineness of the consent decree – High Court's suspicion of fraud based on the chronology of events and involvement of counsel not warranted [Paras 6-8].

Role of Advocates – Consent Application Signed by All Parties – Application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was signed by Advocates for both parties – No allegations against defendant's counsel – High Court failed to consider this while setting aside the decree [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing consent decree set aside – Consent decree passed by Trial Court in Lok Adalat restored [Para 10].

Civil Procedure – Abatement of Suit – Right to Sue – No abatement by party's death if right to sue survives – Procedures in case of death of one of several defendants or sole defendant – Appellate Court must examine if the right to sue survives against surviving respondents – Appeal dismissed due to non-bringing legal representatives on record without proper enquiry set aside – Directions to reconsider the matter on merits [Paras 9-10].

Order 22 CPC – Effect of Abatement – Consideration of each case's facts necessary – Appellate Court must examine impact of non-bringing legal representatives of some respondents – Proper representation of estate required – Consequences of failing to comply with procedural requirements under Order 22 CPC [Paras 9.1-9.7].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s order dismissing the appeal as having abated set aside – Directions issued for the High Court to reconsider the appeal on merits and in accordance with law [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Bail – Rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act – Prima facie evaluation of the evidence suggests doubt about the prosecution's case – High Court’s view that rigours of Section 37 are not applicable upheld [Paras 13-16].

Evidence – Contradictory Statements – Statements of motorcar occupants versus initial complaint by SI create serious doubt – High Court rightly considered the contradiction while granting bail [Paras 16.1-16.2].

Section 27A NDPS Act – Financing Illicit Traffic – Prosecution failed to establish prima facie evidence for Section 27A – Single transaction not sufficient for charge of financing illicit trafficking [Paras 14.1, 16.3].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's order granting bail with stringent conditions upheld – No prima facie evidence supporting the allegations under Section 27A NDPS Act [Paras 19-21].

Service Tax – Consulting Engineer – Definition – The definition of 'Consulting Engineer' under Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, includes a 'body corporate' – The amendment in 2005 clarifying the inclusion of 'body corporate' is not merely prospective but clarificatory in nature – Respondent providing consultancy engineering services liable to pay service tax [Paras 6-13].

Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Strict Rule of Construction – Taxing statutes must be strictly interpreted but not to the extent of ignoring legislative intent – Courts may read in essential inferences to avoid absurdity – Exclusion of 'body corporate' would lead to unjust results and contradict legislative purpose [Paras 3.2-3.3, 8].

Prior Judicial Interpretations – Decisions of High Courts – Karnataka and Calcutta High Courts’ rulings in favor of including 'body corporate' within 'Consulting Engineer' supported – Earlier decisions of Delhi and Karnataka High Courts contrary to legislative intent and subsequent authoritative decisions [Paras 10.1-10.4, 11].

Decision – Appeal allowed – CESTAT's judgment set aside – Respondent liable to pay service tax under the pre-amendment definition of 'Consulting Engineer' – Case remanded to CESTAT to consider other grounds raised in the appeal [Paras 13-14].

Civil Law – Religious Endowments – Suit jewellery claimed by the appellant as private property – Jewellery kept in the Temple's Kudavarai and used for adorning the deity during festivals – Concurrent findings by three courts affirming the jewellery as a specific endowment to the deity – Dedication inferred from long possession and use for religious purposes [Paras 15-25].

Specific Endowment – Evidence and Inference – Evidence showed jewellery was donated by the ancestors of appellant – Suit jewellery recorded in the Temple's register as endowment – Long possession and usage for adorning the deity confirmed the public nature of the endowment – Appellant's claim based on inheritance from adoptive parents rejected [Paras 15-19].

Bar of Res Judicata – Prior Suit – Previous suit dismissed for technical reasons, not on merits – Subsequent suit for declaration of title and injunction not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata – Plea of Order II Rule 2 of CPC also rejected as causes of action in the suits were different [Paras 26-34].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – High Court's judgment and decree of declaration of specific endowment upheld – Direction to appellant to hand over the keys of the Kudavarai and the suit jewellery to the Temple authorities during festival times – Appellant restrained from interfering with the Temple's right to use the jewellery [Paras 37-40].

Murder – Common Intention – Section 302/34 IPC – Conviction based on the non-cooperation of the accused in a test identification parade – Courts drew adverse inferences without considering the exposure of witnesses to the accused in the police station – Identification parade is part of the investigation and should not be overemphasized – Prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt – Prosecution’s evidence lacked reliability and consistency – Convictions and sentences under Section 302/34 set aside [Paras 1-15].

Test Identification Parade – Evidentiary Value – The evidence available on record must be scrutinized when the accused have been exposed to witnesses prior to the identification parade – Reliance on such evidence without corroboration is flawed – Prosecution failed to establish common intention and occurrence beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 3-14].

Constructive Liability – Section 34 IPC – Section 34 does not constitute an offence by itself but creates constructive liability based on proven foundational facts – Prosecution failed to demonstrate common intention and participation in the crime adequately – Evidence presented was inconsistent and not wholly reliable [Para 13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellants to be released forthwith [Paras 15].

Contempt of Court – Non-disclosure of Assets – Respondent guilty of contempt for failing to disclose assets and violating court orders restraining transfer of funds – Supreme Court holds actions contumacious and orders adequate punishment – Emphasizes need for compliance with court orders to maintain majesty of law [Paras 1-30].

Reversal of Transactions – Directions to Nullify Contumacious Conduct – Court directs reversal of transactions where US$ 40 million was disbursed in violation of restraining orders – Orders funds to be deposited with Recovery Officer, with 8% interest – Asserts that contumacious benefits must be completely disgorged [Paras 13-17].

Punishment for Contempt – Sentence of Imprisonment and Fine – Considering respondent’s lack of remorse, court imposes four months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000 – Directs Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure compliance and secure presence of respondent for imprisonment – Provides for additional two months' imprisonment if fine is not paid [Paras 16-19].

Land Acquisition – "Person Interested" – MRPL as Allottee – Acquired land allotted to MRPL by KIADB – High Court erred in treating MRPL as a "person interested" entitled to participate in compensation determination – Proper party in reference proceedings only if acquisition is under Land Acquisition Act, not KIAD Act [Paras 6-7.1, 7.5-7.6].

Distinction Between Acts – Land Acquisition Act vs. KIAD Act – Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act not applicable to KIAD Act acquisitions – Different statutory schemes and purposes – Reliance on precedents involving Land Acquisition Act misplaced [Paras 7.1-7.6].

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Binding Precedent – High Court bound by Supreme Court precedent distinguishing applicable cases – Failure to follow binding precedent contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution [Para 7.3].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Reference Court’s judgment restored – MRPL not entitled to participate in compensation determination under KIAD Act [Para 8].

Income Tax – Exemption under Section 10B(8) – Assessee failed to furnish declaration before the due date of filing original return of income under Section 139(1) – Supreme Court held both conditions of furnishing declaration and doing so before due date are mandatory – Non-compliance bars exemption claim [Paras 1-14].

Filing of Declaration – Time Limit Mandatory – The Court emphasized that in a taxing statute, provisions must be read as they are – For exemption under Section 10B(8), both furnishing declaration to Assessing Officer and doing so before due date of filing original return under Section 139(1) are mandatory [Paras 8-11].

Revised Return – Not Permissible for New Claims – Filing revised return under Section 139(5) cannot be used to withdraw claim and subsequently claim carry forward or set-off of losses – Revised return must correct omissions or wrong statements, not introduce new claims [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and ITAT orders set aside – Held – Assessee not entitled to exemption under Section 10B(8) due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions – Costs ruled in favor of Revenue [Paras 14-15].