Income Tax Law - Carry Forward and Set Off of Losses - Amalgamating Co-operative Societies - Interpretation of Provisions - Appeal against the High Court’s decision affirming the Income Tax authorities' refusal to allow the appellant society to carry forward and set off losses of amalgamating cooperative societies - Appeal dismissed on grounds that cooperative societies cannot carry forward losses post-amalgamation due to lack of specific provision under the Income Tax Act. [Paras 1-23]

Taxation Statutes - Strict Interpretation - No Equity in Tax Matters - Held that tax statutes must be interpreted strictly, and benefits explicitly provided to one class (companies) under Section 72(A) of the Income Tax Act cannot be extended to another class (cooperative societies) in the absence of specific provision. [Paras 17-22]

Equality Before Law - Article 14 - Cooperative Societies vs Companies - Differentiation between cooperative societies and companies upheld as not violative of Article 14 - Cooperative societies and companies considered distinct classes under tax law, justifying differential treatment. [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs. The appellant society cannot carry forward and set off the losses of the amalgamated cooperative societies in absence of explicit statutory provision. [Para 23]

Constitutional Law - Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - Civil Appeals against High Court order - High Court declared certain Government Orders (G.O.Ms. No. 14 and 22) under Andhra Pradesh Labour Subordinate Service Rules as unconstitutional - Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly struck down the impugned orders but invoked the doctrine of prospective overruling - Past promotions made under the invalidated rules preserved to prevent administrative difficulties and undue harshness - Appeals allowed, and past actions validated. [Paras 1-19]

Doctrine of Prospective Overruling - Scope and Application - Supreme Court reiterated that this doctrine is primarily applied by the highest court to avoid unjust results from retrospective application of newly declared legal principles - Applied in this case to preserve promotions made before 7th November 2001, when the relevant law was unsettled - Emphasized balancing of equity and administrative fairness. [Paras 8-18]

Impact of Prospective Overruling - Judicial Craftsmanship - Highlighted the pragmatic approach to ensure justice and prevent administrative chaos - Recognized the necessity of maintaining stability in government services and preventing cascading adverse effects on non-parties - Reaffirmed that High Courts cannot generally invoke this doctrine, but the Supreme Court can to ensure complete justice under Article 142. [Paras 16-19]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Supreme Court set aside High Court's order to the extent it invalidated promotions made under the impugned G.O.Ms before 7th November 2001 - Reiterated the power to apply prospective overruling - Contempt petitions dismissed as proceedings rendered moot by the decision. [Paras 19-20]

Land Reforms - Right to Water - Civil Appeal against High Court's reversal of lower court findings - High Court held Section 36 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 applicable only to tenancy land, not ownership land - Supreme Court clarifies Section 36 protects tenant's pre-existing right to water, which continues even after tenant becomes landowner - Original plaintiff, as new landowner, retains right to well water as per registered lease agreement and mutation in revenue records - High Court's decision set aside - Appeal allowed - Judgment and decree of Trial Court and First Appellate Court affirmed. [Paras 1-15]

Tenant's Right to Water - Analysis - Held - Section 36 ensures landlords cannot curtail or terminate tenant's pre-existing water rights upon enactment of the Act - Once tenant becomes landowner under Section 104(3), such water rights are preserved - High Court's interpretation incorrect - Tenant's transition to landowner does not nullify right to irrigation. [Para 10-14]

Decision - Preservation of Water Rights upon Transition to Landownership - Supreme Court sets aside High Court's judgment - Confirms original plaintiff's right to well water for irrigation, as established by lease agreement and revenue records - Judgment and decree of lower courts restored. [Para 15]

Civil Procedure – Substitution of Legal Representatives – Condonation of Delay – Dismissal for Non-prosecution – High Court rejected applications for substitution, setting aside dismissal for non-prosecution, and condonation of delay in substitution after death of original plaintiff – Appellant claimed ignorance of procedural requirements – Supreme Court held no valid grounds for condonation of delay – Appeal dismissed for lack of merit – High Court decision upheld. [Paras 1-15]

Substitution of Legal Representatives – Application Under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC – Analysis – Held – Appellant, widow of deceased plaintiff, failed to file timely substitution application – Alleged family settlement insufficient to exclude other legal heirs – Procedural requirements clear and unfulfilled – High Court properly dismissed application for substitution and setting aside abatement. [Paras 8-14]

Condonation of Delay – Application Under Section 5 of Limitation Act – Analysis – Held – Appellant’s plea of ignorance not justifiable – Delay of over seven years in filing substitution application deemed inordinate and inexcusable – High Court’s rejection of condonation application upheld. [Paras 11-14]

Decision – Dismissal of Civil Appeals – Court affirms High Court’s rejection of applications for substitution, condonation of delay, and setting aside non-prosecution dismissal – Appeals dismissed for lack of merit – No costs awarded. [Paras 15]

Securities Law - Withdrawal of Voluntary Open Offer – SEBI vs. SAT Decision – Appeal challenging SAT's decision permitting withdrawal of voluntary open offer by Akshya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. – SEBI argued the open offer, once made, cannot be withdrawn due to economic unviability – Supreme Court held that SEBI's regulations treat mandatory and voluntary open offers equally – Withdrawal only permitted under specified circumstances of impossibility as per Regulation 27 of SEBI (SAST) Regulations, 1997 – Delay by SEBI in issuing comments does not justify withdrawal – SAT's reliance on ICDR Regulations to interpret Takeover Code regulations was incorrect – SAT's order set aside, SEBI's directions restored. [Paras 1-38]

Voluntary vs. Mandatory Public Offer – Analysis – Held – No distinction between voluntary and mandatory offers in terms of withdrawal conditions – Public offer impacts securities market immediately upon announcement – Withdrawal based on economic reasons not permissible – Regulation 27 exceptions strictly construed to maintain market integrity. [Para 28-31]

SEBI's Role and Delays – Consideration – Acknowledged delay by SEBI in commenting on draft letter of offer – Such delay, while undesirable, does not nullify SEBI’s eventual decision – Emphasized SEBI's duty to act promptly to protect market interests. [Paras 26-27, 32]

Judgment in Nirma Industries – Application – Upheld – Supreme Court reaffirms principles in Nirma Industries case – Regulations to be interpreted strictly in line with legislative intent – Rejects call for reconsideration of Nirma Industries judgment – Economic unviability not grounds for withdrawal under Regulation 27. [Paras 29-31, 35-37]

Natural Justice – Breach – Consideration – Failure to provide hearing before SEBI’s decision – Court finds no real prejudice caused to the respondent – Mere breach without demonstrated prejudice insufficient to nullify SEBI's action. [Para 33-34]

Decision – Appeal Allowed – SAT's order dated 19th June 2013 set aside – SEBI's directions dated 30th November 2012 reinstated – Reinforces strict compliance with regulations for withdrawal of public offers. [Paras 38]

Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166 – Compensation for fatal motor vehicle accident – Appeal for enhancement of compensation – Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,49,600; High Court increased to Rs. 3,70,200 – Supreme Court held compensation inadequate – Future prospects and proper multiplier not considered – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 11,20,528 – Interest at 9% per annum from application date till payment – Ordered deposit of 50% in a nationalized bank. [Paras 1-4]

Calculation of Compensation – Future Prospects and Multiplier – Held – Age of deceased (35 years) justifies 50% increase in income for future prospects – Multiplier of 16 appropriate – Deduction of 1/4th for personal expenses for five dependents – Total compensation Rs. 11,20,528. [Para 4]

Additional Heads of Compensation – Funeral expenses, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium, and litigation costs – Awarded Rs. 1,00,000 each for loss of love and affection and loss of consortium – Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000 – Litigation costs Rs. 25,000. [Para 4]

Decision – Enhancement of Compensation – Total compensation fixed at Rs. 11,20,528 with 9% interest per annum from the date of application till payment – 50% of enhanced amount to be deposited in nationalized bank – Appeal allowed. [Para 4]

Criminal Law - Power of Remission - Scope and Jurisdiction - Writ petitions challenging the State of Tamil Nadu's proposal to remit the life sentences of the convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case following the commutation of their death sentences to life imprisonment - Issues referred to the Constitution Bench due to their critical national importance - Held, determination of whether life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of the life or if remission can be granted, the primacy of executive power between the State and Union, the permissibility of suo motu exercise of remission, and interpretation of 'consultation' as 'concurrence' requires authoritative decision. [Paras 36-49]

Judicial Review - Constitutional Powers - Remission and Commutation - Whether once the President or Governor exercises power under Articles 72 or 161, or this Court under Article 32, the power of remission by the executive remains valid - Referred to the Constitution Bench for decision. [Paras 43-49]

Executive Power - Appropriate Government - Determination of the 'appropriate government' under Section 432(7) of CrPC for the exercise of remission power - Whether the Union or the State has primacy - Referred to Constitution Bench. [Paras 43-49]

Remission Procedure - Suo Motu Exercise - Interpretation of Section 432 of CrPC regarding whether remission can be granted suo motu and the mandatory nature of procedures under Section 432(2) - Referred to Constitution Bench. [Paras 45-49]

Decision - Referral to Constitution Bench - Due to the wide ramifications and critical nature of the issues, the matter is referred to a Constitution Bench for authoritative interpretation and decision. [Para 49]

Civil Law - Transfer of Tenancy Rights – Appeal against High Court order recognizing joint tenancy of property by heirs and declaring transfer of tenancy to one heir illegal – Appellant claimed exclusive rights based on purported Will – High Court found joint tenancy and held transfer by Municipal Corporation illegal and void ab initio – Supreme Court affirmed, holding joint tenancy was established by admissions and legal proceedings, and transfer lacked bona fide and due process – Relief moulded by High Court upheld, directing possession of five flats to respondents based on their rightful share. [Paras 1-40]

Succession Law - Bequeathing of Tenancy Rights – Analysis – Held – Succession to tenancy rights governed by applicable tenancy laws, and in absence of specific statutory provision, general law of succession applies – Tenancy rights considered joint and indivisible among heirs unless legally transferred – Supreme Court affirms that unprobated Will of a Parsi does not confer exclusive rights and tenancy devolves equally among heirs. [Paras 21-28]

Equity and Subsequent Events – Moulding Relief – Held – Courts can take note of subsequent events that impact the relief sought and mould relief accordingly – High Court correctly moulded relief considering construction on property and subsequent developments – Five flats allocated to respondents reflecting their equitable share – Principle of equity and fair play applied to ensure just and appropriate relief. [Paras 34-37]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court’s decision declaring the transfer of tenancy illegal and moulding relief to allocate five flats to respondents, recognizing their share in the property and the subsequent developments on the property. [Paras 40]

Constitutional Law – Article 254 – Repugnancy between State and Central Legislation – Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 and Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 – Held – No repugnancy between the two Acts as they operate in different fields – Central Act regulates private security agencies, while State Act focuses on welfare and employment conditions of security guards in Maharashtra – Both Acts can operate concurrently without conflict. [Paras 43-51]

Welfare Legislation – Labour Welfare – State Act regulating employment conditions and welfare of private security guards in Maharashtra – State Act upheld as constitutional – Not violative of Articles 14 and 19 – Restrictions imposed by State Act deemed reasonable and in the interest of labour welfare. [Paras 52-53]

Legislative Competence – Article 246 – Competence of Parliament and State Legislatures – Parliament has supreme power to legislate on entries in List-I and List-III of the Seventh Schedule – State Legislature competent to enact welfare legislation under Entry 24 of List-III. [Paras 44-47]

Doctrine of Occupied Field – Repugnancy test – Only applicable if both State and Central Laws relate to the same entry in the Concurrent List and there is a direct conflict – State Act and Central Act found to regulate different subjects – No irreconcilable inconsistency. [Paras 50-51]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 upheld – Found to operate concurrently with the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 – Contempt petitions disposed of accordingly. [Paras 54-55]