2016 SCCL.COM 156(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 4683 of 2016)
Patel Ravjibhai Bhulabhai (D) Thr. LRS. Appellant versus Rahemanbhai M. Shaikh (D) Thr. LRS. and others Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 5/2/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Hon'ble Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Document - interpretation - whether the sale is mortgage by conditional sale or sale with a condition to repurchase - the deed in question Exh.23 read with Exh. 37 is a mortgage by way of conditional sale and the decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs does not require to be interfered with. Needless to say, since the possession of the land was handed over to the mortgagee, no interest was charged. It has also come on record that the defendants leased the land to third parties, after possession was given by the plaintiffs in 1960. In the circumstances, after perusal of the evidence on record, Supreme Court agrees with the view taken by the High Court.
2016 SCCL.COM 154(Case No: Civil Appeal No. 2667 of 2007 )
Vls Finance Ltd and another Appellants versus Commissioner of Income Tax and another Respondents
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/28/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman.
Subject Index: Assessment proceedings - in this appeal, challenge is laid to that part of the judgment of High Court of Delhi dated 15th December, 2006 whereby High Court has held that the block assessment proceedings initiated by the respondent-Department against the appellants herein have not become time barred, by giving the respondents benefit of the period during which proceedings were pending in the High Court, in view of some interim orders passed in those proceedings which remained operative till the writ petition filed by the appellants were decided finally - the revenue authorities visited and searched the premises of the appellants for the first time on 22nd June, 1998. In the panchnama drawn on that date, it was remarked 'temporarily concluded', meaning thereby, according to the revenue authorities, search had not been concluded - according to the respondents, the search had finally been completed only on 5th August, 1998 and panchnama was duly drawn on the said date as well. The appellants, in the writ petition filed, had no where challenged the validity of searches on the subsequent dates raising a plea that the same was illegal in the absence of any fresh and valid authorisation. On the contrary, the appellants proceeded on the basis that search was conduced from 22nd June, 1998 and finally concluded on 5th August, 1998 - in the absence of any challenge laid by the appellants to the subsequent searches, Supreme Court cannot countenance the arguments of the appellants that limitation period is not to be counted from the last date of search when the search operation completed, i.e. 5th August, 1998. Therefore, this issue is also decided in favour of the respondents.
2016 SCCL.COM 152(Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2031-2032 of 2008)
Harijan Bhala Teja Appellant versus State of Gujarat Respondent
Date of Decision(mm/dd/yy): 4/27/2016.
Judge(s): Hon'ble Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Justice Prafulla C. Pant.
Subject Index: Indian Penal Code, 1860 - section 302 - conviction under - by High Court - acquittal by Sessions Judge - complete agreement with the High Court that charge as against the appellant stood proved beyond all reasonable doubts that he committed murder of his wife, and attempted to destroy the evidence by hurriedly getting buried the body - the trial court has unnecessarily emphasized on the point that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of direct evidence to be on the record.