Rejection of Election Petition – Appeal against High Court’s dismissal of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of Election Petition – Appellant’s nomination for Assam Legislative Assembly scrutinized, and election won – Respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition, alleging false educational qualifications and financial disclosure by appellant – Supreme Court finds Election Petition lacking in precise, specific allegations, with no statement of material facts or particulars of alleged corrupt practice under Section 83 of RP Act – Election Petition does not set out grounds for declaring election void under Section 100 – Held, Election Petition against appellant to be dismissed. [Paras 1-26]

Material Facts in Election Petition – Necessity and Analysis – Held, Election Petition must contain concise statement of material facts and full particulars of alleged corrupt practices, as required under Section 83 of RP Act – Vague, general allegations without specific details insufficient – Failure to meet these requirements renders Election Petition liable for dismissal under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. [Paras 13-21, 24-25]

Implications of Corrupt Practices Allegations – Standards of Proof and Pleading – Election Petition alleging corrupt practices must provide clear, cogent, and precise allegations – Standard of proof akin to criminal charges – Allegations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt – Inadequate pleadings on corrupt practices warrant dismissal of Election Petition. [Para 21]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Election Petition No. 1 of 2021 filed by Respondent No. 1 dismissed – Lack of concise statement of material facts and specific allegations in Election Petition lead to its dismissal. [Para 25-26]

Seizure and Confiscation under the Gujarat Prohibition Act – Appeal against High Court’s refusal to release a vehicle seized with liquor – Appellant sought release of vehicle under Special Criminal Application, bypassing Section 451, Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court clarifies proper procedural approach for custody and disposal of seized property. [Paras 1-6]

Interpretation of Sections 98 and 132, Gujarat Prohibition Act – Analysis – Confiscation and seizure powers under the Act – Distinction between powers of authorized officers and courts emphasized – Proper procedure for disposal of seized property underlined. [Paras 7-14]

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction Applied – Interpretation of Section 98(2) of Gujarat Prohibition Act – Court resolves ambiguity in the provision, reconciling it with the Cr.P.C. and other provisions of the Act. [Para 9]

Procedure for Release of Seized Property – Section 451, Cr.P.C. – Supreme Court delineates the proper course of action in cases involving custody of property seized during investigation – Directs Appellant to approach the appropriate criminal court for release of vehicle. [Paras 15-17]

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the High Court’s order – Appellant directed to seek remedy under Section 451, Cr.P.C. at the concerned criminal court. [Para 18]

Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 3 and 5 - Appeal filed after an inordinate delay of 5659 days - High Court refusing to condone the delay - Special Leave Petition filed challenging the High Court's decision - Principles governing the condonation of delay discussed - Law of limitation founded on public policy to put an end to litigation by forfeiting the remedy - Discretionary power of courts to condone delay under Section 5 - 'Sufficient cause' for condonation of delay - Balance between liberal interpretation and strict enforcement of limitation laws - Court's obligation to dismiss appeals filed beyond the prescribed period - Duty of the courts to enforce limitation laws without equitable considerations - Application of law of limitation must be done with rigor, not affected by inconvenience or hardship to parties - Mere acceptance of judgment by other claimants not sufficient ground for condonation of delay - No interference by Supreme Court with High Court's refusal to condone delay, considering lack of due diligence and negligence by petitioners - Special Leave Petition dismissed.

Discharge - Criminal Appeal against High Court order setting aside discharge order – Allegations of cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120B IPC – Appellants established educational society and applied for approval from AICTE to start educational institutions – Allegation that appellants suppressed mortgage information in applications – CBI filed FIR and charge-sheet against appellants – Magistrate discharged appellants, but High Court set aside discharge order – Appeal before Supreme Court – Held, no evidence of deliberate deception by appellants – AICTE granted approval despite disclosure of mortgage in initial application – No evidence of inducement causing harm to AICTE – No criminal conspiracy established – Discharge order restored – Criminal appeal allowed.

Role of Accused in Cheating – Analysis – Held – No evidence of deliberate deception by appellants – AICTE granted approval despite disclosure of mortgage in initial application – No inducement causing harm to AICTE established – No evidence of criminal conspiracy by appellants – Discharge order restored.

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet against Appellants – Supreme Court sets aside High Court order and restores discharge order – No evidence of deliberate deception by appellants or inducement causing harm to AICTE – No criminal conspiracy established – Appellants discharged of alleged offence under Sections 420 and 120B IPC.

Validity of Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Held – Limitation period for filing revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C is 90 days – No limitation prescribed for invocation of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C – CBI filed petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C long after limitation period expired – Held, CBI should have pursued statutory remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C – Appeal allowed.

Exercise of Inherent Powers of High Court – Held – Inherent powers can be exercised when no specific remedy provided in the Code – Cannot be invoked to nullify provisions of the Code – Specific remedy of revision available to CBI under Section 397 Cr.P.C – CBI should have pursued statutory remedy – Appeal allowed.

Partition and Separate Possession – Civil Appeal – Appeal against High Court judgment in a property dispute involving partition and separate possession of properties, including agricultural lands and business ventures – Supreme Court upholds Appellate Court’s decree for partition and separate possession, setting aside High Court’s misinterpretation of facts. [Paras 1-29]

Joint Family Property and Business Dispute - Dispute over whether properties and a garage business were part of a joint Hindu family - Initiated by Vitthalrao against descendants of his deceased brother, Laxmanrao - Trial Court held only agricultural land at Mouza Shendola as joint property; other properties and business as self-acquired by Laxmanrao - Appellate Court reversed, decreeing all properties and business as joint - High Court initially upheld Appellate Court but later reviewed to exclude certain properties from partition based on misinterpretation [Paras 3-5, 10-16, 22-29].

Joint Family Business – Analysis and Decision – Examines evidence indicating joint family business in garage operations named ‘Gajanan Automobiles’ and ‘Trimurti Auto Garage’ – Supreme Court finds substantial evidence supporting joint family business, contrary to High Court’s observation – Upholds Appellate Court’s decision recognizing joint family business from inception, not just post-1991 as per erroneous High Court observation. [Paras 15, 18, 19, 26, 28]

Misinterpretation of Appellate Court Judgment – High Court’s Review based on Erroneous Observation – Supreme Court finds High Court erroneously interpreted Appellate Court’s judgment regarding commencement of joint family business, leading to an incorrect review decision – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s observation and its consequential order. [Paras 21, 23, 27, 29]

Judgment – Upholding Appellate Court’s Decision –  upholds Appellate Court’s judgment, decreeing partition and separate possession in favor of plaintiff, dismissing High Court’s review order based on incorrect factual analysis. [Para 29]

Delay in Filing Application under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC – Condonation of Delay – Principles to be Applied – Discretion of the Court – Gross Negligence and Want of Due Diligence – Sufficiency of Cause – Liberal Construction of the Term – Reasonable Explanation for Delay – Adherence to Strict Proof – Doctrine of Prejudice – Concocted Explanation – Consequences of Negligence on Part of Litigant – Application for Condonation of Delay after 14 Years – Failure to Provide Satisfactory Explanation – Dismissal of Appeal Upheld. [Paras 9-11]

Quashing of Delayed Application – Discretion of Courts – Adherence to Justice – Lack of Bona Fides – Consequences of Negligence – Application of Limitation Act, Section 5 – Examination of Explanation for Delay – Failure to Demonstrate Reasonable Grounds – Gross Negligence and Inaction – Observance of Strict Proof – Dismissal of Appeal. [Paras 9-11]

Role of Courts in Condonation of Delay – Judicial Discretion – Consideration of Circumstances – Liberal Approach – Public Interest and Justice – Distinction between Inordinate Delay and Short Duration – Vigilance of Courts – Evaluation of Explanation – Consequences of Inaction or Negligence – Consequences of Fanciful or Concocted Explanations – Dismissal of Delayed Application – Upholding of Trial Court’s Decision – Affirmation by Revisional Court and High Court – Dismissal of Appeal by Supreme Court. [Paras 9-11]

Stamp Duty on Articles of Association – Increase in Share Capital – The dispute revolved around the payment of stamp duty on the increase of share capital by National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. The company initially paid a stamp duty of Rs. 1,12,80,000 in 1992, and a further Rs. 25 lakhs in a subsequent increase. The case examined whether the notice in Form No.5, pertaining to the increase of share capital, constitutes an "instrument" under the Stamp Act. [Paras 2, 6-9]

Definition and Application of "Instrument" – The court held that Form No.5 is not an "instrument" as defined under Section 2(l) of the Stamp Act. It serves to notify the Registrar of the increase in share capital and does not materially or substantially alter the Articles of Association. [Paras 6, 10, 14A]

Maximum Cap on Stamp Duty – The introduction of a maximum cap of Rs. 25 lakhs for stamp duty on Articles of Association by an amendment in 1994 led to a contention that every increase in share capital constitutes a separate event requiring fresh stamp duty. The court disagreed, holding that once the maximum cap is paid, no further duty can be levied for subsequent increases. [Paras 13-15]

Retrospective Effect and Refund – The court ruled that even though the amendment introducing the cap was not retrospective, the duty already paid on the same instrument (Articles of Association) should be considered for any subsequent increase in share capital after the cap's introduction. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to a refund of the Rs. 25 lakhs paid post-amendment. [Paras 18-19]

Decision: The appeal by the State of Maharashtra was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order, directing a refund of Rs. 25 lakhs with interest @ 6% per annum to the respondent.

Consumer Law- Partnership Dispute – Consumer Complaint – Jurisdiction – Alleged deficiency in service – Complaint filed by respondent No.1 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (DCDRF), alleging non-repayment of investment in partnership firm – Appellants, heirs of deceased partner, contesting liability – Appellants contend respondent No.1 was partner in firm as per registered partnership deed dated 27.05.1996 – No dissolution of registered deed proved – Status of complainant as partner deemed to continue until death of managing partner – Consumer complaint not maintainable for commercial dispute – Commercial transactions outside purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Appropriate remedy lies before Civil Court – Lack of evidence for appellants inheriting firm's liabilities upon death of partner – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) erred in upholding complaint – Orders of lower forums set aside – Complaint dismissed – Respondent No.1 may pursue alternative legal remedies.

Quashing of Bail Orders – Murder Case – High Court granted bail to the respondents (Abdullah, Nasir, and Muzammil) accused of murder – Appellant challenged the bail orders – Alleged involvement of respondents in the murder of Khursheed Ahmad – Appellant, an eyewitness, opposed the grant of bail – High Court granted bail without considering relevant material – Post-mortem report indicated severe assault leading to the death of the deceased – Cancellation of bail granted to co-accused Neyaz Ahmad by Supreme Court also relevant – Impugned bail orders set aside – Respondents directed to surrender within 10 days – Liberty granted to move fresh bail application – Observations made for decision purpose only, not on merits of the case. [Paras 2-10]