Facts:

The appellant, M/S Berger Paints India Ltd., is a limited company engaged in the manufacture and sale of paints.

For the Assessment Year 1996-97, the appellant filed its income tax return, declaring its total income.

The appellant claimed a deduction under the head "preliminary expenses" based on the capital employed in the business, including the premium amount received on share capital.

The Assessing Officer challenged this claim, stating that the premium amount did not constitute part of the capital employed in the business.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) initially allowed the deduction, considering the share premium account as part of the capital base of the company. However, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed this decision.

Issues:

Whether the premium collected by the appellant-Company on its subscribed share capital qualifies as "capital employed in the business of the Company" under Section 35D(3) of the Income Tax Act.

Held:

The Court, after considering the arguments and examining the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Companies Act, dismissed the appeals.

The Court held that the premium amount collected by the company on its subscribed share capital could not be considered part of the capital employed in the business of the company for the purpose of claiming deduction under Section 35D(3) of the Act. This conclusion was based on the legislative intent, which did not include the premium amount within the definition of capital employed.

The Court affirmed the decision of the High Court, emphasizing that the absence of specific provisions in the relevant sections of the Acts indicated the legislative intent. This interpretation was in line with the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. (1969) 2 SCC 143, where it was held that the inclusion of the premium amount was permissible only when explicitly provided for in the legislation.

Facts:

Dispute between the deceased and accused over land access rights escalated into a physical confrontation leading to injuries and eventual death of the deceased.

Accused were acquitted by the Trial Court due to inconsistencies in evidence and lapses in investigation.

State appealed against the acquittal to the High Court, resulting in the conviction of some accused.

Appeals to the Supreme Court challenged the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court's acquittal.

Assessment of the evidence provided by prosecution witnesses.

Evaluation of the lapses in investigation.

Consideration of medical evidence and its consistency with oral testimony.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and evaluated inconsistencies in witness testimony.

Contradictions in eyewitness accounts, variations in statements, and discrepancies in the timing of events raised doubts about the reliability of evidence.

Lapses in investigation, including non-sealing of seized items, failure to explain injuries on accused, and omission of crucial details, were deemed fatal to the prosecution's case.

In light of these factors, the Court held that the High Court's conviction was erroneous and reaffirmed the Trial Court's acquittal.

The Court emphasized the importance of finding truth in criminal cases while safeguarding against miscarriage of justice by ensuring innocence is not punished.

The appeals were allowed, and the accused were to be set at liberty, provided they were not required in any other case.

Facts:

The appellant, Himachal Pradesh Financial Corporation, sought recovery of loans granted to the respondent, Anil Garg, for the purchase of a truck and the establishment of a steel trunk manufacturing industry. The respondent failed to repay the loans, leading to legal proceedings. A suit was filed, but later withdrawn, with the intention to pursue more expedient remedies under the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973. However, the High Court set aside the auction notice issued by the appellant, prompting the present appeal.

Issues:

The withdrawal of the suit, its impact on subsequent proceedings under the Act, and whether the appellant's right to recover the loans was preserved despite the withdrawal.

Held:

The Court held that the withdrawal of the suit did not constitute an abandonment of the claim by the appellant. The court emphasized that the withdrawal was intended to pursue remedies under the Himachal Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1973, which provided a more expedient route for recovery. The court clarified that the bar under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code applied only to fresh suits and not to proceedings under the Act. Additionally, the court rejected the respondent's argument regarding the loans being time-barred, noting that the appellant had taken steps for recovery within the statutory limitations.

The court further emphasized the importance of timely repayment of loans, as they are disbursed from public funds and serve the larger societal interest. It stated that the doctrine of public policy cannot be invoked to prevent a loanee from repaying a loan unjustifiably abusing the law.

Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed that the auction notice under Section 85 of the Act proceed in accordance with the law and be concluded expeditiously.

Facts:

The appellants were accused in a sessions case for various offenses under the IPC, including murder. They had filed multiple applications for bail, which were rejected by the trial court and the High Court. Despite these rejections, they continued to file successive bail applications. The trial judge eventually granted bail to the appellants, but the High Court later canceled the bail after considering the severity of the allegations and the conduct of the accused.

Issues:

Whether the trial judge erred in granting bail to the appellants.

Whether the High Court was justified in canceling the bail granted by the trial judge.

Held:

The Court held that the trial judge had erred in granting bail to the appellants, as he failed to consider the gravity of the crimes and the fact that previous bail applications had been rejected, including by the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that bail should not be granted arbitrarily and must consider various factors including the nature of the offense and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Therefore, the High Court was justified in canceling the bail granted by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to surrender to custody immediately. The trial judge was directed to proceed with the trial impartially based on the evidence presented during proceedings.

Facts:

The designated Judge of the High Court, while exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, nominated an independent arbitrator instead of appointing the arbitrator as specified in the agreement for arbitration. The appellant, Union of India, challenged this decision.

Issues:

Whether the Chief Justice or designated Judge, while exercising power under Section 11(6) of the Act, is bound to nominate an arbitrator as specified in the agreement for arbitration.

Held:

The Court held that the Chief Justice or designated Judge, under Section 11(6) of the Act, has the discretion to nominate an independent arbitrator if circumstances warrant, while considering the qualifications prescribed in the arbitration agreement. The court emphasized that the appointment of an arbitrator should be done with due regard to qualifications and other aspects as required under Section 11(8) of the Act.

In this specific case, the court found that the agreement did not stipulate the appointment of a Railway Officer as the sole arbitrator. Thus, the designated Judge exercised his power in accordance with the agreement by nominating an independent arbitrator. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and the petition, with no order as to costs.

Facts:

Sheetal Shankar Salvi, the appellant, approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to allow her to undergo a medical termination of her pregnancy.

The petitioner was examined by a Medical Board, which diagnosed severe abnormalities in the fetus, including polyhydramnios, Arnold Chiari malformation Type 2, severe hydrocephalus, lumbosacral meningo myelocele, spina bifida, and tethered cord.

The Medical Board's report indicated no physical risk to the mother but noted her anxiety about the outcome of the pregnancy. It also stated that the fetus might be born alive and could survive for a variable period, albeit with severe physical and mental morbidity.

Issues:

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy given the diagnosed fetal abnormalities.

Whether the anxiety of the petitioner about the outcome of the pregnancy is a valid ground for permitting termination.

Held:

The court noted that there was no danger to the mother's life, and there was a possibility that the baby might be born alive, although with severe physical and mental morbidity. Therefore, it was deemed inappropriate in the interests of justice to permit the termination.

The court emphasized that the anxiety of the petitioner about the outcome of the pregnancy was not a sufficient ground for permitting termination.

Consequently, the court declined the prayer of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petition.

Facts:

A.T. Sivaperumal, the appellant, was accused of dishonoring a cheque issued to Mohammed Hyath. The Trial Court acquitted the appellant, but the High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposing a fine and directing compensation to Mohammed Hyath's legal representatives. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. During the hearing, the parties agreed to a settlement.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's acquittal should be upheld or reversed, considering the settlement reached between the parties.

Held:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 138, and allowed withdrawal of the deposited amount by Mohammed Hyath's legal representatives. The appellant was granted three months to pay the remaining sum to Mohammed Hyath's legal representatives, failing which contempt proceedings would ensue. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

Facts:

Perumal Naidu, a male Hindu, owned extensive properties and executed a will in 1923, bequeathing his properties to his heirs, including his daughters Alamelu Ammal and Ramanujatha Ammal.

Alamelu Ammal executed a will in 1987, bequeathing her share of the properties to Ramanujatha Ammal and the appellant.

A dispute arose between Seetharama Naidu and Sagunthala, representing one branch of the family, and Ramanujatha Ammal's legal representatives, representing another branch, regarding the extent of each heir's share and the devolution of shares.

Issues:

The extent of each heir's share in the properties.

The devolution of shares.

The applicability of Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in applying Section 15(2)(a) without framing substantial questions of law or considering the law applicable at the time of succession in 1987.

The plaintiffs' category of heirs was added to the Schedule of the Act only in 2005, and thus, they couldn't claim any rights based on this provision retroactively to 1987. Moreover, Perumal Naidu's daughters had acquired absolute ownership rights in the properties through the will, allowing them to alienate the property as they saw fit. Therefore, Alamelu Ammal's bequest to Ramanujatha Ammal was legally permissible.

The Court concluded that the High Court's reliance on Section 15(2)(a) was unjustified, and the plaintiffs had no legal right to claim shares in the properties. Thus, the appeal was allowed, and the trial court's decision, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiffs, was restored.

Facts:

Certain appointments to the post of Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor made by the appellant-Institute were subsequently cancelled by the Board of Management. The cancellation was based on a Status Report discussed in the Eighth Board Meeting, which was not provided to the affected teachers. The High Court set aside the decision of the Board, citing violations of natural justice.

Issues:

Whether the cancellation of appointments without providing the affected teachers with the Status Report and an opportunity to be heard violated the principles of natural justice.

Held:

The Court held that the appellant-Institute's decision to cancel appointments without providing the affected teachers with the Status Report and an opportunity for representation violated the principles of natural justice.

The Court directed the appellant-Institute to provide the Status Report to the affected teachers and allow them two weeks to make fresh representations. The Board was instructed to reconsider the appointments in accordance with the law, based on the representations provided.

The decisions made in subsequent Board Meetings were deemed unwarranted and set aside. The affected teachers were deemed to be in service until a fresh decision was taken by the Board.

The Court also addressed the issue of salary payment during the period of uncertainty. The contempt petitions and writ petitions were struck off from the file of the High Court. No costs were awarded.