Facts:

Saket Housing Ltd. constructed a multi-storeyed building with significant deviations from the sanctioned plan.

The court ordered the demolition of the unauthorized construction after dismissing Saket Housing's civil appeal.

Owners of residential flats filed a writ petition seeking relief from the demolition order.

The court refused to recall the demolition order, directed compensation at Rs. 6,000 per sq. ft., and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues:

Legality of the unauthorized construction.

Validity of the demolition order.

Compensation rate for affected persons.

Compliance with court directives by Saket Housing and Patna Municipal Corporation.

Held:

The court, considering the finality of the writ petition, refused to entertain further orders. It directed Saket Housing to comply with the demolition order issued on July 9, 2014.The compensation rate was enhanced from Rs. 6,000 per sq. ft. to Rs. 7,000 per sq. ft. All flat owners were instructed to receive compensation within six weeks and vacate the premises within one month.( Para 13)

The Patna Municipal Corporation was directed to demolish unauthorized structures within four months, filing a compliance report thereafter.( Para 14)

Facts:

The case involved a suit for the declaration of title through adverse possession. The plaintiff, N. Jayamma, claimed ownership of the land, which had already been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. However, the actual possession of the land remained with the original owner. The plaintiff admitted that officials of the Bangalore Development Authority demolished a structure on the property.

Issues:

Whether the plaintiff established title through adverse possession.

The relevance of the demolition of the structure by the Bangalore Development Authority to the claim of adverse possession.

Consideration of equity in the context of the Authority's purpose and the respondent's continuous possession.

Held:

The respondent-plaintiff admitted that officials of the appellant-Authority had demolished the structure on the suit property, indicating a lack of unhindered, peaceful, and continuous possession.

The plea of equity, considering the purpose of the Authority and the respondent's continuous possession, was rejected. Such considerations were deemed irrelevant in the present civil proceedings.

Decision: As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the suit filed by the respondent was deemed liable to be dismissed for the failure to prove title by adverse possession.

Referred Cases:

Ajay Kishan Singhal Vs. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 721

Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil Vs. Balwant, (1995) 2 SCC 543

Balwant Narayan Bhagde Vs. M.D. Bhagwat, (1976) 1 SCC 700

D.N. Venkatarayappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (1997) 7 SCC 567

East India Company Vs. Oditchurn Paul, (1849) Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from the East Indies 43

Gian Chand Vs. Gopala & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 528

John B. James & Ors. Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 2000 KAR 4134

Karnataka Board of Wakf Vs. Government of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779

Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, (1998) 4 SCC 387

M. Venkatesh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, (2015) 10 SCALE 27

Mahavir & Anr. Vs. Rural Institute, Amravati, (1995) 5 SCC 335

Mahesh Chand Sharma Dr. Vs. Raj Kumari Sharma, (1996) 8 SCC 128

Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, (2008) 9 SCC 177

Mohan Lal Vs. Mirza Abdul Gaffar, (1996) 1 SCC 639

Mohd. Mohd. Ali Vs. Jagadish Kalita, (2004) 1 SCC 271

NTPC Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Dutta, (2009) 8 SCC 339

P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors. Vs. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59

Parsinni Vs. Sukhi, (1993) 4 SCC 375

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Rama Shankar & Anr. Vs. Om Prakash Likhdhari, (2013) 6 ADJ 119

S.M. Karim Vs. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254

Saroop Singh Vs. Banto, (2005) 8 SCC 330

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. A. Viswam D, (1996) 2 SCC 634

Tika Ram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 10 SCC 689

U.P. Jal Nigam Vs. Kalra Properties Pvt. Ltd., (1996) 3 SCC 124

Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak Vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak, (2004) 3 SCC 376

Facts:

The Appellant, Charanjit Kaur, filed a criminal case against Respondent No. 1, Bikram Singh, and others, alleging harassment and torture for dowry. The trial resulted in the conviction of Respondent No. 1, with a subsequent appeal and dismissal by the Sessions Judge. The High Court, in a summary manner, affirmed the decision after the respondent-husband was granted probation subject to a deposit of ₹2,50,000.

Issues:

The leniency shown to the respondent-husband after conviction, claiming that the High Court was influenced by a wrong presumption regarding the chance to save the marriage.

The appellant argued that an opportunity to express her feelings was not provided.

Held:

Without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, sending the matter back to the High Court for re-hearing the parties and a fresh decision on merits. The Court emphasized that the High Court should make its decision strictly in accordance with the law. The appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3695 of 2013 was allowed to the extent mentioned in the judgment. The same order was applied to the appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3694 of 2013.

Facts:

The case involves criminal proceedings initiated by the Employees State Insurance Corporation against the respondents for failure to pay contributions required by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Act. The respondents were found guilty, and the dispute arose regarding the imposition of a fine, specifically whether the court has discretion to levy no fine or a fine of less than five thousand rupees.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 85(a)(i)(b) of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation Act, specifically whether the court has discretionary power not only to reduce the term of imprisonment but also to impose no fine or a fine of less than five thousand rupees.

Held:

The court, after considering various legal precedents, holds that the discretion provided by the proviso in Section 85(a)(i)(b) is limited to the term of imprisonment and does not extend to the fine. The legislative intent behind the Employees' State Insurance Act is to create deterrence, and therefore, a fixed minimum term of imprisonment and a specified amount of fine have been prescribed. The court emphasizes that the wording of the statute is clear, and there is no provision for imposing a lesser fine than the specified amount of five thousand rupees.

The appeals are allowed, affirming that the fine imposed should be five thousand rupees, and the courts have no discretion to reduce it once the offense has been established. The respondents are directed to pay the fine within six weeks, and in default, the fine shall be realized expeditiously in accordance with the law.

Referred Cases:

Chern Taong Shang Vs. S.D. Baijal, (1988) 1 SCC 507

Palaniappa Gounder Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1977) 2 SCC 634

Rajasthan Pharmaceutical Laboratory Vs. State of Karnataka, (1981) 1 SCC 645

Sebastian @ Kunju Vs. State, (1992) Cri LJ 3642

Surinder Kumar Vs. State, (1987) 1 SCC 467

Tetar Gope Vs. Ganauri Gope, AIR 1968 Pat 287

Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India, (1999) 7 SCC 409

Facts:

The case involved a member of a co-operative society nominating his married daughter under Section 79. After the member's death, the society transferred the membership to the daughter, leading to objections from the son and wife of the deceased member. The Deputy Registrar declined the transfer, citing that the daughter did not fit the definition of 'family' under Section 79 and Rule 127.

Issues:

The validity of the nomination, the interpretation of Section 79, and the objections raised by the inheritors against the membership transfer to the nominee.

Held:

The court clarified that as per Section 79, a co-operative society must transfer the share or interest of a deceased member to the nominee if a valid nomination has been made. The rights of inheritance or succession are secondary, applicable only in the absence of a valid nomination. Rules 127 and 128 of the 1987 Rules further support this interpretation.( Para 15, 17-19)

The court emphasized that the transfer of share or interest to the nominee is binding on the co-operative society and has no bearing on the title issues between inheritors or successors. The society is directed to transfer the share or interest to the nominee, while the inheritors retain the option to pursue their case of succession or inheritance separately.( Para 20)

The instant appeal is disposed of.

Referred Cases:

Atmaram Mohanlal Panchal Vs. Gunvantiben, AIR 1977 Guj 134

D. Mohanavelu Muldaliar Vs. Indian Insurance and Banking Corporation Ltd. Salem, AIR 1957 Mad 115

Gayatri De Vs. Mousumi Cooperative Housing Society Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 90

Kesari Devi Vs. Dharma Devi, AIR 1962 All. 355

Lakshmi Amma Vs. Saguna Bhagath, ILR 1973 Kant 827

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. United Bank of India Ltd., AIR 1970 Cal. 513

Malli Dei Vs. Kanchan Prava Dei, AIR 1973 Ori 83

Ramballav Dhandhania Vs. Gangadhar Nathmall, AIR 1956 Cal 275

S. Fauza Singh Vs. Kuldip Singh, AIR 1978 Del 276

Sarbati Devi Vs. Smt. Usha Devi, (1984) 1 SCC 424

Sarojini Amma Vs. Neelakanta Pillai, AIR 1961 Ker 126

Uma Sehgal Vs. Dwarka Dass Sehgal, AIR 1982 Del 36

Usha Ranjan Bhattacharjee Vs. Abinash Chandra Chakraborty, (1997) 10 SCC 344

Facts:

The case involves a dispute regarding stamp duty under Sections 33 and 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

The High Court considered the tripartite agreement between the State, developer, and allottees as a lease, demanding full stamp duty.

Two judgments were issued by the High Court on August 4, 2011, and August 16, 2011, concerning the developer and allottees, respectively.

Issues:

Whether the tripartite agreement qua the allottees is a lease, and if so, whether the High Court was justified in adjudicating that issue directly.

Whether the allottees were exempted from payment of stamp duty.

The appropriateness of the High Court's decision to delve into the matter without the required materials.

Held:

The court found that the High Court was not justified in adjudicating the lease issue directly without the necessary materials.

There exists a statutory scheme for adjudication of such issues by competent authorities, and the parties were directed to approach the competent authority in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The High Court's judgment dated 16.8.2011 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 73277 of 2010 was set aside.

Parties were directed to the competent authority for adjudication, with a six-month timeline for issuing notice, hearing, and passing final orders.

No opinion was expressed on the legality of orders in another writ petition, leaving it for parties to address before the High Court.

The High Court was requested to dispose of the writ petitions expeditiously.

Facts:

The case involves the Appellants, Balwan Singh and Others, challenging the entitlement to interest for the duration between the date of dispossession and the date of Notification Under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Issues:

Whether the Appellants have the right to receive interest for the period mentioned above.

Held:

In a concise judgment, the Division Bench referred to established legal precedents. Notably, in the case of R.L. Jain (D) by L.Rs. v. DDA (2004) 4 SCC 79, it was held that the landowner is not entitled to interest under the Act. However, the Court clarified that the landowner could receive rent or damages for the use and occupation of the property by the government. Subsequently, in the case of Madishetti Bala Ramul (dead) by L.Rs. v. Land Acquisition Officer (2007) 9 SCC 650, the Court directed the payment of additional interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector for the period between dis-possession and the date of Notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act.

The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.

Referred Cases:

Madishetti Bala Ramul dead by Lrs. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 650

R.L. Jain D by Lrs. Vs. DDA, (2004) 4 SCC 79

Tahera Khatoon Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer, (2014) 13 SCC 613

Facts:

The case involved the Commissioner of Income Tax and M/S. Meghalaya Steels Ltd. It centered on the eligibility of deductions under Sections 80IB and 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pertaining to subsidies for various elements of cost related to the manufacture or sale of products.

Issues:

Whether subsidies for transport, interest, power, and insurance, being revenue receipts reimbursed to the assessee, had a direct nexus with the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking or business.

Held:

The judgment in the Sterling Foods case established a significant test requiring a direct nexus between profits and gains and the industrial undertaking or business. In applying this test to the present case, it was held that all four subsidies were revenue receipts with a direct nexus to the profits and gains of the industrial undertaking.( Para 1-17)

The immediate source of the subsidies being the government did not diminish the directness of the nexus. The subsidies aimed to reimburse costs incurred by the assessee in manufacturing and selling its products, contributing to the net profit derived from the business.( Para 18)

The argument that subsidies reimbursed on incurring costs related to a business fall under the head "income from other sources" was rejected. Section 28(iii)(b) clarified that income from cash assistance against exports is chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession," encompassing subsidies related to the reimbursement of production costs.( Para 28)

Decision: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the eligibility of subsidies for transport, interest, power, and insurance under Sections 80IB and 80IC.

Referred Cases:

Decided on : 09-03-2016

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 75

Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 14, Section 2, Section 2(2), Section 260A, Section 28, Section 33B, Section 33B(4), Section 52, Section 52(1), Section 52(2), Section 56, Section 57, Section 80A, Section 80AB, Section 80E, Section 80HH, Section 80IA, Section 80IB, Section 80IB(1), Section 80IB(10), Section 80IB(11), Section 80IB(11A), Section 80IB(11B), Section 80IB(2), Section 80IB(3), Section 80IB(4), Section 80IB(5), Section 80IB(6), Section 80IB(7), Section 80IB(8), Section 80IB(9), Section 80IC, Section 80IC(2), Section 80IC(3), Section 80J

Deduction — Respondent is engaged in the business of manufacture of Steel and Ferro Silicon. — Respondent submitted its return of income for the year 2004-2005 disclosing an income of Rs. 2,06,970/- after claiming deduction Under Section 80-IB of the Income Tax Act on the profits and gains of business of the Respondent's industrial undertaking. — Whether the profits and gains are derived from the business. — Refund of excise duty should not be excluded in arriving at the profit derived from business for the purpose of claiming deduction Under Section 80-IB of the Act.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., D.L. Chidananda, Sadhna Sandhu, Gargi Khanna, Arijit Prasad, Vikas Malhotra, Rupesh Kumar, Rashmi Malhotra, Guru Krishna Kumar, S.A. Haseen, B.V. Balaram Das and Anil Katiyar, Advocates, for the Appellant; S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv., K.V. Mohan, K.V. Balakrishnan, Kavita Jha, Rajinder Mathur, Rani Chhabra, K. Sampath, R.P. Garg, V. Raj Kumar, Sunil Murarka, Kunal Chatterji and Maitrayee Banerjee, Advocates, for the Respondent

Cases Referred

Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association, (1980) 121 ITR 1 SC

Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat II, (1978) 2 SCC 644

CIT Vs. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. 2000 242 ITR, 204

CIT Vs. Dharampal Premchand Ltd., 317 ITR 353

CIT Vs. Sterling Foods, (1999) 237 ITR 579

Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. Sterling Foods, Mangalore, (1999) 4 SCC 98

Indian Chamber of Commerce Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, (1975) 101 ITR 796SC

Jai Bhagwan Oil and Flour Mills Vs. Union of India, (2009) 14 SCC 63

K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam, (1982) 1 SCR 629

Liberty India Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2009) 9 SCC 328

Loka Shikshana Trust Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, (1975) 101 ITR 234SC

Merino Ply & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT, (1994) 209 ITR 508

Pandian Chemicals Limited Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, 262 ITR 278

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 7 SCC 764

Supriya Gill Vs. CIT, (2010) 193 Taxman 12 HP

Facts:

Pratibha Ramesh Patel filed a writ petition (Civil) No. 35 of 2016 under Article 32 challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012. The petitioner had also filed a similar writ petition before the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 with identical prayers.

Issues:

Whether filing a writ petition Under Article 32 after invoking a constitutional remedy before the High Court Under Article 226 on identical facts and reliefs constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that filing a writ petition Under Article 32 after invoking a constitutional remedy before the High Court Under Article 226 on identical facts and reliefs is an abuse of the process of the court. The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one lakh only), to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks. Writ petition is dismissed