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]

Government Order - Modification - Clarificatory or substantive amendment - Retrospective application - Whether subsequent Government Order dated 29th March, 2001, which modified the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999, can be considered a clarification and applied retrospectively - Held, the subsequent Government Order is a substantial amendment that withdraws the benefit of two advance increments for a specific category of lecturers - It cannot be considered clarificatory in nature - Retrospective application would result in withdrawing vested rights of lecturers - The subsequent Government Order cannot be given retrospective effect. [Para 10, 10.3]

Incentives for lecturers - Purpose - The purpose of incentives provided in the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999, is to incentivize individuals with advanced qualifications to apply for lecturer positions and to retain qualified individuals in the teaching profession. [Para 10.1]

Eligibility for advance increments - Lecturers placed in selection grade - Lecturers who were placed in the selection grade before 29th March, 2001, are entitled to all the incentives stipulated in the Government Order dated 21st December, 1999. [Para 11]

Interpretation of statutes - Clarificatory provision - Expansion or alteration of original provision - An explanation/clarification may not expand or alter the scope of the original provision - Merely describing a provision as an "Explanation" or "clarification" is not decisive of its true meaning and import - The nature and purport of the amendment must be analyzed to determine whether it is clarificatory or substantive in nature. [Para 9.1, 9.2]

Presumption against retrospective operation - Declaratory statutes - Retrospective operation is generally intended for declaratory statutes - A declaratory act is an act to remove doubts existing as to the common law or the meaning or effect of any statute - An amendment may be considered declaratory if it removes doubt or corrects an obvious omission in a statute. [Para 8.2]

Vested rights - Withdrawal by subsequent amendment - A subsequent amendment that withdraws vested rights cannot be given retrospective effect - The withdrawal of anticipated benefits under the previously existing scheme is impermissible. [Para 10.2]

Decision: The present appeal is dismissed, affirming the judgments of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dated 13th October, 2015, and 10th August, 2016, respectively. Each party will bear their respective costs. [Para 12]

Insurance - Fire insurance claim - Assessment of loss by surveyor - Scope and relevance of surveyor's report - Surveyor's report not binding or conclusive - Other evidence and reports can be considered - Proximate cause of damage to be determined based on chain of events. (para 14)

Coverage under insurance policy - Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy - Fire accident during policy validity - Damage to insured property including machinery - Fire as proximate cause of damage - Policy coverage not in dispute.(para 17)

Importance of chain of events - Connection between fire and damage - Corrosion of machinery - Consideration of reports and evidence - Narrow construction based on duration of corrosion within 4 to 5 hours unjustified. (para 19)

Compensation and reimbursement - Actual loss suffered by insured - Assessment by surveyor - Revised assessment based on additional material - Claim limited to actual loss amount. (para 20)

Payment of compensation - Balance amount payable by insurer - Interest on balance amount - Timeframe for payment. (para 21)

Appeal allowed in part - Judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside - Insurer directed to pay balance amount with interest. (para 22)

Investigation of Scheduled Offences - De Novo Investigation - Discretion of Court - Whether the High Court has the power to order de novo investigation in a case involving scheduled offences - Held, the High Court has the power to order de novo investigation in appropriate cases, considering the circumstances and facts of the case. [Para 12]

Money Laundering - Jurisdictional Facts - Initiation of Investigation and Summons - Whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can initiate an investigation and issue summons without identifying the proceeds of crime or property representing the proceeds of crime - Held, the ED can initiate an investigation and issue summons based on allegations of corruption and illegal gratification, which constitute the proceeds of crime. [Para 99-105]

Inspection of Records by ED - Certified Copies of Unmarked Documents - Whether the ED is entitled to inspect the records of the Special Court trying the predicate offences and obtain certified copies of unmarked documents - Held, the ED can have inspection of documents under Rule 237 of the Rules, 2019 and file a proper copy application, but certified copies of unmarked documents shall not be given. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65B - Section 65B concerns the admissibility of electronic records. The absence of certification does not prevent the investigating agency from having access to electronic records, but certification is required for their admissibility as evidence in court proceedings. [Para 120-123]

Extension of Time for Further Investigation - Whether the High Court's refusal to grant an extension of time for further investigation renders the direction to conduct further investigation infructuous - Held, the direction to conduct further investigation remains valid even if the High Court refuses to grant an extension of time, and the Final Report filed under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is deemed as the continuation of further investigation. [Para 125-126]

Contempt Proceedings - Alleged Disobedience of Court Orders - Whether contempt proceedings can be initiated against police officials for alleged disobedience of court orders - Held, for the present, the alleged contemnors are not held guilty of willful disobedience as the blame cannot solely be laid at their doorstep, and the entire case was characterized by confusion. However, the petitioner is given the liberty to approach the court if future disobedience is observed. [Para 127-128]

Special Investigation Team and Special Public Prosecutor - Whether a Special Investigation Team should be constituted and a Special Public Prosecutor appointed in the case - Held, the application for the constitution of a Special Investigation Team is rejected at this stage, but the applicant is granted liberty to file a substantial petition seeking such a prayer if foul play is suspected in the future. [Para 130-132]

Decision - Appeals allowed, orders set aside, writ petitions dismissed, extension of time for further investigation granted, contempt petitions dismissed, application for impleadment dismissed - Pending applications disposed of. [Para 133]

Right to privacy of accused - Collection of voice sample - Grievance raised by petitioner that collection of voice sample without appropriate rules and standard operating system violates accused's right to privacy - Reference made to case of Ritesh Sinha vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 8 SCC 1 - Court held that until explicit provisions are enacted in CrPC by Parliament, Judicial Magistrate has power to order collection of voice sample for investigation of crime - Power conferred on Magistrate through judicial interpretation and Article 142 of Constitution - No infirmity found with impugned judgments ordering collection of voice sample - Petition dismissed. [Para 1-5]

Judicial interpretation - Power of Judicial Magistrate - Collection of voice sample - Until explicit provisions enacted in CrPC by Parliament, Judicial Magistrate has power to order collection of voice sample for investigation of crime - Power conferred through judicial interpretation and Article 142 of Constitution - Magistrate empowered to order collection of voice sample until explicit provisions are enacted. [Para 3]

Fundamental right to privacy - Not absolute - Must yield to compelling public interest - Right to privacy of accused not violated by judicial order compelling voice sample - Right to privacy subject to compelling public interest - No violation of fundamental right to privacy under Article 20(3) of Constitution in collection of voice sample for investigation of crime. [Para 2]

Testamentary matter - Original Will not traceable - Request for copy of Will and probate - Destruction of Records Act, 1917 - Court cannot order investigation into the fate of the Will based on mere guesswork - Relief cannot be granted when the petitioner has not seen the copy of the Will and is unaware of its contents. [Para 23]

 Preservation of Will - Obligation of respondents to furnish details and records - Original Will should be kept in safe custody or returned to the executor after probate - However, if the original Will is not traceable after a long period of time, relief cannot be granted without proper evidence. [Para 16, 22]

Probate proceedings - Executor's fulfillment of responsibilities - Executor obtained probate, filed inventory, and submitted final accounts as required by law - No complaints regarding improper distribution of assets - Dismissal of the Writ Petition upheld. [Para 18]

Lack of evidence - Petitioner's limited knowledge of the Will's contents - Court unable to order investigation or provide relief - High Court's decision not to grant relief affirmed. [Para 23]

Special Leave Petition dismissed - No costs. [Para 23]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Interpretation of 'complainant' - Multiple consumers filing joint complaint - Whether falls under Section 12(1)(a) or Section 12(1)(b) - Held, the definition of 'complainant' under Section 2(b)(i) of the 1986 Act includes multiple consumers - Joint complaint falls under Section 12(1)(a) - Broad and inclusive interpretation to be given - Plural interpretation of 'complaint' is maintainable. (Para 19)

 Pecuniary jurisdiction - Determination - Aggregate value of goods or services and compensation claimed - Determinative factors - Held, for determining pecuniary jurisdiction, the aggregate value of goods or services and compensation claimed in the complaint is relevant - Total value in case of joint complaints to be considered. (Para 21, 22)

Representative capacity - Joint complaint by multiple consumers - Maintainability - Held, a joint complaint by multiple consumers seeking redressal for their own grievances without representing other consumers having the same interest is maintainable under Section 35(1)(c). (Para 35)

Technical approach - Detrimental to consumerism - Held, a pedantic and hyper-technical approach should be avoided as it would cause damage to the very concept of consumerism. (Para 23)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Compliance with directions of State Registrar - Effect on proceedings - Held, compliance with the directions of the State Registrar and amendment to bylaws, without prejudice to contentions, should lead to the revival of proceedings. (Para 14)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Procedural issues and legal disputes - Adjournment of proceedings - Effect - Held, procedural issues and legal disputes should not unduly delay the proceedings - National Commission directed to proceed expeditiously. (Para 23)