Facts:

The case involves a situation where the Governor was intimated about the resignations of certain Members belonging to a political party. The Chief Minister advised the Governor for the removal of some ministers, and notices of disqualification were issued. Subsequently, the Speaker accepted resignations of some ministers. The Chief Minister requested a floor test to resolve the situation. However, no floor test was conducted, and the Legislative Assembly was adjourned.

Issues:

• Whether the Governor's exercise of power to convene a floor test was constitutionally proper
• Whether the convening of a trust vote can be deferred until the Speaker decides on issues of resignation and disqualification.

Held:

The Governor's role is to ensure the stability and accountability of the government to the legislative assembly. The Governor's discretionary powers should maintain a balance of power between the executive and the legislature. [Para 32, 37]

The concept of legislative assembly's control over the government is crucial in a parliamentary democracy. The Governor's power to call a trust vote is not meant to displace elected governments but to intervene cautiously when circumstances suggest a loss of majority. Judicial review is applicable to the Governor's decision. [Para 39, 43, 44]

The Governor's power to call for a floor test should be exercised to ensure that the legislative assembly's authority to determine confidence in the government is upheld. No reason exists for the Governor to delay the ordinary legislative process of a no-confidence motion. The Governor is expected to act impartially. [Para 45, 46]

The Governor's exercise of authority to convene a floor test, given the context of the case, was constitutionally proper. The trust vote is essential to ascertain the government's confidence and legitimacy. The Speaker's authority to decide on resignations and disqualifications remains intact. [Para 47, 48, 49]

The Court cannot mandate a trust vote only in the presence of all Members or postpone it until by-elections occur. The decision to attend the proceedings is up to the individual Members. The Court aims to prevent restraint on their rights and liberties. [Para 50, 51, 54, 55, 56]

Facts:

The respondent, an employee of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), served in the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) during a certain period. He claimed deputation allowance and special allowance for his service in the NDRF. The question was whether personnel from various Central Para Military Forces, including the respondent, were on deputation during their service in the NDRF.

Issues:

• Whether the respondent and similarly situated personnel were on deputation during their service with the NDRF.
• Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting relief with nationwide implications.

Held:

The Court analyzed the concept of deputation, emphasizing that it involves the temporary assignment of an employee from one department to another in the public interest. Until September 11, 2009, the respondent remained under the administrative control of the CISF and received pay from them, indicating he was not on deputation. However, from September 11, 2009, when control shifted to the NDRF and pay started coming from it, the personnel were deemed to be on deputation.

The Court criticized the High Court for overstepping its jurisdiction in granting nationwide relief. High Courts have jurisdiction only over their respective states, unlike the Supreme Court which has pan-India jurisdiction. The Supreme Court directed payment of deputation allowance to the respondent from September 11, 2009, to October 7, 2011.The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The assessment proceedings for NDTV involved allegations of creating a network of shell companies to transfer untaxed income abroad and then back to India, thus avoiding taxation. The revenue relied on complaints made by minority shareholders suggesting such misconduct.

Issues:

• Whether there were sufficient reasons to believe that NDTV's undisclosed income escaped assessment.
• Whether NDTV made a full and true disclosure of relevant material facts.
• Whether the second proviso to Section 147 was applicable in this case.

Held:

Issue 1 - Invocation of Powers under Section 147: The Court held that information discovered during proceedings for subsequent assessment years could form tangible material to invoke powers under Section 147. At the notice issuance stage, the assessing officer only requires a prima facie view. The material disclosed for subsequent years sufficed to establish such a view. Thus, there were grounds to believe that income escaped assessment (Paragraph 23).

Issue 2 - Disclosure of Material Facts: The Court determined that NDTV fully and truly disclosed all necessary material facts for assessment. The assessing officer had knowledge of all entities, transactions, and relevant details. Therefore, NDTV did not withhold material information from the revenue (Paragraphs 26, 28, 29).

Issue 3 - Applicability of Second Proviso to Section 147: The Court found the notice silent about the second proviso to Section 147, which relates to the extended 16-year period. Mention of the second proviso was introduced only when rejecting objections. The Court ruled that the revenue couldn't surprise NDTV by invoking the second proviso at a later stage, thereby disallowing its benefit (Paragraphs 38, 43,).

Accordingly the appeal allowed.

Mangat Ram had four sons, and his family tree branched into different lineages. The appellant, Bhagwat Sharan, claimed to be the grandson of Umrao Lal, one of the sons. The case revolved around the joint family's property, including houses and agricultural land. The appellant argued that the properties were part of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), while the respondents contested this claim.

Issues:

• Whether the properties mentioned were joint family properties or self-acquired properties.
• Whether the plaintiff's acceptance of a will in a previous suit estops him from challenging the validity of the will.
• Whether the agricultural lands were part of the HUF property.

Held:
The burden lies on the person alleging the existence of an HUF to prove the same. The mere fact that separated coparceners chose to live together or act jointly for business does not imply joint family status. Proof of joint property does not lead to the presumption that the property is joint family property; the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

Admission is not conclusive evidence and can be challenged if not acted upon to one's detriment. The plaintiff's acceptance of benefits under a will precludes him from challenging the validity of the same will later.

As for agricultural land, the plaintiff failed to prove that they were receiving proceeds from its income, and various transfers of the land were not challenged in time.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

The case revolved around an organization formed to achieve separate statehood for Tamil Nadu. The appellant and other accused allegedly conspired to bomb the State Government building. The bomb was defused before detonation. The prosecution's case relied on confessions, both from the appellant and co-accused, as well as evidence related to the conspiracy and bomb-making materials.

Issues:

• Whether the appellant's confession was obtained voluntarily and adhered to the guidelines set by the court.
• Whether the confession of co-accused is admissible in the absence of a joint trial.

Held:

The court examined the appellant's confession (Ex. P-57) and observed that the requirements for recording confessions under Section 15 of the TADA Act were not followed. The appellant alleged torture and claimed that his statement was not voluntary. The court found discrepancies in the warning given, and the appellant's petitions (Ex. D-1 and D-2) raised doubts. The court held that the confession was not proven to be voluntary and rejected it.

The court considered the admissibility of co-accused confessions (Ex. P-26 and P-27). Since the appellant was absconding and a separate trial was conducted against him, the joint trial requirement of Section 30 of the Evidence Act was not met. The court upheld that for a co-accused confession to be admissible, a joint trial is necessary. Therefore, the co-accused confessions were not admissible against the appellant.

Conclusion : As the appellant's confession was rejected and co-accused confessions were not admissible, the Designated Court's conviction was unsustainable. The appellant was acquitted and his bail bond was canceled.

Facts:

The 1994 EIA notification mandated prior Environmental Clearance (EC) for the setup and expansion of industrial units in specified categories. The circular of 2002 extended the deadline and allowed for ex post facto ECs. The circular was challenged and quashed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The industries in question did not seek ECs as required by the EIA notification and operated without complying with the notification.

Issues:

• Does the 2002 circular allowing for ex post facto ECs align with environmental jurisprudence and the principles of the 1994 EIA notification?
• Does the NGT have jurisdiction to strike down the circular?
• Are the industries in question entitled to the exemption provided in Clause 8 of the explanatory note to the EIA notification?

Held:

The concept of ex post facto ECs contradicts environmental jurisprudence and the 1994 EIA notification. Such clearances would be detrimental to the environment, as they would allow industrial activities to proceed without proper assessment of their impact.(Paragraphs 23, 25)

The NGT has the jurisdiction to enquire into the legitimacy of the circular dated 14 May 2002. The circular's purpose contradicts the objectives of the EIA notification, and it is not protected by Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.(Paragraphs 20, 21)

The three industries in question did not seek proper clearances before the commencement or expansion of their operations, as required by the EIA notification. None of these industries are entitled to the exemption under Clause 8 of the explanatory note.(Paragraphs 28-32)

The industries must deposit compensation of 10 crores each for operating without proper ECs. The NGT's directions for revocation of ECs and closure of the units are set aside due to the principle of proportionality.(Paragraphs 36, 38, 39)

 Facts:

The case involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as inserted by the Finance Act, 2001. The provision pertains to the deduction for liability under the leave encashment scheme.

Issues:

• Whether the newly inserted Clause (f) to Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is constitutionally valid?
• Whether the absence of objects and reasons behind the enactment of Clause (f) renders it invalid?

Held:

The Court held that Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is constitutionally valid. The provision is not an embargo upon the autonomy of the assessee in adopting a particular method of accounting, nor does it deprive the assessee of any lawful deduction. It only operates as an additional condition for the availment of deduction concerning specified heads. The insertion of Clause (f) was to regulate deductions by putting them under a special provision. The Court emphasized that the presumption in favor of constitutionality applies while testing the validity of a provision.

The Court rejected the argument that the absence of objects and reasons behind the enactment of Clause (f) renders it invalid. The presence or absence of objects and reasons does not impact the constitutional validity of a provision, as long as the literal features of the provision enable the Court to comprehend its true meaning with sufficient clarity.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the constitutionality of Section 43B(f) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and clarified that the absence of objects and reasons behind the enactment of a provision does not impact its validity, as long as the literal features of the provision enable the Court to comprehend its true meaning with sufficient clarity. 

Facts:

The respondent occupied the 16th floor of a building since February 1, 2012, without paying any lease rent, maintenance charges, electricity charges, or other dues.

The appellant claimed lease rent of Rs. 7,29,240 from February 1, 2012, to December 2, 2019, which the respondent did not seriously dispute.

Disputes arose over the maintenance charges, with the respondent arguing that they should not be liable to pay due to the absence of air-conditioning.

The appellant also claimed electricity charges, including minimum demand charges and additional fees, which the respondent disputed, asserting they only used minimal electricity and were not provided with invoices.

The respondent did not make any payments despite occupying the premises for over seven years.

Issues:

• Whether the respondent is liable to pay lease rent and maintenance charges.
• How to calculate maintenance charges in the absence of air-conditioning.
• Whether the respondent is liable to pay electricity charges.
• How to determine the electricity charges owed by the respondent.
• Whether the electricity disconnection was justified due to non-payment by the respondent.

Held:

The respondent is liable to pay the appellant:

• • Lease rent of Rs. 7,29,240 from February 1, 2012, to December 2, 2019.
  • Maintenance charges of Rs. 2,11,20,000 at a rate of Rs. 7.50 per sq. ft. per month from February 1, 2012, to January 31, 2020.
  • Minimum electricity charges of Rs. 1,10,000 per month from February 1, 2012, to January 31, 2020.

The respondent is required to pay Rs. 1,00,00,000 within one month, with the remaining amount in three equal installments.

The appellant must restore electricity within three days of receiving the initial payment.

Monthly bills for lease rent, electricity charges, maintenance charges, and other charges must be sent by the appellant to the respondent. Payment must be made by a specified date each month, with a portion to be paid even in case of a dispute.

If any of the conditions set by the court are violated, the appellant has the right to disconnect electricity.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between C.S. Venkatesh (the appellant) and A.S.C. Murthy (the plaintiff), who filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of reconveyance concerning a property in Bangalore. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that a sale deed executed by him in favor of the defendants was null and void. The plaintiff's claim was based on the contention that the sale deed served as security for a loan advanced by the defendants, and there was an agreement of reconveyance.

Issues:

• Is the sale deed nominal or an outright sale?
• Has the plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act?

Held:

The sale deed was not nominal but constituted an outright sale. The language and recitals within the deed indicated an unequivocal intention to transfer ownership. (Para 12)

To establish readiness and willingness for specific performance, the plaintiff must demonstrate continuous preparedness to fulfill the contractual obligations throughout the relevant period. Mere pleadings are insufficient; proof of the plaintiff's ability to generate the necessary consideration is required. In this case, the plaintiff's pleadings were not substantiated by evidence, and the plaintiff's financial situation did not support the claim of readiness and willingness. (Para 15-20)

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and reinstated the trial court's decision in favor of the defendant, C.S. Venkatesh.