Indefeasible right to claim default bail - Filing of chargesheet - Error in filing chargesheet in wrong court - Committal proceedings - Applicability - Whether error in filing chargesheet in the wrong court affects the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC - Held, the error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail - Committal proceedings are not warranted in prosecutions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions - Appellants failed to file an application for statutory/default bail on the 91st day when the chargesheet had not been filed - Failure to file such an application extinguishes the right to default bail - Sayed Mohd. Ahmad Kazmi v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Others, (2012) 12 SCC 1, followed. [Para 72, 76, 77]

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 16 - Cognizance of offences by Special Court - Filing of chargesheet in wrong court - Effect - Filing of chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail - Committal proceedings are not warranted in prosecutions under the UAPA by the NIA as the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions. [Para 68, 72]

Filing of final report - Error in filing chargesheet in wrong court - Committal proceedings - Effect - Error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not affect the right of the accused to seek statutory/default bail - Committal proceedings are not warranted in prosecutions under the UAPA by the NIA as the Special Court acts as one of the original jurisdictions. [Para 72, 73]

Indefeasible right to claim bail - Filing of chargesheet - Error in filing chargesheet in wrong court - Committal proceedings - Applicability - Error in filing the chargesheet in the wrong court does not grant the accused an indefeasible right to seek statutory/default bail - The right to default bail remains enforceable if the accused has applied for such bail before the filing of the chargesheet or a report seeking an extension of time by the prosecution - Failure to apply for default bail when the right accrues extinguishes the right to default bail. [Para 72, 77]

Appeal Dismissed.

Scope and ambit of power and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India - Court's power to depart from the procedure and substantive laws based on considerations of fundamental general and specific public policy - Exercise of discretion to do complete justice in a "cause or matter" - Court as a problem solver balancing equities between conflicting claims - Power to dissolve marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent and quashing other connected proceedings including criminal prosecutions - Care and caution to be exercised - Factors to be considered - Dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. Para 8-13

Divorce - Dissolution of marriage by mutual consent - Exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India - Supreme Court's discretion to dissolve marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent without following the procedural requirements of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act - Quashing and disposal of other connected proceedings - Care and caution to be exercised - Factors to be considered - Balancing equities between conflicting claims - Dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown. Para 42(ii)

Divorce - Irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Supreme Court's power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown in spite of the other spouse opposing the prayer - Exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India - Discretion to dissolve marriage when marriage has completely failed and there is no possibility of cohabitation - Balancing circumstances and background of the party opposing the dissolution - Doing complete justice to the parties. Para 42(iii)

Writ jurisdiction - Divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown - Filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage - Not permissible - Parties to approach superior tribunal/forum for redressal of grievances - Writ jurisdiction for enforcement of rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India - Judicial orders passed in proceedings pending before a court not amenable to correction under Article 32. Para 1-7, 14-23, 41

Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Reference to arbitration - Non-arbitrable dispute - Validity of arbitration agreement - Scope and interpretation - Whether parties required to be referred to arbitration - Examination of record and relevant law - Held, dispute cannot be bifurcated and referred to arbitration partially, as the entire subject matter of the suit should be subject to arbitration agreement - Reliefs claimed in the suit fall outside the scope of the arbitration clause - No ancillary relationship between main agreement and tripartite agreement lacking arbitration clause - Amendments to Section 8 of the Act do not benefit the appellant - Principles enunciated in Vidya Drolia case not applicable - Prayers for reference to arbitration under Section 8 cannot be granted - View taken by Commercial Court and High Court not suffering from any infirmity - Appeals dismissed - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 8 - Sukanya Holdings case discussed - Vidya Drolia case discussed - Intercontinental Hotels Group case discussed - Oil and Natural Gas Corporation case discussed - Memos filed by appellant and subsequent purchasers deemed ineffective. Appeal Dismissed.

                     [Para 10, 11, 13, 17, 17.1, 18, 18.1, 19, 19.1, 19.2, 20, 21]

Land Dispute & Title Confirmation – Civil suit filed by Ram Balak Singh for confirmation of possession over land originally settled on his predecessor by a lease agreement – Suit land recorded under the appellant’s name by the Consolidation Officer, an order which achieved finality and was not contested by the state – Initial trial court decision in favor of appellant, but reversed by appellate court and upheld by High Court – Supreme Court restores trial court’s decision, decreeing the suit in favor of the appellant, holding that rights determined by the Consolidation Officer under the Consolidation Act cannot be ignored or reversed by civil courts. [Paras 1-26]

Consolidation Act & Jurisdiction of Civil Courts – Discussion on the scope of Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, which bars civil courts from varying or setting aside any decisions or orders passed under the Act – Supreme Court clarifies that the civil suit filed was not to challenge the consolidation order but to affirm the rights granted by it, thus not barred under Section 37 – The civil courts lack competence to alter the final orders of the consolidation authorities regarding land rights. [Paras 12-25]

Role of Appellant and State Authorities – Appellant confirmed as the adopted son and rightful possessor of the disputed land – State’s claim on the land as pond land rejected due to lack of challenge against the consolidation order and failure to assert any rights during legal proceedings. [Paras 17-24]

Decision – Restoration of Trial Court’s Decree – Supreme Court set aside appellate judgments, restored trial court’s decree confirming plaintiff’s title and possession – Held that consolidation authorities’ decision is final and conclusive, barring civil courts from challenging or ignoring such decisions, underlining the sanctity of consolidation proceedings – Suit filed by plaintiff declared maintainable, contrary to appellate courts’ judgment – Appeal allowed without order as to costs. [Paras 26-27]

Property Law – Lease and Specific Performance – Expiry of Lease – Denial of Renewal – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant sought specific performance of a lease clause for renewal, but both Trial Court and High Court held the original lessor entitled to repossess – Held: Lease expired, no enforceable right to renew exists – Appellant directed to vacate possession as per settlement [Paras 3–4, 7].

Mesne Profits – Reduced by Settlement – Decree Modified – Mesne profits originally fixed at Rs. 50,000 per day with interest – By consent, reduced to Rs. 23,000 per day without interest – Balance to be cleared with bank guarantee by April 2026 – Settlement agreement recorded as Court undertaking [Paras 6–7, 12–13].

Educational Institution – Interim Relocation – Protection Under Article 142 – Permission Granted – The institute was permitted to temporarily shift to an alternate site not meeting AICTE land norms for 2 years due to student hardship – Held: Special facts warranted relief – AICTE and Mangalore University directed not to insist on long-term lease requirement for interim period [Paras 10, 17–18].

Equity and Article 142 – Court Intervention to Prevent Student Disruption – Directions Issued – Despite AICTE guidelines, the Court intervened to prevent disruption to education of 250 enrolled students – Order passed under Article 142 to continue affiliation and allow transition to compliant campus within two years [Paras 18–19].

Decision – Appeal Disposed of in Terms of Settlement – Educational Institute Protected Temporarily – Appeals were disposed of based on settlement agreement – Institute permitted to operate from alternate premises until April 2027, subject to compliance and final relocation – Fee of mediator fixed and settlement treated as undertaking to Court [Paras 18–21].

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 4A(b) - Control and management of company - Determination - Principles of law - Control and management must be de facto and not merely theoretical - Domicile or registration of the company irrelevant - Determining factor is where the sole right to manage and control lies. [Para 8]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 147/148 - Reassessment - Escaped income - AO empowered to assess or reassess escaped income - Reassessment possible if there has been under-assessment based on information in possession of AO. [Para 11]

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 234A - Interest on default in furnishing return of income - Mandatory and automatic - No power of waiver or reduction - Levy of interest outside purview of settlement under Chapter XIX-A. [Para 12]

Burden of proof - Claim of income earned in specific jurisdiction - Burden on assessee to establish and prove - Failure to produce evidence results in adverse inference. [Para 9]

Jurisdiction - Validity of notice issued by AO - Control and management of company relevant in determining jurisdiction - Notices valid when served on person with control and management of company. [Para 9]

Tax liability - Income earned by way of commission - Burden on assessee to prove genuineness of commission - Non-compliance by persons allegedly paying commission results in adverse inference - Burden not shifted to AO to prove otherwise. [Para 10]

Interest - Levy of interest as per workings in assessment order sufficient - Interest under Section 234A mandatory and automatic - Constitution Bench decision in Anjum M.H. Ghaswala applicable - Subsequent decisions following the same. [Para 12]

Appeals - Findings of AO, CIT(A), and High Court - No error in overturning ITAT's findings - Supreme Court in agreement with conclusions on control and management, jurisdiction, income earned, and levy of interest. [Para 14]

Appeal Dismissed.

Preventive Detention - Applicability and Compatibility of Judgments - Friction between Two Sets of Judgments - Resolution - Provisions of Preventive Detention Acts - Detaining Authority and Government as Separate Entities - COFEPOSA Act and Preventive Detention Act - Symbiotic Application of Judgments - No Conflict - No Need for Reference to Larger Bench. Para No: 30-35

Delay in Consideration of Representation - Grounds for Quashing Detention Order - Applicability of Article 22(5) of the Constitution - Illegible Documents in Foreign Language - Prejudice to Detenue's Right to Representation - Principle of Parity - Quashing of Detention Order - Principle of Parity Applies When Similarly Placed Co-detenue Granted Relief - Relief Extended to Similarly Placed Detenues. Para No: 36-43

Importance of Procedural Rigidity - Checks and Balances on Government's Power in Preventive Detention - Protection of Civil Liberties - Preserving Constitutional Ethos - Duty of Courts to Safeguard Individual and Civil Liberties - Act of Preserving Constitutional Ethos Against Arbitrary Power. Para No: 44

Setting Aside Detention Order - Release of Appellant - Clarity on Point of Law - Appellant's Release on Grounds of Expiry of Detention Period - Impugned Detention Order Liable to be Set Aside - Appeal Allowed. Para No: 45   

Judicial discretion - Exercise of - Observations against judicial officer - Cancellation of bail - High Court making adverse observations against appellant, a judicial officer, regarding exercise of discretion in a criminal petition related to cancellation of bail - High Court directing appellant to undergo training at Judicial Academy - Supreme Court setting aside directions and expunging observations - Emphasis on providing opportunity to person concerned before making adverse orders affecting career and esteem.

Opportunity of hearing - Adverse orders - Career and esteem of person affected - Supreme Court indicating that orders affecting career and esteem should not be made without providing opportunity of hearing to the person concerned - Setting aside directions and expunging observations made against appellant without such opportunity - Emphasis on fairness and due process.

High Court directions - Observations against appellant - Set aside - Supreme Court setting aside directions contained in High Court's order and expunging observations made against appellant, a judicial officer, regarding exercise of discretion - Directions found unjustified - Observations against appellant expunged.

Appeal allowed - Directions and observations set aside - Supreme Court allowing appeal of appellant, a judicial officer, insofar as adverse directions and observations made against her by High Court are concerned.

Constitutional Challenge Against Borrowing Restrictions – Kerala challenges Amendment Act No. 13 of 2018 amending Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003, and subsequent Union's letters imposing borrowing ceilings - Asserts Union exceeded powers under Article 293 - Seeks interim injunction to borrow INR 26,226 crores [Paras 1-3, 5]

Challenging Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act Amendments and Borrowing Ceilings – State of Kerala v. Union of India – Constitutional Law – Article 131 – Plaintiff, State of Kerala, institutes suit against Union of India under Article 131 of the Constitution, challenging the amendments to the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act, 2003 and the imposition of a borrowing ceiling on states. Raises substantial questions on interpretation of Constitution, particularly regarding state’s rights under Article 293 and the Union government’s powers. Court refers matter to larger bench for authoritative interpretation. [Paras 1-10]

Interim Relief for State Borrowing Request Denied – Analysis of Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Injury – The Plaintiff seeks interim injunction for restoring previous borrowing position and to borrow INR 26,226 crores immediately. Supreme Court, applying the Triple-Test, finds that the State fails to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable injury. Observes that granting interim relief may adversely affect national fiscal health, hence interim relief denied. [Paras 11-37]

Referral to Larger Bench – Key Constitutional Questions Identified – Court identifies pivotal questions regarding the interpretation of Article 293 and its impact on fiscal federalism and the Union government’s regulation of state borrowings. Matter referred to a five-judge bench for comprehensive examination. [Paras 8, 10]

Decision – Interim Application Dismissed, Main Case Referred to Larger Bench – The Court holds that the State of Kerala is not entitled to the interim injunction it sought and refers the main case to a larger bench for decision on constitutional questions. Clarifies that observations made are for limited purpose of deciding interim application and do not affect final outcome. [Paras 38-40]