Income Tax – Section 80-IA(5) – Deduction – The scope of sub-section (5) of Section 80-IA is limited to the determination of the quantum of deduction under sub-section (1) by treating the eligible business as the only source of income. Sub-section (5) cannot be interpreted to limit the deduction to business income alone. The deduction is computed on the basis of net income from the eligible business, but it is allowed against the gross total income, including income from other sources, subject to the ceiling of the gross total income. [Paras 1-15].

Income Tax Act – Section 80AB – Computation of Deduction – Section 80AB pertains to the computation of the quantum of deductible income in the gross total income. It cannot curtail the width of Section 80-IA. Section 80A(2) stipulates that the aggregate amount of deductions under Chapter VI-A shall not exceed the gross total income of the assessee. [Paras 9-10].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act is not limited to business income. The deduction computed on the profits and gains from the eligible business can be set off against the gross total income, including income from other sources, subject to the ceiling of gross total income. [Para 15].

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Murder – Common Intention – The appellants were convicted of murder based on the consistent, natural, and trustworthy testimony of key witnesses. The alleged omissions, such as not seizing the motorcycle or the gold chain of one of the victims, do not discredit the prosecution's evidence. The motive for the crime was established due to prior animosity regarding the payment of rent for a tractor. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that all accused committed the crime with common intention. Both the trial court and the High Court's decisions were upheld. [Paras 16-22].

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 – Witness Testimony – Minor contradictions do not invalidate the testimony of witnesses. The court emphasized that only contradictions in material particulars can be grounds for discrediting witness testimony. The presence of injured witnesses at the scene and their injuries lend significant weight to their testimonies. The court noted that discrepancies that do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case are not fatal. [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, agreeing with the concurrent findings of the lower courts that the appellants were guilty of murder with common intention. The Court found no merit in the arguments presented by the defense and upheld the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. [Paras 21-22].

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(2)(v) – The conviction under this provision requires evidence that the offence was committed on the ground that the victim was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In this case, the evidence did not establish that the offence was committed solely on that ground. Hence, the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) was set aside. [Paras 1-11, 56-61].

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(1) – Rape – The conviction under Section 376(1) was upheld. The testimonies of the witnesses and medical evidence established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The nature and gravity of the offence, especially considering the victim's disability, warranted the imposition of life imprisonment. [Paras 1-11, 62-63].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act due to insufficient evidence but upheld the life imprisonment sentence under Section 376(1) of the IPC due to the serious nature of the offence and the victim's vulnerability. [Para 61-63].

Criminal Law – Bail – Grant of Bail – The High Court's decision to grant bail to the accused, a history-sheeter charged with murder and other serious offences, was challenged. The Supreme Court noted the potential threat to witnesses and the safety concerns of victims' families. It emphasized the need for courts to consider the impact of bail on the witnesses and the public, beyond just the parties involved in the case. [Paras 2-8].

Criminal Law – Bail Considerations – The court highlighted several considerations for granting bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusations, the severity of punishment, the potential for the accused to abscond, and the risk of witnesses being influenced or justice being thwarted. The Supreme Court stressed the importance of judicious, cautious, and compliant exercise of discretion by the High Court in line with established precedents. [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused, recognizing the importance of safeguarding the life and liberty of victims and witnesses against potential threats from the accused. [Paras 12-13].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 14(2A) – Supply of Goods or Services – During the moratorium period, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) or Resolution Professional (RP) must ensure that the supply of goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor is not terminated, suspended, or interrupted, except where dues are unpaid or as specified. The Supreme Court emphasized that this provision, inserted from 28.12.2019, includes goods or services not covered by Section 14(2). The decision must align with the IBC's objectives and the factual matrix. [Paras 19-22].

Jurisdiction Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. – The Supreme Court highlighted the limits of the High Court's power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., stating that it cannot overlook statutory dictates, especially those in the IBC. The impugned order allowing the respondent to operate the account without placing Rs. 32.50 lakhs back into the corporate debtor's account was deemed unsustainable. [Paras 24-25].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The impugned order was modified, allowing the respondent to operate its account only after remitting Rs. 32.50 lakhs into the account of the corporate debtor. The management of the corporate debtor's assets must comply strictly with the IBC provisions. [Para 25].

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 31(7) – Interest on Delayed Payment – The appellant was awarded a contract for upgrading a State Highway and sought interest on delayed payments as per the agreement. The agreement contained provisions for interest but did not specify the rate for local currency payments. The Tribunal awarded interest, but the Arbitration Court and High Court set aside this part of the award, interpreting the absence of a specified rate as a waiver of interest. The Supreme Court held that the blank space for the interest rate in the agreement does not imply zero or nil interest and that interest should be awarded at a reasonable rate. [Paras 3-17].

Contractual Interpretation – The Tribunal's interpretation of the contract as providing for interest on delayed payments, despite the blank space for the interest rate, was reasonable. The High Court's reasoning that the blank space implied no interest was flawed and speculative. [Paras 11-16].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, modifying the interest rate to 8% per annum simple interest. The award of the Tribunal for interest on delayed payments was upheld, but the rate was adjusted. The judgments of the Arbitration Court and the High Court were set aside. [Paras 17-18].

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Execution of Decrees – Abuse of Process – The appeals highlighted the constant abuse of procedural provisions by unsuccessful litigants, which obstructs the execution of decrees and justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that execution proceedings must not be allowed to become tools to delay justice. The Court provided detailed guidelines to streamline and expedite the execution process, including directions to ensure timely disposal of execution petitions, prevent frivolous objections, and use of technology. [Paras 2-43].

Execution of Decrees – Guidelines and Directions – The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to all courts dealing with execution proceedings to ensure timely execution and prevent abuse of process. This included mandatory examination of parties under Order X, production of documents under Order XI, appointment of Commissioners under Order XXVI, and specific directions for the disposal of execution proceedings within six months. The High Courts were directed to update their rules to align with these directions and the CPC. [Paras 42-43].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court’s order. The Court also emphasized the need for cooperation with the executing court and warned against non-cooperation. [Para 44].

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 224A – Appointment of Ad Hoc Judges – The Supreme Court highlighted the crisis in High Courts due to almost 40% vacancies, with larger High Courts working under 50% of their sanctioned strength. The Court stressed the need for timely recommendations and appointments to address this issue and proposed a timeline for the appointment process, ensuring a collaborative effort between the judiciary and the government. [Paras 1-13].

Timelines for Appointment of High Court Judges – The Court laid down specific timelines for the appointment process, emphasizing prompt action by the Intelligence Bureau, Central Government, and Supreme Court Collegium. The aim is to facilitate timely appointments and enhance the functioning of High Courts. [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Proceedings Closed – The Supreme Court provided detailed guidelines for timely appointments and emphasized the collaborative nature of the process to ensure the effective dispensation of justice. The proceeding was closed with directions to follow the outlined timelines. [Para 13].

Goods and Services Tax – Provisional Attachment – Delegation of Power – The Joint Commissioner, while ordering a provisional attachment under Section 83, acted as a delegate of the Commissioner under Section 5(3) of the HPGST Act. The appeal against the order of provisional attachment was not available under Section 107(1) of the Act. The power to order provisional attachment is draconian and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the statute. The formation of an opinion by the Commissioner must be based on tangible material indicating that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand and that the attachment is necessary to protect the government's revenue. [Paras 1-13, 48-56].

Principles of Natural Justice – Rule 159(5) of the HPGST Rules – The person whose property is attached is entitled to dual procedural safeguards: the right to submit objections and an opportunity of being heard. There was a breach of this mandatory requirement in the present case, and the Commissioner was misconceived in law in concluding that he had discretion on whether or not to grant an opportunity of being heard. [Paras 55-56].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the case for reconsideration. The Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the procedural safeguards under Rule 159(5) and the necessity of a reasoned order by the Commissioner. [Para 56].