Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings – Declaration of Title – Procedural Compliance – Preparation of the statement of land held in excess of ceiling limit under Section 11 of the Act based on information from the return filed under Section 9 or from an enquiry under Section 10 – Draft statement to be published and served on all interested parties – Mandate to notify parties involved in pending litigation to avoid violation of natural justice – Held, non-compliance with procedural requirements invalidates the acquisition of surplus land [Paras 1-31].

Property Rights – Article 300A – Constitutional Protection –

Right to property as a constitutional right under Article 300A – Deprivation of property must follow legal procedure – Statutory compliance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act essential to uphold property rights – Breach of statutory provisions constitutes a violation of constitutional rights [Paras 28-30].

Jurisdiction – Maintainability of Civil Suit –Bar of jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Act does not apply where the provisions of Section 11(4) and 11(5) are invoked – Civil suit maintainable within three months of the order under Section 11(4) – Non-compliance with the statutory provisions renders the competent authority's actions invalid – Suit filed within the statutory period held maintainable [Paras 25-27].

Decision- Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Order of the first appellate court restored – Competent authority directed to comply with statutory provisions and await the decision in related pending suits before proceeding [Para 31].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) – Retrospective Amendment – Constitutionality of the retrospective application of Section 7 as amended by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2019 – Petitioners challenged the requirement for minimum thresholds for initiating insolvency proceedings, arguing it impairs vested rights – Supreme Court upheld the amendments, finding them reasonable and necessary for public interest and the economic stability of the country.

Vested Rights – Financial Creditors – Court recognized the vested right of financial creditors who filed applications under the unamended Section 7 – However, it held that such rights can be modified by retrospective legislation provided it meets the test of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and public interest [Paras 310-345].

Article 14, 19, and 21 – Test of Manifest Arbitrariness – Court examined whether the retrospective application of the amendments was capricious, irrational, or excessive – Concluded that the amendments were justified by public interest, noting a ten-fold increase in applications and potential adverse impacts on the insolvency process [Paras 340-370].

Withdrawal of Pending Applications – Applications pending under the unamended Section 7, which did not meet the new threshold, were to be treated as withdrawn – Court clarified that this does not prevent filing fresh applications if compliant with the amended provisions – Allowed condonation of delay in filing new applications due to time spent in earlier proceedings [Paras 346-358].

Court Fees – Exemption from court fees granted to petitioners filing fresh applications within two months from the judgment, applicable to the same default and subject matter, to mitigate financial burden [Paras 371-373].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed – Amendments upheld – Directions issued under Article 142 to allow fresh applications without court fees and to condone delays considering time spent in previous applications.

Contempt of Court – Family Dispute – Alleged Wilful Disobedience of Court Orders – Petitioner contended respondents wilfully disobeyed undertakings given to the court in company management issues – Court examined interim orders and actions taken by respondents, including appointment of Facilitator by CLB – Held, mere taking of legal recourse does not constitute contempt – No wilful or intentional disobedience proven [Paras 1-79].

Company Law – Oppression and Mismanagement – Maintainability of Petition – Petitioner's objections to maintainability under Sections 397/398 of the Companies Act addressed – CLB's interim measures for company management upheld – Court emphasized necessity for harmonious management per consent terms [Paras 68-71].

Jurisdiction – Interim Orders and Contempt – Objection to jurisdiction does not prevent court from issuing interim orders – Such orders are binding until jurisdiction is decided – No contempt found in pursuing legal remedies through CLB [Paras 77-79].

Decision-Contempt petition dismissed – Court found no wilful or deliberate breach of undertakings – Emphasized compliance with legal processes and interim orders as binding [Para 79].

Transfer of Property – Agreement for Sale – An agreement for sale of immovable property does not itself create any interest in or charge on such property – A person having an agreement for sale in his favour does not get any right in the property except the right of obtaining a sale deed on that basis – Validity and genuineness of sale agreement questioned due to its mention in the Will and the circumstances of its execution – High Court's findings reversed and Trial Court's decree restored [Paras 1-58].

Partition Suit – Maintainability without Declaration – Suit for partition filed without seeking a declaration against the sale agreement's validity – Submission that such a suit is not maintainable – Supreme Court finds that partition can be claimed among co-sharers without separately challenging agreements that may affect title – Appeal allowed based on the incompetence of the respondents' appeal after the abatement due to the death of a co-sharer [Paras 34-38, 48-50].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's decree set aside – Trial Court's decree restored – Suit for partition declared maintainable without the need for a separate declaration regarding the sale agreement – Costs awarded to plaintiff-appellant [Paras 60].

Probation – Young Offenders – Applicability Despite Mandatory Minimum Sentence – Mandatory minimum sentences under Section 397 of IPC do not exclude the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Court found that the Act's provisions could still be applied in cases where young offenders are involved, aiming at reformation and rehabilitation – Appellants, aged 19 and 21 at the time of the offence, were granted probation after serving half of their sentences in view of good conduct and victim's forgiveness [Paras 1-16].

Criminal Law – Robbery and Attempt to Cause Grievous Hurt – Sentencing and Probation –

Despite statutory mandatory minimum sentences, courts can apply the Probation of Offenders Act for young offenders – Section 4 of the Act, which allows probation, was deemed applicable even when Section 397 IPC prescribes a minimum sentence – Court considered the nature of the offence, character of the offenders, and the surrounding circumstances [Paras 5-14].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Appellants released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, after serving half the sentence – Required to enter into bonds with sureties to ensure good behaviour for the remaining sentence period [Para 16].

Land Acquisition – Interest on Solatium – Entitlement in Execution –Interest on solatium for land acquisition is permissible in execution if not expressly rejected by the decree – Reference Court awarded interest, but High Court clarification stated claimants not entitled until the Supreme Court's larger bench decision – Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh clarified that interest can be claimed in pending executions and not in closed ones – High Court’s judgment confirmed entitlement to interest on solatium as claim was kept open [Paras 2-10].

Execution of Decree – Scope and Limitations –Execution court cannot go behind the decree – If interest on solatium not expressly rejected, it can be claimed under the ratio of Sunder v. Union of India – Pending execution petitions eligible for claiming such interest – High Court allowed claimants to move appropriate applications following the Supreme Court’s larger bench decision [Paras 7-9].

Judicial Review – Application of Constitutional Bench Decisions –Supreme Court confirms High Court's interpretation in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Gurpreet Singh – Claimants' right to interest on solatium upheld as it was not rejected earlier – Application for interest on solatium tenable since execution was pending [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court's decision upheld – Claimants entitled to interest on solatium from the date of judgment in Sunder v. Union of India (19 September 2001) – Reference court to verify computations – Costs deposited in the Supreme Court to be disbursed to the claimants [Paras 10-12].

Inter-State Sales – Exemption – Classification of Transactions –Appellant claimed exemption under Section 5(2) of the CST Act, asserting transactions were high seas sales – Transactions reviewed involved filing bills of entry for home consumption – Held, upon clearing goods by filing bill of entry for home consumption, import stream concluded, and goods merged with local goods – Resultant sales were inter-State sales under Section 3(a) – High Court upheld CTO’s assessment, rejecting appellant's claim for exemption under Section 5(2) [Paras 1-16].

Customs Frontiers – Transfer of Title – Legal Interpretation –Title transfer through high seas sale agreements examined – Filing bill of entry for home consumption deemed to end import stream – Subsequent sales to end-buyers constituted inter-State sales – Dispute over importer status clarified: customs duty assessed on appellant, not end-buyer – High seas sale agreements invalidated by customs clearance actions [Paras 5-15].

Judicial Review – Scope of Writ Jurisdiction –Appellant bypassed statutory appeal, directly challenging CTO orders via writ petitions – High Court noted limited scope of writ jurisdiction in reassessing factual findings – High Court dismissed writ petitions, confirming CTO's findings based on factual matrix and statutory compliance [Para 14].

Decision:Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Transactions treated as inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of the CST Act – Appellant held liable for tax – Directed to comply with assessment orders and produce C-Forms for concessional tax rate within specified timeframe [Paras 16].

Right to Nutrition – Public Interest Litigation – Reopening of Anganwadi Centres –

Petition sought reopening of Anganwadi Centres closed due to the pandemic – Centres provide crucial nutrition to children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers, which is essential for the country's future – Court directed reopening of Anganwadi Centres outside containment zones by January 31, 2021, unless directed otherwise by State Disaster Management Authority – Centres in containment zones to remain closed – States/UTs must ensure compliance with nutritional standards under Schedule II of the National Food Security Act, 2013 – Monitoring and supervision mechanisms to be established, with a complaint redressal system in each district [Paras 1-35].

Constitutional Law – Right to Food and Nutrition – Article 21 –

Right to nutrition linked to the right to life under Article 21 – Adequate nutrition essential for health and development, especially of children and women – Government obliged to provide food and nutritional support as per statutory requirements – Inadequate nutrition violates the fundamental right to health and dignity [Paras 17-19].

 Directive Principles – Article 47 –State's primary duty to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living – Statutory recognition of Anganwadi Centres under the National Food Security Act, 2013 – Essential services provided through these centres, including nutrition, health, and education – Closure due to COVID-19 impacted beneficiaries, necessitating reopening with safety protocols [Paras 2, 19-20].

Decision- Writ petition allowed – All States/UTs directed to reopen Anganwadi Centres outside containment zones by January 31, 2021 – Nutritional standards under Schedule II of the National Food Security Act, 2013 to be met – Monitoring and supervision to ensure benefits reach beneficiaries – Complaint Redressal Mechanism to be implemented in each district [Para 35].

Income Tax – Deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) – The appeals involved the interpretation of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(4) of the Income Tax Act, concerning the eligibility of cooperative societies providing credit facilities to their members. The Supreme Court held that the benevolent provisions of Section 80P must be read liberally and in favor of the assessee. The Court clarified that a cooperative society registered under a state law is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) if it is engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, irrespective of whether the credit facilities are agricultural or not. The Court also emphasized that Section 80P(4) is a proviso, specifically excluding cooperative banks that function akin to commercial banks [Paras 1-27, 31-36].

Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer – The Court held that assessing officers could examine the factual activities of a cooperative society to determine if it is indeed providing credit facilities to its members. Such an inquiry does not go behind the registration but ensures compliance with the principal object of the society [Paras 28-30, 32].

Eligibility vs. Attributability – The Court differentiated between eligibility for deduction and attributability of profits. While a society may be eligible for deduction if it provides credit facilities to its members, the profits attributable to loans given to non-members cannot be deducted under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) [Paras 33-34].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Held – The Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court was set aside. The Court affirmed that cooperative societies registered under the relevant state act are entitled to deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i), provided they are engaged in the specified activities. The exclusion under Section 80P(4) applies only to cooperative banks with RBI licenses [Paras 35-36].