Facts:

The case involves the State of Punjab and others as appellants and M/S. Shreyans Indus Ltd. and others as respondents. The judgment deals with the interpretation and application of Section 11 of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Issues:

The limitation period prescribed for passing assessment orders, the Commissioner's authority to extend such time limits, and the distinction between "deferment" and "extension" in the context of assessment proceedings.

Held:

The judgment clarifies that assessment orders under the Punjab Act are generally to be passed within three years. The Commissioner, under Section 11(10), is empowered to extend this period, subject to recording reasons justifying the extension. The judgment emphasizes the similarity in purpose between the Punjab Act and the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, despite differences in terminology.( Paragraph 9 )

Highlight that the extension of time for assessment enlarges the period of limitation. Once the original limitation period expires, the right to make an assessment is extinguished, providing the assessee with immunity against further assessment. A valuable right accrues in favor of the assessee when the limitation period expires.( Paragraphs 20 and 21 )

Emphasizes that, in the context of the Punjab Act, there is no scope for extending the time for assessment when the assessment has already become time-barred.( Paragraph 24)

Decision: The appeals are dismissed, affirming the principles outlined in the analysis.

Referred Cases:

Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes INT-I, South Zone, Bangalore, (2006) 143 STC 10

Commissioner of Income Tax, Jullundur Vs. Ajanta Electricals, (1995) 4 SCC 182

D.V. Paul Vs. Manisha Lalwani, (2010) 8 SCC 546

Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. Vs. C. Rajasekhar Rao, (1987) 4 SCC 93

Javer Jivan Mehta Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax Appeal, (1998) 111 STC 199

Facts:

Power Grid Corporation of India constructed a 400 KV Barh-Balia double circuit transmission line.

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. is one of the beneficiaries.

Dispute arose regarding the COD of the transmission line.

Issues:

Whether a new transmission line, charged from one end but lacking switchgear at the other end, could be commissioned for raising transmission charges.

Interpretation of Regulation 3(12) of the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (Terms and Conditions of Tariff) Regulations, 2009.

Held:

The Court agrees with the Tribunal that COD of transmission lines requires successful charging, trial operation, and being in regular service.

The definition of "transmission lines" includes switchgear and other works.

The delay in installing switchgear at one end was not the fault of the appellant, but beneficiaries cannot be made liable for this delay.

The appeals are dismissed without prejudice to the appellant's right, if any, against NTPC.

Facts:

The case involved the conviction of appellants Ram Laxman and Sanjay alias Sanju for offenses under Section 302/149 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court maintained the conviction of the appellants while acquitting co-accused based on the testimony of the informant Ganesh, the brother of the deceased.

Issues:

The witness Ganesh's testimony, as the High Court acquitted some co-accused while maintaining the conviction of the appellants.

Held:

The Division Bench, after considering the entire record, found that the High Court had committed a serious error in relying on the principle that "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" and granting acquittal to some co-accused while maintaining the conviction of the appellants. The court emphasized that if a witness is found unreliable, the evidence cannot be selectively split. The Division Bench concluded that the evidence of the only eyewitness, Ganesh, was highly unreliable, and the specific injuries attributed by him could not carry any weight. The appellants were granted acquittal, claiming parity with the co-accused who had been acquitted earlier. The appeals are allowed.

Referred Cases:

Joginder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1994) SCC Cri 46

Ugar Ahir Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277

Facts:

The Deputy Labour Commissioner passed an award against the Respondent for non-payment of dues to the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESI).

Auction sale conducted for the recovery of the awarded amount.

The auction was held, and the Appellant emerged as the sole bidder.

Issues:

Non-compliance with Rules 285B and 285C of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition of Land Reforms Rules, 1952.

Violations of principles conducting the auction, including issues with the deposit of the bid amount.

Held:

The Board of Revenue set aside the auction sale, citing non-compliance with specified rules and violations in the auction procedure.

The High Court affirmed the Board of Revenue's decision.

The Supreme Court held that the auction procedure was not duly followed, including issues with the estimation of property value and notice to the Respondent.

The auction sale was declared invalid due to procedural lapses.

Referred Cases:

Manilal Mohanlal shah Vs. Sardar Sayed Ahmed Sayed Mohmad, AIR 1954 SC 349

M/s. Progressive Industrial Enterprises Vs. Bank of Baroda, A.I.R. 1989 M.P. 177

Ram Kishun Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 11 SCC 511

Ram Swaroop Vs. Board of Revenue, (1999) RD 291

Rao Mahmook Ahmad Khan through their L.R. Vs. Ranbir Singh, (1995) Sup 4 SCC 275

State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Swadeshi Polytex Limited, (2002) 12 SCC 596

Facts:

The writ petitioners challenged orders related to the cancellation of a plot allotted to Milkhi Ram in Sector 40, Chandigarh.

The petitioners offered to file an application under Rule 21-A of the Chandigarh Lease-hold of Sites and Buildings Rules, 1973, during the High Court hearing.

The High Court, considering the offer, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to reconsider the case in light of Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case.

Issues:

Validity of successive orders for cancellation of the allotted plot.

Consideration of the petitioners' request for time for re-payment.

Applicability of Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case to the present situation.

Held:

The Supreme Court, after considering the background of the litigation, disagreed with the High Court's direction to reconsider the case in the light of Jasbir Singh Bakshi's case. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remitted the writ petition to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

Referred Cases:

Jasbir Singh Bakshi Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (2004) 10 SCC 440

Facts:

The appellants were accused of offenses under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 397 IPC.

The witnesses' statements were recorded with a delay, casting doubt on their status as eyewitnesses.

Lack of corroboration of evidence from an independent source.

Allegations of the Investigating Officer deliberately delaying the case.

Issues:

Whether the delay in recording witness statements impacts their credibility.

Whether there is sufficient corroboration of evidence.

Whether the Investigating Officer's actions affect the reliability of the case.

Held:

The court held that the delay in recording witness statements cast serious doubt about their status as eyewitnesses.

Lack of corroboration from an independent source raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence.

Allegations of the Investigating Officer deliberately delaying the case were noted.

The court concluded that the case against the appellants was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Referred Cases:

Decided on : 02-03-2016

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) - Section 110

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 147, Section 148, Section 149, Section 302, Section 397

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 302/149 and 148 — Murder — Common object of unlawful assembly — Appeal against conviction — Delay in recording statements casts serious doubt about their being eye-witnesses to occurrence — There is no corroboration of their evidence from any other independent source — Investigating Officer was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about shape to be given to case and eye-witnesses to be introduced — Case against appellants has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt — Conviction and sentence set aside.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Sushil Kr. Jain, Sr. Adv., Vikramjit Banerjee, Rishi Maheshwari, Bharat Sood, Bishwanath Chatterji, Advocates for Shally Bhasin, Advocate, Abhinav Gupta, Apurv Taran, Advocate for Pratibha Jain, Advocate, for the Appellant; Puneet Parihar, Saurabh Rajpal, Advocates for Milind Kumar and Ruchi Kohli, Advocates, for the Respondent

Final Result : Allowed

Facts:

Accused attacked the deceased with country-made bombs and weapons, resulting in multiple injuries.

Deceased succumbed to excessive hemorrhage from a knee injury.

Trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment.

High Court partially allowed the appeal, altering the conviction to Section 304-I IPC, reducing the sentence to 10 years.

Issues:

Whether the injuries inflicted by the accused, though not individually fatal, were cumulatively sufficient to constitute murder under Section 300 IPC.

Whether the High Court erred in altering the conviction based on the interpretation of medical evidence.

Held:

The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning, emphasizing that the intentional and cumulative nature of the injuries falls within the scope of Section 300 IPC. The Court held that the High Court was in error in altering the conviction and restored the trial court's judgment, convicting the accused for the offense of murder with a sentence of life imprisonment. Accordingly, we allow this appeal.

Referred Cases:

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rayavarapu Punnayya, (1976) 4 SCC 382

Facts:

The Plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming a 1/8th share in ancestral property, contending that as a coparcener, he had a right by birth under the Mitakshara Law. The Defendants, including the Plaintiff's father, asserted that an earlier partition had taken place. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first Appellate Court and the High Court, relying on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, dismissed the appeal, stating that the joint family property had ceased to exist.

Issues:

Whether, on the death of the coparcener in 1973, the joint family property ceased to be joint family property?

Whether the Plaintiff, born in 1977, has the right to claim a share in the ancestral property?

Held:

The Court observed that the proviso to Section 6 applied, and a partition was deemed to have taken place by operation of law immediately before the coparcener's death in 1973.

It was clarified that on applying Section 8, the joint family property ceased to be joint family property, and the heirs held it as tenants in common.

The Court emphasized that the Plaintiff, born after the devolution of the property in 1973, had no right to claim a share in the ancestral property.

The appeal was dismissed based on the understanding that the joint family property had lost its character, and the Plaintiff's claim was not maintainable.

Facts:

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against a judgment dated 14.12.2011 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 92/2002 and 106/2002.

The High Court partially allowed the criminal appeals by Rajaram, Udaibhan, and Hakim Singh, modifying their convictions and reducing the sentences.

Issues:

Whether the High Court, in altering the convictions and sentencing, had ignored relevant considerations and adopted an erroneous approach.

The Court examined the quantum of sentence imposed by the High Court and assessed whether it was appropriate given the nature of the offenses.

Held:

The High Court converted convictions but maintained a lenient sentence, considering a lesser offense.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to adequately consider relevant factors in determining the quantum of sentence.

Six injuries on the complainant, including a grievous one, were noted, emphasizing the severity of the incident.

The Court found the High Court's punishment over-lenient without sufficient mitigating circumstances.

In the interest of justice, the Supreme Court modified the sentences, imposing a three-year rigorous imprisonment on all three accused for offenses under Section 326 and Section 326/34 of the IPC.

Other sentences maintained by the High Court were left intact, with a clarification that sentences for different offenses would run concurrently.