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].

Criminal Law – Delay in Delivery of Judgment – Long delay in delivering judgment causes unnecessary speculation among parties – Emphasized need for timely pronouncement to uphold confidence in the judicial system [Paras 6.1, 6.2].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Mini Trial – High Court exceeded jurisdiction by virtually conducting a mini trial while deciding application under Section 482 CrPC – Mini trial at this stage is impermissible – High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings unsustainable [Paras 7-7.1].

Scope of Investigation – Larger Conspiracy – High Court failed to appreciate the interconnected nature of two FIRs and larger conspiracy allegations – Quashing criminal proceedings narrows scope of necessary investigation [Paras 7.2-7.4].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment quashing criminal proceedings set aside – Criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5694 of 2019 restored to file [Para 8].

Selection Process – Award of Marks for Experience – Appellant contested the denial of marks for prior experience as a daily wager – High Court failed to consider the merits of this plea – Specific challenge was against the Selection Committee's decision – High Court should have adjudicated on whether the Selection Committee's actions were justified [Paras 2-3].

Eligibility Criteria – Qualifications of Selected Candidate – Appellant contended that respondent no.6 did not meet the eligibility criteria of having experience in a Computer Science Lab – High Court did not assess this claim on merits, deferring to the Selection Committee’s decision without judicial review – Matter remanded to Single Judge for fresh consideration on both issues [Paras 2-3].

Judicial Review – Scope of High Court’s Power – High Court’s refusal to interfere with the Selection Committee’s decisions on the grounds of judicial review was erroneous – High Court required to examine if the Selection Committee's actions were arbitrary or unjustified [Para 3].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgments of Single Judge and Division Bench set aside – Case remanded to Single Judge to reconsider writ petition on merits regarding the awarding of marks for experience and the qualifications of respondent no.6 – Parties allowed to submit additional documents within four weeks – Single Judge to complete hearing within six months [Paras 4].

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Permanent Disability - The claimant, a five-and-a-half-year-old child at the time of the accident, suffered 100% permanent disability due to multiple severe injuries, including cerebral edema, spinal cord injuries, and paralysis. The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 900,000, which the High Court enhanced to Rs. 2,320,000. The Supreme Court further considered the adequacy of compensation based on the claimant's lifelong needs and disabilities​​.

Compensation Enhancement - Pain and Suffering - The court recognized the claimant's lifelong pain, suffering, and inability to lead a normal life due to the permanent disability. The compensation for pain, shock, and suffering was determined by considering prolonged hospitalization, medical treatment, and the inability to compete in normal life activities​​.

Future Loss of Earnings - The court applied the multiplier method to calculate future loss of earnings, recognizing the claimant's inability to perform professional work similar to others due to physical limitations. The High Court's calculation for only 10 years was deemed inadequate, and the multiplier of 18 was applied to determine the future loss of earnings​​.

Attendant Charges - The court acknowledged the need for lifelong attendant care for the claimant due to the severity of his injuries. The attendant charges were enhanced, applying the multiplier method for a more realistic and reasonable compensation​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed in part - The Supreme Court enhanced the total compensation to Rs. 5,162,000, deducting the amount already awarded by the High Court. The enhanced amount of Rs. 2,842,000 is to carry interest at 6.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realization​​.

Disciplinary Proceedings - Nullity - Time Limit - The High Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were nullity as they were not completed within the time limit prescribed by the Tribunal. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that fixing a time limit by the Tribunal does not equate to a statutory mandate that renders proceedings null and void if not adhered to​​.

Extension of Time - The Supreme Court emphasized that Courts/Tribunals have inherent power to extend time periods set for procedural compliance and that such periods are often in terrorem to prevent dilatory tactics rather than absolute cut-offs​​.

Procedural Mandates - The Supreme Court observed that procedural mandates, such as time limits for completing disciplinary proceedings, should not invalidate substantive proceedings unless explicitly stated as a consequence of non-compliance​​.

Decision: Appeal allowed - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and reinstated the Tribunal's order, allowing the respondent to prefer an appeal against the disciplinary authority's order within 30 days, which should be considered on merits without influence from previous observations​​.

Rent and Eviction - Mesne Profits - Termination of Tenancy - After passing the decree of eviction, the tenancy terminates, and from the said date, the landlord is entitled to mesne profits or compensation for being deprived of the use of the premises. The determination of mesne profits should be equivalent to the market rent required to be paid by a person holding over the property​​.

Rent and Eviction - Mesne Profits - Appellate Court Jurisdiction - The appellate court has the jurisdiction to impose reasonable terms and conditions, including the determination of mesne profits, to compensate the decree holder for the loss occasioned by the delay in the execution of the decree while granting a stay​​.

Old Act vs. New Act - The suit filed under the provisions of the Old Act before the commencement of the New Act continues to be governed by the Old Act, as per Section 32(3) of the New Act. Thus, the provisions of the New Act, including the limit on mesne profits, do not apply to pending suits under the Old Act​​.

Decision: Appeals dismissed - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order directing the appellants to pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 250,000 per month. The court found the determination of mesne profits just, equitable, and reasonable, considering the location and commercial nature of the property​​.

Service Law – Direct Recruitment – Inter-se merit list – Preparation of inter-se merit list of selected candidates is inevitable even in the absence of an explicit provision in the rule or policy. The recruitment authority cannot place the candidates inter-se in the select list under the rule of thumb or by adopting a methodology inconsistent with the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 15-16, 29]​​.

Service Law – Promotion – Merit-cum-seniority – For promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, seniority by itself is not the only qualification. Comparative merit must be evaluated, with seniority being one of the factors only. Even a junior person may be promoted over seniors based on merit [Para 16]​​.

Rosters and Reservation – Roster points – Roster system is for ensuring the quantum of reservation in the recruitment process. It does not determine the inter-se seniority among those recruited collectively or deemed to be appointed on the same date [Paras 16, 29]​​.

Decision – Special Leave Petition Dismissed – Seniority should be fixed in accordance with merit determined by the Public Service Commission and not based on roster points. High Court's decision affirmed, emphasizing the precedence of merit over roster points for seniority purposes [Paras 32-33]​​.

Constitutional Law – Double Jeopardy – Accused having undergone trial and acquitted of offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC cannot be subjected to another trial for the same charges on the same facts – Re-trial would violate Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC [Para 24.2]​​.

Criminal Procedure – Territorial Jurisdiction – Offences under Section 376 IPC occurred in Delhi and were separate from those under Sections 504 and 506 IPC which occurred in Chamoli – Charges under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, already tried and concluded, do not form the same transaction as Section 376 IPC – Sessions Judge rightly discharged the accused for lack of territorial jurisdiction for Section 376 IPC [Paras 1-26]​​.

Criminal Procedure – Separate Charges – Offences under Sections 504, 506, and 376 IPC not forming part of the same transaction cannot be tried together under Section 220 CrPC – Alleged rape (Section 376 IPC) distinct and separate from alleged insults and threats (Sections 504 and 506 IPC) [Paras 20-22.2]​​.

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Discharge of the accused under Section 376 IPC by the Sessions Judge upheld – No re-trial for offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC due to acquittal and bar of double jeopardy [Paras 25-26]​​.

Court Fees – Suit Valuation – Nature of relief decisive for suit valuation – Market value of property involved in litigation not decisive for suit valuation – Plaintiff entitled to value the relief of injunctions and damages separately – High Court erred in considering market value for determining suit valuation [Paras 1-15]​​.

Injunctions – Suit for Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunctions – Suit for mandatory injunction to remove defendants from property after termination of license maintainable – Valuation for mandatory injunction not required to be at market value of property – Plaintiff valued reliefs appropriately under Section 7(iv)(d) of the Court Fees Act [Paras 9-10, 13-15]​​.

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court's order returning plaint for re-filing based on market value set aside – Trial Court's order rejecting defendant's application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC restored – No observations on merits of the case, left open for pending appeal [Paras 14-15]​​.