Insurance Policy – Arbitrary Refusal to Renew – Insurer refused to renew the mediclaim policy, resulting in exclusion of coverage for a pre-existing disease contracted during the gap – The refusal deemed arbitrary – Emphasis on policy renewals maintaining original terms unless explicitly changed [Para 26].

Exclusion of STFI Perils – Terms and Conditions – Insurer issued a new policy excluding Storm, Tempest, Flood, and Inundation (STFI) perils – Refund of premium for STFI cover was deposited in insured’s account – Insured cannot claim lack of knowledge – Exclusion held valid [Paras 23-24].

Contract Interpretation – Insurer's Liability – Insurer's decision to exclude STFI perils was commercial – Courts cannot rewrite contracts – Insured's acceptance of policy and refund implies consent to terms [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The court upheld the exclusion of STFI perils from the policy and validated the insurer’s actions.

Specific Relief – Bona Fide Purchaser – Defendant No. 2 contested the decree for possession, arguing he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1. Courts below assumed connivance between defendants without substantial evidence – Specific performance set aside [Paras 1-12].

Readiness and Willingness – The plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the contract at the time of filing the suit and on the due date was not sufficiently proved – The courts below erred in their concurrent findings [Paras 9-10].

Compensation – In lieu of specific performance, the defendant No. 2 (appellant) directed to pay Rs. 350,000 to the plaintiff, inclusive of the earnest money – Amount to be paid within three months, failing which it will carry interest at 12% per annum [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part. The decree for specific performance set aside, and the appellant directed to compensate the plaintiff with Rs. 350,000.

Criminal Law – Dowry Death – Multiple Dying Declarations – Appeal against conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC – Supreme Court upheld conviction noting that the dying declaration on 13.02.2008 was consistent and trustworthy – Other dying declarations recorded under suspect circumstances – Appeal partly allowed with modification of life sentence to seven years rigorous imprisonment [Paras 16-25].

Evidence – Multiple Dying Declarations – Reliability – Supreme Court held that each dying declaration must be assessed independently – The dying declaration on 13.02.2008 found reliable despite earlier inconsistent declarations due to the suspect circumstances under which they were made [Paras 16-23].

Sentence Modification – Dowry Death – Supreme Court modified life imprisonment to seven years rigorous imprisonment considering appellant’s age and family circumstances – Emphasized life imprisonment under Section 304B IPC should be in rare cases [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Conviction under Sections 304B and 498A IPC upheld – Sentence modified to seven years rigorous imprisonment including time already served – Fine and default sentence upheld [Paras 24-25].

Land Law – Determination of Surplus Land – Haryana Ceiling of Land Holdings Act – Appeal against High Court’s order regarding surplus land determination – Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench’s decision that the Single Judge erred in applying Section 8(3) of the 1972 Act – Surplus land determination under the 1953 Act should continue under the old Act, and new Act provisions are inapplicable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7-31].

Transfer of Land – Validity and Bonafides – Appellants' claim to land purchased after it was declared surplus – Court held that appellants were not bona fide purchasers as the land was vested in the State prior to their purchase – Appeal dismissed [Paras 5-5.3].

Interpretation of Repeal and Saving Clauses – Supreme Court interpreted Section 33(2) of the 1972 Act to mean that proceedings pending under the 1953 Act must be continued and disposed of under the 1953 Act – New Act’s provisions do not apply to these proceedings [Paras 9-24].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Division Bench’s order upheld – Single Judge’s application of Section 8(3) of 1972 Act overturned – Surplus land determination to follow 1953 Act provisions [Paras 31-32].

Employment Law – Sexual Harassment – Stigmatic Termination – Appeal against termination based on the Internal Complaints Committee’s report on allegations of sexual harassment – Supreme Court held the termination order to be ex-facie stigmatic and illegal due to lack of a formal inquiry as per service rules – Order of termination set aside and reinstatement ordered, with further actions to be taken by the University as per law [Paras 7-11].

Stigmatic Termination – Requirement of Formal Inquiry – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of a formal inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment before issuing a termination order – Mere reference to the Internal Complaints Committee’s findings in the termination order constitutes stigma, requiring adherence to due process [Paras 9-10].

Reinstatement and Further Inquiry – Directions – Supreme Court directed reinstatement of the appellant while leaving the decision on back wages, suspension, and further departmental inquiry to the University as per service rules and law [Para 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s orders set aside – Termination order quashed – Appellant reinstated – Further actions including possible suspension and departmental inquiry to be pursued by the University in accordance with law [Para 12].

Service Law – Scheduled Tribe Claim – Invalid Caste Certificate – Appeal against High Court’s order protecting respondent’s employment despite invalid caste certificate – Supreme Court held that protection of service under invalid caste claims is not permissible – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-17].

Invalidation of Caste Claim – Supreme Court held that appointment based on a false claim to a reserved category renders the appointment void ab initio – Protection under the principle of prospective overruling not applicable – High Court's reliance on overruled Full Bench judgment in Arun Sonone was incorrect [Paras 7-9].

Administrative Circulars – Validity and Scope – Circulars cannot override constitutional or statutory principles – Supreme Court emphasized that administrative circulars protecting invalid caste claims are not legally sustainable [Paras 16-17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Writ petition filed by the first respondent dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 18].

Facts:

The appellant-assessee had credits amounting to Rs. 2,26,000/- in declared income, which were added by the Assessing Officer based on the balance sheet and books of account.

The appellant's explanations and evidence regarding purchases from unregistered dealers were not provided during the assessment.

In penalty proceedings, the appellant produced affidavits of 13 unregistered dealers, with 12 of them being examined by the Officer and their statements not revealing any infirmities.

Issues:

• Whether the credits of Rs. 2,26,000/- added to the appellant's declared income were justified based on the evidence provided during the assessment?
• Whether the evidence produced in penalty proceedings by the appellant supports the genuineness of purchases from unregistered dealers?

Held:

The assessment order assumed the transactions as bogus due to the lack of evidence or explanation provided by the appellant during assessment.

In penalty proceedings, the appellant produced affidavits and statements of unregistered dealers, which were accepted by the CIT(A).

The appellate authority found that there was no concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, based on the evidence provided in penalty proceedings.

The addition of Rs. 2,26,000/- towards cash credit from unregistered dealers for the assessment year 1998-99 was set aside.

The rest of the assessment order remained undisturbed.

Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 2,26,000/- towards cash credit from unregistered dealers was set aside. The rest of the assessment order was upheld.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – IPC Sections 418, 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 – Appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings – Supreme Court held that with serious factual disputes of civil nature and pending civil suits, pursuing criminal proceedings is an abuse of process – Criminal proceedings quashed [Paras 8-9].

Concurrent Civil and Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Supreme Court emphasizes that when civil suits are pending to resolve the same factual disputes, concurrent criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process – Criminal complaint filed long after the alleged incident seen as suspect – Appeal allowed [Paras 8-9].

Jurisdiction – Civil vs. Criminal – Civil court to decide issues on their merits without being influenced by criminal proceedings or Supreme Court’s observations in this context – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent duplicative and potentially prejudicial litigation [Para 11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Application under Section 482 CrPC allowed – Criminal proceedings in Complaint Case No. 708 of 2012 quashed – Civil court to decide pending suits independently [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Grant of Bail – NDPS Act – Appeal against the grant of post-arrest bail to accused under NDPS Act – Section 37 mandates that no person accused of certain offences under NDPS Act shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application, and the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – High Court’s liberal approach in granting bail without adhering to the conditions set out under Section 37 criticized – Appeals allowed, bail orders set aside [Paras 18-26].

Reasonable Grounds – Definition and Application – Section 37 of NDPS Act requires substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty – Reasonable belief necessitates the existence of facts and circumstances justifying satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence – High Court's oversight of these requirements noted and corrected by Supreme Court [Paras 21-23].

Judicial Discretion – Review and Limitation – Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity for compliance with statutory mandates in granting bail – Notes that the High Court failed to record findings mandated by Section 37 – Order of bail by High Court deemed erroneous and overturned [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned order granting bail set aside – Bail bonds cancelled, accused directed to be taken into custody – Trial court instructed to expedite the trial [Paras 26-27].