Rohan Dhungat Etc. v. The State of Goa & Ors Etc.,
Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 12574-12577 of 2022
The Supreme Court recently upheld the High Court’s ruling stating that that for the purpose of considering actual imprisonment, the period of parole should be excluded. The court explained that if parole time is included in the calculation of 14 years of actual imprisonment, influential prisoners could obtain parole multiple times, defeating the purpose of actual imprisonment. The case involved a group of convicts serving life imprisonment who applied for premature release after being released on parole, but their request was rejected by the State Government. The court referred to the object and purpose of parole and ruled that the period of parole must be excluded while considering 14 years of actual imprisonment.
Jaswant Singh & Ors. v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 323 of 2022
The Supreme Court ruled that the Presiding Judge must provide reasons when giving an opinion on the grant of remission under Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. The Court decided to pass a similar order as passed in a previous case, as the Presiding Officer’s opinions lacked reasoning with regard to the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Naskar vs. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 595. The Court directed the Special Judge to provide a fresh opinion with adequate reasoning after considering the relevant factors for the grant of remission, including the effect of the offense on society, probability of the crime being repeated, potential for future crimes, and socio-economic condition of the convict’s family.
C. Haridasan v. Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup & Ors,
Civil Appeal No. 4072 of 2022
A Supreme Court bench with Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna delivered a split verdict in a civil appeal over a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. Justice Shah upheld the judgment of the trial court, stating that the defendants agreed to sell the property for the sale consideration mentioned in the agreement and were always ready to perform their part of the contract. However, Justice Nagarathna in her dissent stated that the plaintiff had not demonstrated readiness and willingness to carry out his obligations under the agreement of sale and had not performed his obligations, therefore, the relief of specific performance could not be granted. Further, Justice added that the only exception to this rule is if a party is prevented or waived from performing their obligations. The plaintiff had paid only 4% of the consideration and had not taken any positive steps to perform their obligations under the contract.
Manik Majumder & Ors. v. Dipak Kumar Saha (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors,
Civil Appeal 2965 of 2022
The Supreme Court passed a split verdict in a case about the validity of a sale deed executed through a deed of Power of Attorney. The bench consisted of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who had differing opinions on the matter. Justice Shah believed that non-production of the original power of attorney was fatal to the case, while Justice Nagarathna felt it was not a requirement to prove the validity of a sale deed. Justice Nagarathna observed that the registered document carries a presumption of validity and the original defendants had not led any evidence to rebut the assumption. The judges disagreed on whether the requirement under the Registration Act, 1908, had been met and whether the statutory presumption under Section 60 was correctly invoked.
Association of Old Settlers of Sikkim and Ors. v. Union of India,
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 59 of 2013
The Supreme Court ruled that the exclusion of old Indian settlers from the definition of “Sikkimese” in the Income Tax Act is unconstitutional. The settlers, who permanently settled in Sikkim prior to its merger with India in 1975, are entitled to the tax exemption under Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act. The court observed that the exclusion was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The Union of India was directed to amend the explanation in the act to include a clause extending the tax exemption to all Indian citizens who had a domicile in Sikkim before April 26, 1975.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sunil Jain & Ors.,
Civil Appeal No. 280 of 2023
The Supreme Court ruled that the delay in taking possession of land due to pending litigation does not give the original owner of the land the benefit of lapse under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The Court also held that subsequent purchasers have no locus to challenge the acquisition or lapsing of the acquisition. The High Court’s decision to allow the writ petition and declare the acquisition to have lapsed was deemed unsustainable by the Supreme Court and was quashed.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Bhagrati & Anr.,
Civil Appeal No. 279 of 2023
The Delhi government has appealed against the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 12139 of 2015 which allowed a writ petition by a private respondent and declared the acquisition of a certain land to have lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The government claims that the title of the land in question has not been established yet, and the recorded owner never claimed the compensation. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition without establishing the right and title of the original writ petitioner, and the impugned judgment is unsustainable on merits. The present appeal is allowed, and the judgment by the High Court is quashed and set aside.
K.L. Swamy v. Commissioner of Income Tax And Anr.
Civil Appeal 3704 of 2012
The Supreme Court ruled that the government can charge interest on late returns of income tax under Section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act, even if no notice has been issued under Section 158BC. The bench consisting of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar was hearing a batch of petitions related to the same issue. The court examined the purpose of Chapter XIV-B, which was added to curb tax evasion and simplify assessment procedures for searched cases, and concluded that the normal assessment proceedings under Section 140 of the Income Tax Act are not applicable for assessment of undisclosed income for the block period. The court held that the interest under Section 158BFA is payable for late filing of returns, regardless of the absence of a notice under Section 158BC, and the provisions of Section 140A are not applicable to Chapter XIV-B.
The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department & Ors. v. Rattan India Power Limited Through Its Director & Ors.,
Civil Appeal No. 8550 of 2022
In a recent ruling, Supreme Court declared that signing a contract and issuing an undertaking in accordance with it would prevent parties from challenging the agreed amount of consideration in the contract. The court was hearing a Civil Appeal in which the question was whether a party to a contract has the right to question the consideration after signing the contract. The ruling by the Supreme Court bench consisting of Justices S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha establishes that signing a contract and following its terms will result in the parties being unable to question the consideration agreed upon.
AMD Industries Limited v. Commissioner of Trade Tax,
Civil Appeal 108 of 2013
The Supreme Court ruled that goods manufactured through “diversification” must be of a “different,” “distinct,” and “separate” nature in order to claim exemption under Section 4-A (5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act. The court stated that in order to be considered as “diversification,” the quality and quantity of the product must have improved and/or increased. If the ultimate use remains the same, the product cannot be considered as a different good for exemption from trade tax. The bench noted that Section 4-A of the act requires goods manufactured through diversification to be different from goods manufactured prior to diversification. The court’s decision upholds the previous ruling by the High Court.
About the author
