Civil Procedure – Compromise of Suit – Application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC filed jointly by parties requesting a consent decree – Trial Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat where consent decree was passed – High Court erred in setting aside the consent decree on grounds of alleged fraud without substantial evidence [Paras 6-10].

Genuineness of Consent Decree – Referring Matter to Lok Adalat – Merely referring the matter to Lok Adalat cannot be grounds to doubt genuineness of the consent decree – High Court's suspicion of fraud based on the chronology of events and involvement of counsel not warranted [Paras 6-8].

Role of Advocates – Consent Application Signed by All Parties – Application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC was signed by Advocates for both parties – No allegations against defendant's counsel – High Court failed to consider this while setting aside the decree [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment quashing consent decree set aside – Consent decree passed by Trial Court in Lok Adalat restored [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Delay in Delivery of Judgment – Long delay in delivering judgment causes unnecessary speculation among parties – Emphasized need for timely pronouncement to uphold confidence in the judicial system [Paras 6.1, 6.2].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Mini Trial – High Court exceeded jurisdiction by virtually conducting a mini trial while deciding application under Section 482 CrPC – Mini trial at this stage is impermissible – High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings unsustainable [Paras 7-7.1].

Scope of Investigation – Larger Conspiracy – High Court failed to appreciate the interconnected nature of two FIRs and larger conspiracy allegations – Quashing criminal proceedings narrows scope of necessary investigation [Paras 7.2-7.4].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment quashing criminal proceedings set aside – Criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 5694 of 2019 restored to file [Para 8].

Income Tax – Exemption under Section 10B(8) – Assessee failed to furnish declaration before the due date of filing original return of income under Section 139(1) – Supreme Court held both conditions of furnishing declaration and doing so before due date are mandatory – Non-compliance bars exemption claim [Paras 1-14].

Filing of Declaration – Time Limit Mandatory – The Court emphasized that in a taxing statute, provisions must be read as they are – For exemption under Section 10B(8), both furnishing declaration to Assessing Officer and doing so before due date of filing original return under Section 139(1) are mandatory [Paras 8-11].

Revised Return – Not Permissible for New Claims – Filing revised return under Section 139(5) cannot be used to withdraw claim and subsequently claim carry forward or set-off of losses – Revised return must correct omissions or wrong statements, not introduce new claims [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court and ITAT orders set aside – Held – Assessee not entitled to exemption under Section 10B(8) due to non-compliance with mandatory conditions – Costs ruled in favor of Revenue [Paras 14-15].

Land Acquisition – "Person Interested" – MRPL as Allottee – Acquired land allotted to MRPL by KIADB – High Court erred in treating MRPL as a "person interested" entitled to participate in compensation determination – Proper party in reference proceedings only if acquisition is under Land Acquisition Act, not KIAD Act [Paras 6-7.1, 7.5-7.6].

Distinction Between Acts – Land Acquisition Act vs. KIAD Act – Section 50 of the Land Acquisition Act not applicable to KIAD Act acquisitions – Different statutory schemes and purposes – Reliance on precedents involving Land Acquisition Act misplaced [Paras 7.1-7.6].

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Binding Precedent – High Court bound by Supreme Court precedent distinguishing applicable cases – Failure to follow binding precedent contrary to Article 141 of the Constitution [Para 7.3].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Reference Court’s judgment restored – MRPL not entitled to participate in compensation determination under KIAD Act [Para 8].

Contempt of Court – Non-disclosure of Assets – Respondent guilty of contempt for failing to disclose assets and violating court orders restraining transfer of funds – Supreme Court holds actions contumacious and orders adequate punishment – Emphasizes need for compliance with court orders to maintain majesty of law [Paras 1-30].

Reversal of Transactions – Directions to Nullify Contumacious Conduct – Court directs reversal of transactions where US$ 40 million was disbursed in violation of restraining orders – Orders funds to be deposited with Recovery Officer, with 8% interest – Asserts that contumacious benefits must be completely disgorged [Paras 13-17].

Punishment for Contempt – Sentence of Imprisonment and Fine – Considering respondent’s lack of remorse, court imposes four months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000 – Directs Ministry of Home Affairs to ensure compliance and secure presence of respondent for imprisonment – Provides for additional two months' imprisonment if fine is not paid [Paras 16-19].

Constitutional Law – Article 72 – Extradition and Sovereign Assurance – Appellant convicted in the 1993 Bombay Blasts Case – Completing 25 years of sentence – Central Government bound to advise the President of India for release under Article 72 in accordance with international commitment and principles of comity of courts – Courts in India must impose sentence as required by law, while the Executive ensures compliance with international obligations [Paras 34-42, 54].

Criminal Law – Set-off Period – Detention under Red Corner Notice – Appellant's period of detention in Portugal not eligible for set-off against Indian sentence – Set-off to commence from the date of appellant's conditional release in Portugal and subsequent detention by Indian authorities [Paras 43-53].

Decision: Appeals disposed of with directions to the Government of India to advise the President of India to exercise powers under Article 72 to release the appellant upon completion of 25 years of sentence. Government directed to take necessary actions within one month of the completion of the sentence [Paras 54-55].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Terrorist Activities – Appellants convicted for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, possession of arms and explosives, and association with banned organization Lasker-e-Toiba – Convictions upheld under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 124A, 153A, and 153B of IPC; Sections 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act; and Sections 25 and 26 of the Arms Act – High Court correct in holding sanctions valid under UAPA and other statutes [Paras 1-40].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity of Sanction – High Court found that sanctions accorded by competent authorities under IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Arms Act, and UAPA were valid and based on proper application of mind – Trial Court erred in rejecting sanctions for UAPA offenses – Sanctions under Section 45 of UAPA and Section 39 of Arms Act upheld [Paras 34-37].

Evidence – Incriminating Articles and Confessional Statements – Recovery of arms, explosives, and incriminating literature from appellants supported by witness testimonies and forensic evidence – Confessional statements corroborated the prosecution’s case – Trial Court’s findings on the sufficiency of evidence affirmed [Paras 7-22].

Decision: Appeals disposed of with modifications – Convictions under UAPA restored – Sentences affirmed for other offenses – High Court’s judgment modifying sentences for certain offenses upheld – Proper assessment of evidence and validity of sanctions ensured convictions were legally sound [Paras 54-55].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Section 302/34 – Murder by Gunshot – Appellant convicted of murder – Recovery of the gun from co-accused, allegedly owned by the appellant – Prosecution failed to prove how the weapon came into the possession of the co-accused and who used it – Inadequate evidence and improper recovery process – Conviction and sentence set aside due to failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 2-10].

Witnesses – Credibility and Contradictions – Key prosecution witnesses provided contradictory statements and were not treated as hostile – Eyewitness accounts were inconsistent with the prosecution's case – Testimonies of defence witnesses supported the appellant's innocence – Forensic evidence did not conclusively support the prosecution's claims [Paras 4-6].

Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report – Contradictions – FSL report indicated discrepancies in the type of weapon used and the cartridges recovered – Officer who authored the report was not present to clarify contradictions – Report not deemed reliable [Para 5].

Recovery – Improper Procedure – Recovery of weapons not conducted according to legal standards – Evidence of recovery witnesses was inconsistent – Recovery of the weapon from the co-accused not satisfactorily explained [Paras 6, 10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Appellant acquitted and set at liberty – Pending applications disposed of [Para 10].

Land Acquisition – Market Value Determination – Market value of land depends on location, area, development status, size of land plot, and other advantageous or disadvantageous factors – Rates in Ready Reckoner, intended for stamp duty collection, cannot be used to determine compensation for land acquisition – Reliance on Ready Reckoner rates leads to erroneous enhancement of compensation – Supreme Court sets aside High Court's decision enhancing compensation based on Ready Reckoner rates [Paras 1-13].

Legal Principles – Valuation Methods – Proper methods for determining market value include opinion of experts, bona fide transaction prices of similar land, and capitalization of profits – Ready Reckoner rates are not reliable for this purpose as they are uniform and do not reflect actual market transactions [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment enhancing compensation to Rs. 174 per sq. ft. quashed – Reference Court's judgment determining compensation at Rs. 21 per sq. ft. restored – No order as to costs [Para 13].