Facts:

The All India Chess Federation (second Respondent) disaffiliated the Maharashtra Chess Association (Appellant) on December 25, 2016.

The Appellant filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 challenging the disaffiliation.

The second Respondent raised a preliminary objection, citing Clause 21 of its Constitution and Bye Laws, contending that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction.

Issues:

Whether a private agreement (Clause 21) can oust the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court under Article 226.

Whether the existence of an alternate remedy, as provided in the agreement, creates a legal bar on the Bombay High Court's writ jurisdiction.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that while parties can agree to submit disputes to a specific court, the existence of an alternate remedy does not create an absolute legal bar on the High Court's exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the discretionary nature of the writ jurisdiction and criticized the Bombay High Court's reliance solely on Clause 21 without examining the case holistically. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was restored to the Bombay High Court for fresh consideration.

Facts:

Prestige Estates Project Ltd. applied for planning permission on March 22, 2011. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority issued a demand notice for charges, including I & A charges and premium FSI charges, on March 27, 2012. The respondent paid the charges on March 28, 2012. Subsequent amendments by the government on March 26, 2012, and March 28, 2012, revised the charges.

Issues:

The legality of the demand for revised I & A charges and premium FSI charges. The court examined whether the Rules, 2008, were formally amended and if the demand for revised charges was enforceable against Prestige Estates Project Ltd.

Held:

The court addressed the provisions of G.O.Ms No.86 and the contemplated amendment to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008. It was clarified that the Rules, 2008, were not formally amended, and the demand for revised I & A charges could not be enforced without such amendment.( Para 20)

The court considered an Internal Office Circular/Order dated April 16, 2012, specifying that revised I & A charges were leviable from March 28, 2012. The court agreed with the High Court's view that the revised charges were not lawfully demanded from Prestige Estates Project Ltd. for applications made prior to March 28, 2012.( Para 21)

The judgment scrutinized the levy of Premium FSI charges under Regulation 36. It emphasized that the demand for Premium FSI charges is incident to the grant of Premium FSI. The court affirmed that the demand for revised Premium FSI charges was lawful.( Para 22)

The court highlighted that planning permission was not yet granted, and the steps were outlined for the fulfillment of conditions before considering the application for planning permission.( Para 23)

Emphasizing that the grant of planning permission would only follow a meticulous scrutiny of the application, the court held that Prestige Estates Project Ltd. was bound to pay the revised charges once they came into force on April 1, 2012. The demand for revised Premium FSI charges on August 22, 2012, was deemed lawful.( Para 24)

Facts:

The appellants, prospective buyers, entered into an agreement to purchase land for Rs. 99,84,500. The appropriate authority issued a show cause notice under section 269UD(1A), challenging the disclosed sale consideration. After inquiries, the authority ordered the vesting of the suit land in the Central Government.

Issues:

Whether the appropriate authority's decision for pre-emptive purchase under Section 269UD(1) was valid.

The appellants challenged the apparent consideration and sought a refund.

The Division Bench also considered the disbursement of the amount, involving Section 269UG(4) of the Act.

Held:

The appropriate authority meticulously examined the location, area, and proximity of the suit land. After considering the condition and use of existing structures, the authority determined the market value at Rs. 1,79,21,532, surpassing the declared consideration. The authority rejected the appellants' objections regarding deduction percentages.( Paragraphs 26-29)

The writ court rightly limited its jurisdiction, acknowledging it couldn't act as an appellate court. The findings were consistently upheld by the writ court, appellate court, and review court, based on evidence and in conformity with Section 269UD of the Act.( Paragraphs 36-37)

The Division Bench dismissed the appellants' appeal but partially allowed the vendor's appeal. However, the Division Bench failed to consider Section 269UG(4) of the Act, which dictates the appropriate authority's role in determining the consideration.( Paragraphs 3, 12-13)

The court, in allowing the vendor's appeal, emphasized that the High Court should have left the disbursement matter to be decided by the appropriate authority under Section 269UG(4) of the Act.( Paragraph 6)

Facts:

Junu Gayary filed a writ petition for a judicial inquiry into her husband's death, alleging he was taken by army personnel and later found dead.

District & Sessions Judge's report suggested the deceased was in the custody of the Indian Army, and there was an attempt to portray the death as occurring in an encounter.

Issues:

Whether a CBI investigation should be initiated into the death of Someswar Gayari.

Whether compensation should be awarded to the widow, Junu Gayary.

Held:

Having heard the learned Senior Advocate and considering the impugned judgment, the Full Bench sees no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision.( Paragraph 4.1)

The High Court rightly directed the registration of a criminal case under Section 302 of the IPC, considering the gravity of the offense. CBI is tasked with the investigation.( Paragraph 4.2)

The compensation awarded to Junu Gayary is increased from three lakhs to five lakhs, as the Court deems it just and in the interest of justice.( Paragraph 5)

The CBI is directed to conclude the investigation promptly, and specific directions are given regarding the decision-making process for choosing between a criminal court trial and a court martial.( Paragraph 7)

Appeals are disposed of.( Paragraph 8)

Relevant Para Nos. in Last

Facts:

Prashanti Medical Services and Research Foundation, a charitable trust, established a Heart Hospital in Ahmedabad.

The foundation applied for approval under Section 35AC of the Income Tax Act for their hospital project, which was approved by the Committee along with 27 other projects.

A notification on December 7, 2015, listed the approved projects.

The foundation received donations in the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18.

The Finance Act, 2016, introduced sub-section (7) in Section 35AC, disallowing deductions under this section for any assessment year commencing on or after April 1, 2018.

The foundation challenged the constitutional validity of sub-section (7), arguing for prospective application.

Issues:

Constitutional validity of sub-section (7) of Section 35AC.

Applicability of sub-section (7) to projects approved before its insertion.

Whether a plea of promissory estoppel is valid against legislative power in tax matters.

Held:

The Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that sub-section (7) is prospective in its operation and does not apply retrospectively. The Court emphasized that a plea of promissory estoppel is not available to an assessee against the exercise of legislative power.( Paragraph 18)

The Court clarified that in tax matters, pleas based on equity or hardship are not legally sustainable. The constitutional validity of a taxing provision cannot be struck down on such grounds.( Paragraph 26)

The Court rejected the appellant's request to invoke powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, stating that such powers are not to be invoked once the action is in accordance with the law.( Paragraph 27)

Facts:

Government of Madhya Pradesh issued a policy in 2012 for wind energy.

Tariff Order issued on March 26, 2013, applicable to projects commissioned till March 31, 2016.

Dispute arose on the commissioning date of a wind project between the appellant and respondent.

A new Tariff Order on March 17, 2016, with a different tariff rate for projects commissioned on or after April 1, 2016.

Dispute on the actual commissioning date of the project - appellant claimed April 1, 2016, while the respondent asserted March 31, 2016.

High Court directed the appellant to enter into a PPA based on the earlier tariff order.

Appellant revoked the commissioning certificate, leading to a second set of writ petitions.

Issues:

Determination of the actual commissioning date of the wind project.

Applicability of the tariff order and the subsequent guidelines.

Held:

The Court held that the project was commissioned on April 1, 2016, based on objective data from the State Load Dispatch Centre (SLDC). The respondent is entitled to the tariff under the Tariff Order dated March 17, 2016. The competitive bidding guidelines issued subsequently on December 8, 2017, do not apply to the project. The first respondent is directed to process the PPA application based on the March 17, 2016, Tariff Order from April 1, 2016.

Facts:

An FIR was lodged by Bhola Mohanta, the brother of the deceased, stating that his brother was murdered by the accused Ranjit Haldar along with his nephew and the wife of the deceased. The body was alleged to be concealed in a house, leading to an investigation.

Issues:

Validity of the FIR recorded in Bengali and later translated to Nepali.

Adequacy of evidence, including the absence of a DNA test on the dead body.

Ownership and possession of the house where the dead body was concealed.

Application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act regarding the burden of proof.

Held:

The Court held that the recovery of the dead body concealed under wooden planks, covered by mud and stones, was a strong incriminating circumstance. The absence of a DNA test was deemed irrelevant as the identity of the dead body was established beyond doubt. The prosecution successfully proved facts, invoking Section 106, making it difficult for the accused to provide an explanation. The appellants' failure to disprove the presumption under Section 106 led to the maintenance of their conviction.

Conclusion: Both appeals were dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants for causing the death of the deceased Netai Mohanta. The Courts below were found to have rightly recorded the conviction, and no error was identified in the judgment that warranted interference.

Facts:

The case involves MSIL, a joint venture between Suzuki Motor Corporation and MSIL, initially known as SPIL.

SPIL filed its return in 2012, and later, a scheme for amalgamation with MSIL was approved.

Assessment proceedings continued in the name of the non-existent entity, SPIL.

Issues:

The validity of assessment proceedings conducted in the name of SPIL post-amalgamation.

Held:

The court emphasized that the income subjected to tax belonged to the erstwhile entity (SPIL) pre-amalgamation.

The approved scheme of amalgamation resulted in the cessation of SPIL, and it could not be considered a person against whom assessment proceedings could be initiated.

Despite the notice issued under section 143(2) and the communication of amalgamation to the assessing officer, proceedings were pursued in the name of SPIL, rendering them void ab initio.

The court referred to Spice Entertainment, where assessments in the name of amalgamated and dissolved companies were deemed null and void, emphasizing it as a substantive illegality.

The doctrine of merger was highlighted, affirming that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon amalgamation.

Consistency and certainty in tax litigation were stressed, adopting the principles established in prior cases for AY 2011-12 to the present appeal for AY 2012-13.

Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the void ab initio nature of assessment proceedings against the non-existent entity (SPIL) and upholding the principles of consistency and certainty in tax matters.

Facts:

Atindra Nath Bhattacharyya, the respondent, faced 16 charges related to financial irregularities while working as Chief Manager of Baghbazar Branch of the State Bank of India.

The inquiry officer found ten charges proved, leading to the imposition of the punishment of removal on January 24, 2003.

Issues:

The Single Bench of the High Court set aside the order of punishment, citing a lack of opportunity for the respondent to show cause regarding the nature and quantum of punishment.

Despite not utilizing the opportunities for a personal hearing, the Division Bench directed the appellant to grant another opportunity to the respondent.

Held:

The Supreme Court found the Division Bench's direction to grant another opportunity not tenable.

Emphasized that once an opportunity had been granted and not availed, the respondent was not entitled to another opportunity on the grounds of compassion.

Serious allegations of financial irregularities played a crucial role in affirming the removal order.

The Court set aside the directions of the Division Bench and allowed the appeal.