Facts:

The case involves a dispute where a named arbitrator resigned, leading to the necessity of appointing a substitute arbitrator. The arbitration agreement did not explicitly bar the appointment of a substitute arbitrator upon the resignation of the named arbitrator.

Issues:

Whether Section 15(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 applies when the named arbitrator resigns, necessitating the appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

Whether the arbitration agreement between the parties prohibits the appointment of a substitute arbitrator upon the resignation of the named arbitrator.

Held:

Under Section 8(1)(b) read with Section 8(2), if an arbitrator refuses to act, any party may serve written notice for a fresh appointment, and if not made within 15 days, the court steps in. However, Section 15(2) mandates the appointment of a substitute arbitrator when an arbitrator's mandate terminates.

The purpose of Section 15(2) is to ensure the continuity of the arbitration process. It applies unless the arbitration agreement expressly prohibits the appointment of a substitute arbitrator.

Courts have the authority to appoint substitute arbitrators to facilitate the arbitration process under Section 15(2), interpreting it liberally.

In the present case, the arbitration agreement did not prohibit the appointment of a substitute arbitrator upon the resignation of the named arbitrator. Therefore, the Bombay High Court correctly appointed a substitute arbitrator.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the appointment of a substitute arbitrator by the Bombay High Court.

Facts:

The State of Gujarat (Appellant) and Kothari and Associates (Respondent) were parties to a contract for providing lining to the main canal line. The Respondent claimed repeated delays in site handover by the Appellant, leading to inability to complete the work within the stipulated time. The contract period was extended multiple times, with the Respondent seeking compensation for delays, which the Appellant denied. The issue of limitation was raised by the Appellant, arguing that the suit was barred as it was filed after the prescribed period under the Limitation Act.

Issues:

Whether the suit filed by the Respondent is barred by limitation.

Interpretation of the limitation period under the Indian Contract Act and the Limitation Act, 1963.

Effect of extensions granted during the contract period on the computation of limitation.

Held:

The Court held that the suit filed by the Respondent was indeed barred by limitation. The limitation period began on each occasion when the Appellant failed to hand over the site, not at the termination of the contract or final payment. As the suit was filed well after the limitation period for each breach, it was deemed time-barred. The Court rejected the Respondent's arguments regarding the effect of payment, notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the exclusion of time for calculating the limitation period.

The Court set aside the lower court's decision and allowed the appeal, dismissing the suit. No costs were awarded.

Facts:

Veerendra Kumar Dubey, the appellant, was enrolled as an Operator in the corps of Artillery of the Indian Army.

Dubey received a show cause notice after accumulating four red ink entries for various offenses, leading to a proposed discharge under Army Rule 13(III)(v).

Despite Dubey's explanations for the red ink entries, the competent authority proceeded with his discharge without conducting any inquiry.

Issues:

Whether the discharge of Dubey followed the prescribed procedure under the Army Rules.

Whether the factors relevant to discharge, such as the nature of offenses and the individual's long service, were duly considered.

Whether the procedure prescribed for discharge is in accordance with the statutory provisions and constitutional principles.

Held:

The Court held that the discharge of Dubey did not follow the prescribed procedure under the Army Rules. The absence of an inquiry and failure to consider relevant factors rendered the discharge invalid.

The Court emphasized that discharge should not be ordered mechanically and must be preceded by an impartial inquiry and consideration of all relevant factors. The procedural safeguards provided by the government aimed to prevent arbitrary exercise of power and ensure fairness in the discharge process.

Consequently, the Court set aside Dubey's discharge order and directed that he be treated as if he had been in service until he qualified for pension. However, no back wages were awarded.

The Court also highlighted the importance of Article 14 of the Constitution in ensuring equality before the law. In the result this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.

Facts:

The appellants, farmers, mortgaged their agricultural property to a Co-Operative Bank for a loan.

After failing to repay the loan, arbitration proceedings were initiated, resulting in an ex-parte award in favor of the Bank.

A government notification offered to waive off interest if the principal amount was repaid by a certain date, which the appellants complied with.

Despite repayment, the sale of the mortgaged property was confirmed, leading to various legal challenges.

Issues:

Whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the confirmation of the auction sale.

Whether the auction purchaser was a bona fide purchaser.

Whether the High Court erred in its decision regarding the Minister's order.

Held:

The Court emphasized that a technical or pedantic approach should not be adopted when justice is at stake. Section 108 of the KCS Act empowers the State Government to intervene in cases of miscarriage of justice, which was evident here. The confirmation of the auction sale was illegal and contrary to a government notification, resulting in a deprivation of the appellants' right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The High Court erred in setting aside the Minister's order on technical grounds.

The auction purchaser was not a bona fide purchaser. The sale was conducted without providing the appellants an opportunity to present objections, and the confirmation happened after the loan amount was repaid.

Decision: The Court allowed the appeals, directing the auction purchaser to re-deliver possession of the property to the appellants and receive back the sale consideration amount from the Bank.

Failure to comply would result in coercive steps by the authorities.

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'.