Facts:

The appellant's daughter, Kamla, died under suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage. Allegations of cruelty by her in-laws in connection with dowry demands were raised. The trial court acquitted the accused-Respondents due to lack of evidence. The appellant appealed to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal and revision petition without providing reasons for refusal to grant leave to appeal.

Issues:

The correctness of the High Court's refusal to grant leave to appeal and its dismissal of the appellant's appeal and revision petition.

Held:

The Court held that the approach of the High Court was incorrect, emphasizing the importance of recording reasons when refusing leave to appeal. It also noted that the trial court had not properly considered the evidence in light of the statutory presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act.

The Court further highlighted the significance of the forensic report, which indicated the presence of organophosphorous insecticide in Kamla's viscera. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, granted leave to appeal, and remitted the matter back to the High Court.

Both the State and the appellant were permitted to file appeals, and the High Court was directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with the law, providing sufficient opportunities to both parties.

As a sequel to the above, pending application, if any, is also disposed of.

Facts:

Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta filed a complaint under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, alleging infringement of copyright in the title "Desi Boys." The complaint was later amended to include additional charges under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants released a film titled "Desi Boyz," based on a story written by another author. Devkatta claimed copyright in the title of a synopsis of a story titled "Desi Boys," which he had registered with the Film Writers Association. The appellants argued that there is no copyright in a title and thus no infringement occurred.

Issues:

Whether copyright exists in the title "Desi Boys" and whether the complaint of copyright infringement based on this title was tenable.

Held:

The court held that copyright does not subsist in the title of a literary work, and therefore, the complaint of copyright infringement based solely on the title "Desi Boys" was untenable. The court emphasized that a title, by itself, does not qualify as a work eligible for copyright protection. It noted precedents and legal principles to support this conclusion, stating that titles are typically too unsubstantial to constitute infringement.

Additionally, the court observed that Devkatta's claim of copyright infringement solely based on the title was not tenable, as he had not created any film or work under the title "Desi Boys" but only a synopsis. Therefore, the criminal appeals filed by the accused were allowed, and the criminal case pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai, was quashed.

Facts:

The case involved the murder of Ajjanna Reddy, the President of Nandigavi Village Panchayat.

The accused objected to road repair work near their house, leading to a quarrel with the deceased.

A violent altercation ensued, resulting in the death of the deceased.

The accused were charged with various offenses under the Indian Penal Code.

Issues:

Motive: Whether the prosecution established a clear motive for the accused.

Testimony of Witnesses: The credibility of eyewitnesses, particularly considering their relationship to the deceased and inconsistencies in their testimonies.

Delay in Lodging FIR: Examination of the delay in lodging the First Information Report and lapses in the investigation process.

Held:

The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. The acquittal verdict by the High Court was justified, as doubts were raised regarding the credibility of the prosecution's case and the investigation process. The court found discrepancies and lapses in various aspects of the case, including the establishment of motive, testimonies of witnesses, and the delay in lodging the FIR. As a result, the appeals were dismissed.

FACTS:

MGBW, a partnership firm involved in manufacturing beedis, faced dissolution due to disputes among partners.

The assets of MGBW were auctioned, and three erstwhile partners formed an association of persons (AOP-3) to bid and acquire the assets.

MGBW claimed deduction for legal expenses and depreciation for intellectual property rights in its tax return for the relevant assessment year.

The Assessing Officer rejected these claims, leading to appeals and subsequent hearings before the Tribunal and High Court.

ISSUES:

Deductibility of legal expenses under Section 37.

Entitlement to depreciation for intellectual property rights under Sections 35A and 35AB.

Interpretation of the term "plant" under Section 43(3) for depreciation.

HELD:

Legal Expenses Deductibility: The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the legal expenses were incurred to protect the business interests of MGBW and were deductible under Section 37. The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation that the expenses were personal and unrelated to the business.

Entitlement to Depreciation for Intellectual Property Rights: The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's finding that only goodwill was auctioned off and not intellectual property rights. It affirmed the Assessee's entitlement to depreciation for trademarks, copyrights, and technical know-how under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act.

Interpretation of the Term "Plant" for Depreciation: The Court concluded that intellectual property rights qualify as "plant" under Section 43(3) of the Act, entitling the Assessee to depreciation. It emphasized that the Revenue cannot rewrite the terms of the agreement between the partners and held in favor of the Assessee.

REFERRED CASES:

Dalmia Jain and Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar, Orissa and Patna, AIR 1971 SC 2129 : (1988) CriLJ 116 : (1971) 81 ITR 754 : (1971) 2 SCC 555 : (1971) SCR 963 Supp

Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad, AIR 1972 SC 168 : (1971) 82 ITR 44 : (1971) 3 SCC 550 : (1972) 1 SCR 168 : (1971) 3 UJ 798

Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1967 SC 444 : (1967) 63 ITR 207 : (1967) 1 SCR 392

Bharat Beedi Works (Pvt.) Ltd. and another etc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1993 SC 1751 : (1993) 112 CTR 247 : (1993) 201 ITR 1063 : (1993) 3 JT 526 : (1993) 2 SCALE 896 : (1993) 3 SCC 252 : (1993) 69 TAXMAN 453

K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (2001) 164 CTR 498 : (2000) 164 CTR 498 : (2001) 247 ITR 178 : (2000) 3 JT 555 Supp : (2001) 114 TAXMAN 53

D.S. Bist and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (Central), (1984) 149 ITR 276

Facts:

The complainant's daughter was found dead under suspicious circumstances.

Charges were framed against the accused for murder, rape, and tampering with evidence.

The Trial Court convicted the accused based on circumstantial evidence.

The High Court overturned the Trial Court's decision, acquitting the accused due to insufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

Both the complainant and the State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to link the accused to the crime.

Whether there were inconsistencies in witness testimonies and doubts about the evidence presented.

Held:

The Court examined the case thoroughly and found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the accused and the crime.

There were discrepancies in witness testimonies, doubts about evidence recovery, and no definitive proof of motive.

Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment of acquittal.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of cogent evidence in criminal cases and upheld the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Facts:

The delinquent employee was under probation.

A complaint challenging his appointment was lodged, alleging he lacked the requisite qualifications.

An ex parte vigilance enquiry was conducted behind the back of the employee.

Stigmatic remarks were made during the enquiry process.

Issues:

Whether the termination of the employee's service during probation was simpliciter or punitive.

Whether the conduct of an ex parte enquiry and the presence of stigmatic remarks violated the principles of natural justice.

Held:

The Court ruled that if misconduct or misdemeanour forms the basis for the final decision to terminate the probationer's service, even if done through a non-stigmatic order, it can be considered punitive rather than a simple termination.

Conducting an ex parte enquiry behind the back of the employee and making stigmatic remarks constitute a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

The termination in this case was not simpliciter but punitive, as it was based on misconduct allegations and violated principles of natural justice.

The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service within six weeks, with entitlement to 50% of his salary to be paid within that period.

Decision: The Court allows the appeal and directs the reinstatement of the appellant in service with 50% salary payment within six weeks.

Facts:

The dispute arose between Sumer Builders Pvt. Ltd., the appellant-developer, and Narendra Goran, the respondent, regarding possession of land situated in Indore. The respondent had handed over possession of the land to the appellant to start construction work. However, a dispute ensued between the parties.

Issues:

The core issue revolved around the possession of the land.

The appellant claimed exclusive possession based on a development agreement, while the respondent asserted that they had taken over possession.

Held:

The Court, comprising Justices Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, observed that Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, excludes Sections 16, 17, and 20 from application to the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. Therefore, as far as the Bombay High Court is concerned, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent would govern the controversy.

The dispute was primarily about possession of the land, as evidenced by correspondences and the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Any order passed under Section 9 of the 1996 Act would directly impact the land, indicating that it falls within the category of a "suit for land" under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the revocation of the earlier granted leave. It upheld the determination that the dispute was indeed embedded in the possession of the land and fell within the category of a "suit for land" under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Facts:

The landlords purchased a property in Barshi town, occupied by the tenant.

Tenant contested eviction, claiming no rent was payable until "standard rent" was determined.

Tenant argued against eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent, asserting he had made a payment to the landlords' uncle.

Landlords claimed they needed the property for their betel-nuts and betel-leaves business.

Tenant argued against landlords' bona fide need, stating they were joint with their father and uncle in residence and business.

Issues:

Whether rent was payable by the tenant pending determination of "standard rent".

Whether the landlords had a bona fide need for the property for their own business.

Held:

Rent was payable by the tenant despite the pending determination of "standard rent". The court found the tenant's argument regarding a payment made to the landlords' uncle insufficient to absolve him from defaulting on rent.

The landlords had a bona fide need for the property for their own business purposes. The court determined that the landlords had purchased the property specifically for their betel-nuts and betel-leaves business and had no evidence suggesting alternative business engagements at the time of filing the suit.

The court examined comparative hardship between the parties and found that the landlords had alternative sources of income, while the tenant's livelihood was primarily dependent on the property in question. Based on these findings, the court set aside previous orders and allowed the landlords' appeal, directing the tenant to vacate the premises by a specified date.

Facts:

The appellant, N. Sunkanna, was accused of offenses under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a Deputy Tahsildar, collected illegal payments from fair price shop dealers in Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.

The complainant initially supported the prosecution's case but later disowned his complaint during the trial.

Issues:

Whether there was sufficient evidence to prove the appellant's demand for illegal gratification.

Whether the legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act could be applied in the absence of proof of demand.

Held:

The court held that the prosecution failed to provide evidence of the appellant's demand for illegal gratification. Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused were not sufficient to prove the offense under Section 7 without proof of demand.

The legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act, allowing presumption of acceptance of illegal gratification, is based on proof of demand. Since there was no proof of demand, the presumption could not be applied. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant's conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, and acquitted him of the charges.