Facts:

The petitioner, Mukesh, has been convicted, and his conviction was upheld by the High Court. Various appeals and petitions challenging the conviction have been dismissed by the courts, including this Court. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the rejection of the Mercy Petition.

Issues:

The writ petition include improper evidence consideration, the disability and subsequent suicide of Ram Singh, doubts about the petitioner's arrest, and other related matters.

Held:

The petitioner was given sufficient opportunity, and his conviction has been upheld by the High Court.

The petitioner's points were considered in detail in Crl. Appeal Nos. 607-608 of 2017 Mukesh & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and were dismissed by this Court's judgment dated 05.05.2017.

Review Petition (Crl.) No.570 of 2017 and Curative Petition (R) No.6 of 2020 were also dismissed by this Court.

The Mercy Petition of Mukesh was rejected by the President of India, and the writ petition challenging the rejection was dismissed by this Court.

The petitioner's criminal revision petition and subsequent appeals were also dismissed by lower courts.

Considering the submissions of the petitioner's counsel and the series of dismissals by various courts, no grounds were found to entertain the writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

The appellant, Rajasthan State Electricity Board Jaipur, is a Government Company defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. The appellant filed a return for the assessment year 1991-92, reporting a loss. However, due to a bonafide mistake, the appellant claimed 100% depreciation instead of the correct 75%, resulting in a disallowed amount of 25% depreciation. The Assessing Officer issued an intimation disallowing 25% of the depreciation and demanded additional tax under Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested this demand, stating that the reduction in depreciation was not an attempt to evade tax but was due to a genuine mistake.

Issues:

Whether the demand for additional tax under Section 143(1-A) was justified in the given circumstances.

The court needed to determine whether the reduction in depreciation was a result of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable by the appellant.

Held:

The court considered the purpose and intent of Section 143(1-A) of the Income Tax Act, which aims to prevent tax evasion. The court referred to the precedent set by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gauhati vs. Sati Oil Udyog Limited and another, (2015) 7 SCC 304, which held that the burden of proving an attempt to evade tax is on the Revenue. The court reiterated that the provision should only be invoked when the lesser amount stated in the return is a result of an intentional attempt to evade tax.

In the present case, the court observed that the reduction in depreciation was due to a bonafide mistake and not an intentional evasion of tax. The court emphasized that mechanical application of Section 143(1-A) was unwarranted in these circumstances. The court also noted that the Commissioner's order did not suggest any intent to evade tax on the appellant's part.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and the demand for additional tax. The court held that Section 143(1-A) should not be mechanically applied when there is no evidence of an attempt to evade tax lawfully payable by the assessee.

Facts:

The appellant sought the disqualification of the respondent, a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), based on allegations that he had given up his membership of the Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)] political party. The appellant's petition for disqualification was filed on 02.09.2017, and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha ordered the respondent's disqualification on 04.12.2017.

Issues:

Whether subsequent events, specifically the formation of a new political party by the respondent on 18.05.2018, could be introduced as additional evidence to challenge the disqualification order. The appellant sought to present this evidence in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the application seeking to introduce additional evidence. The Court emphasized that the disqualification order was based on events that occurred prior to its issuance, and the subsequent events were not the basis for seeking the respondent's disqualification initially. The Court acknowledged the general principle that subsequent events might not be relevant for challenging an order, but exceptions could apply when such events affect the state of affairs at the time of disqualification.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Court upheld the High Court's decision, subject to its observations. The Supreme Court clarified that while subsequent events might not typically be relevant, in some cases, exceptions could be made based on fairness and justice. The Court directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petition promptly.

Facts:

The Government of Bombay had acquired land for the Government of India before 1964, upon which it constructed godowns and silos for storing food grains. These structures were transferred to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in 1965 after its establishment. The Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika (Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) demanded property tax from the FCI for these godowns. The FCI claimed exemption from property tax under Article 285 of the Constitution, asserting that the properties were owned by the Central Government.

Issues:

Whether the FCI is eligible for exemption from property tax under Article 285 of the Constitution of India?

Whether the Municipal Corporation's argument based on Section 146 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act is valid?

Held:

The court analyzed the conditions for exemption under Article 285. Exemption from taxes on Central Government properties can only be denied if the property was subject to municipal tax prior to the Constitution's commencement or if a parliamentary law allows property taxation. In this case, the properties in question were constructed after 1964 and were not previously subject to property tax. Therefore, the conditions for exemption denial under Article 285(2) were not satisfied. The Municipal Corporation is not authorized to impose property tax, thus upholding the FCI's exemption claim under Article 285(1). [Para 27-31]

The court rejected the Municipal Corporation's argument based on Section 146 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. It emphasized that such arguments could not undermine a constitutional provision. The court stated that the claim of primary or secondary responsibility loses relevance when there is an exemption claim based on property owned by the Government of India. Section 146 cannot be interpreted in a way that contradicts the Constitution. [Para 34-36]

The court emphasized that if the Municipal Corporation's claim to levy property tax is not covered by Article 285(2), it cannot use statutory provisions to bypass the exemption granted by Article 285(1). [Para 37]

Additionally, the court clarified that while the FCI is exempt from property tax under Article 285, it may still be liable to pay service charges for services rendered by the Corporation. [Para 45, 47]

Facts:

Bhajan Singh owned the suit land. He executed a registered Will in favor of the appellants. Bhajan Singh resided with the appellants.

Bhajan Singh's wife and daughters started living with his brother after a divorce. A Family Settlement was entered into allocating the suit property to the daughters.

The trial court decreed the suit filed by the appellants based on the registered Will.

After Bhajan Singh's death, the daughters filed a suit challenging the earlier decree.

Issues:

Whether the decree obtained through the registered Will required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act?

Whether the decree was based on pre-existing rights?

Whether fraud was involved in obtaining the decree?

Held:

The trial court and the First Appellate Court held the decree valid. However, the High Court held it required registration.

The Supreme Court analyzed the applicability of Section 17 of the Registration Act and cited case law. It concluded that a court decree does not require registration.

The court addressed the fraud argument and concluded that there was no fraud involved, as the decree was based on pre-existing rights and claims acknowledged by Bhajan Singh.

The court emphasized that the suit was filed based on pre-existing rights, the defendants' position was admitted by Bhajan Singh, and the decree did not require registration.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment of the High Court. Costs were awarded to the respondents.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The defendant had been given a lease for 20 years with a clause that allowed the lessor to seek eviction if rent was in arrears for a year. The leased land was later acquired, and compensation apportionment became a point of contention. The lessee claimed a share in compensation due to being deprived of the unexpired lease period after six years. A dispute also arose after a part of the acquired land was de-notified, and the lessee continued possession.

Issues:

Whether the determination of the lease due to non-payment of rent was res judicata in the subsequent suit for possession?

Whether the suit for possession was barred by limitation?

What was the legal status of the lessee's possession after the lease had expired and rent was unpaid?

Held:

The issue before the Reference Court was limited to apportionment of compensation, not the title or eviction. The finding that the lease was determined due to non-payment of rent was specific to compensation claim, not binding for a suit for possession or title.

The suit for possession was within the 12-year limitation period as per Art.67 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Mere non-payment of rent did not lead to forfeiture of tenancy but gave lessor the right to seek possession. The notice produced in proceedings wasn't part of the evidence in the suit, making reliance on it for limitation erroneous.

After the lease period's expiry, the lessee's status was that of a tenant at sufferance. Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act granted "tenant holding over" status only if lessor accepted lease money, which didn't apply here.

Facts:

Akshay Kumar Singh, the appellant, filed a writ petition (criminal) under Article 32 challenging the rejection of his mercy petition by the President of India. The petitioner raised various grounds for review, including issues related to the consideration of the petition, alleged miscarriage of justice, solitary confinement, torture in prison, and influence of media interviews on the decision.

Issues:

Whether the rejection of the mercy petition suffered from any procedural or substantive irregularities that warranted judicial review.

Whether subsequent events like the filing of divorce petitions were relevant grounds for reviewing the rejection.

Held:

The court began by stating that the exercise of judicial review over decisions made by the President of India in mercy petitions is limited. The scope of judicial review can be invoked based on specific grounds, such as lack of application of mind, mala fide, consideration of irrelevant factors, exclusion of relevant materials, and arbitrariness. The court referred to the importance of indicating reasons in pardon/remission orders and the power to withdraw such orders if relevant materials are not considered (Para 5).

The court rejected the petitioner's arguments that there was a miscarriage of justice, torture in prison, and that media interviews influenced the rejection of the mercy petition. The court held that the President's decision was based on the case records and no evidence indicated non-application of mind. Allegations of prison torture were not valid grounds for reviewing the rejection (Para 6-7).

Regarding subsequent events, such as the filing of divorce petitions by the petitioner's wife, the court ruled that these could not be considered grounds for judicial review of the President's decision. The court emphasized that the President had already gone through the case records and evidence in making the decision (Para 9).

The court concluded that the petitioner's grounds did not meet the criteria for judicial review, and there was no valid reason to warrant a review of the rejection of the mercy petition by the President (Para 10-11).

Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Facts:

In two separate civil appeals, candidates contested elections for seats reserved for backward class citizens in the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act required candidates to submit caste validity certificates, failing which, the election would be deemed retrospectively terminated and the candidate disqualified.

Issues:

Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is ousted by the statutory scheme of Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act?

Whether the High Court has the authority to pass orders affecting the statutory fiction under Section 5B leading to disqualification?

Whether the interim orders issued by the High Court were within its jurisdiction under Article 226?

Whether the High Court's interim orders allowing candidates to continue were valid in light of the statutory scheme of Section 5B?

Held:

The Court held that the power of judicial review vested in the High Courts under Article 226 overrides any contrary provision in a statute, and this power cannot be taken away or abridged by any statutory provision.

The Court clarified that the High Court can pass orders interdicting the statutory fiction under Section 5B if the fiction had not yet come into operation. It emphasized the wide scope of Article 226 and its power to remedy injustice.

The Court concluded that the High Court's jurisdiction to issue interim orders is not limited to the one-year time frame mentioned in Section 5B. Interim orders can be granted to maintain the status quo and ensure that the relief sought in a writ petition does not become infructuous.

The deeming fiction of retrospective termination of election under Section 5B could not come into operation due to the interim orders passed by the High Court. The Court dismissed the argument that interim orders couldn't continue beyond the prescribed time frame.

The Court answered the formulated points as follows:

Section 5B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

The High Court can pass orders interdicting the statutory fiction under Section 5B if it hasn't come into operation.

The interim and final orders of the High Court were within its jurisdiction under Article 226.

The interim orders and final judgment of the High Court were valid in light of the statutory scheme of Section 5B.

There is no merit in the appeals. All the appeals are dismissed.

Facts:

The appellants filed MAs seeking directions pertaining to the implementation of the Reservation Act 2018. The respondents argued that these applications were not maintainable since they essentially challenged the subsequent actions of the State government in implementing the Act, rather than seeking clarification or modification of the original judgment.

Issues:

Whether the MAs filed by the appellants were maintainable, considering they appeared to challenge the actions of the State government under the Reservation Act 2018.

Held:

The court held that the MAs were, in substance, a substantive challenge to the State government's actions in implementing the Reservation Act 2018. As the court had already upheld the constitutional validity of the Act in a previous judgment, the present applications were deemed not maintainable. The court emphasized that if the applicants were aggrieved by the State government's actions, they should pursue independent remedies available under the law.