Supreme Court of India Judgements

46610 Judgements hosted as on 29/08/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: May 2024

Customs & Excise

“Supreme Court Expands Definition of ‘Manufacture’: Labeling Alone Qualifies for Cenvat Credit and Rebate” Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35L(1)(b) – qualification as ‘manufacture’ under the Act – The primary issue is whether the labeling activity constitutes ‘manufacture’ as per Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, thereby making respondent eligible for cenvat credit and rebate on exported goods – The revenue (petitioner) argued that the additional labeling done by Respondent did not amount to manufacture and hence, they were not entitled to the cenvat credit and rebate claims – Respondent contended that the labeling activity is deemed as manufacture according to Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, justifying their claims for cenvat credit and rebate – The Supreme Court affirmed the CESTAT’s order, dismissing the revenue’s appeal and upholding Jindal Drugs Ltd.’s entitlement to cenvat credit and rebate on the duty paid – The Court reasoned that the amendment to Note 3, which replaced ‘and’ with ‘or’, broadened the scope of activities considered as manufacture, including labeling – The Court interpreted the definition of ‘manufacture’ in the Central Excise Act and the amended Note 3 to Chapter 18, concluding that labeling alone suffices as manufacture – The Supreme Court concluded that the labeling activity carried out by respondent amounts to manufacture, entitling them to cenvat credit and rebate, with no order as to costs.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 354 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE BELAPUR — Appellant Vs. JINDAL DRUGS LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal…

C P C

“Supreme Court Remands Title Suit Substitution Dispute: Procedural Errors Found in High Court’s Order on Legal Representative” Title Suit – The case involves a title suit regarding property in Bihar, with ‘S1’ as one of the defendants – After his death, two claimants sought substitution in the Second Appeal pending before the Patna High Court – The main issue was determining the legal representative (LR) for substitution in the Second Appeal after Swami ‘S1’s death – The appellant, argued for substitution in place of ‘S2’, whose claim was previously dismissed by the High Court – The respondent, was upheld as the LR by the High Court based on the Trial Court’s report – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remanded the matter for a fresh decision on substitution, emphasizing the correct procedure for determining LRs – The Supreme Court found procedural errors in the High Court’s decision-making process regarding the substitution of LRs – The Court referenced Order 22 Rule 5 of the CPC, which outlines the procedure for determining LRs and the appellate court’s role in considering the subordinate court’s report and objections – The Supreme Court directed the High Court to make a fresh decision on substitution, without commenting on the merits of the claimants’ rights – Appeal was disposed of, and Sadhavi Sarojanand now seeks substitution as the appellant in the pending Second Appeal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 352 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SWAMI VEDVYASANAND JI MAHARAJ (D) THR LRS. — Appellant Vs. SHYAM LAL CHAUHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S.…

Consumer

“Reinstatement Value Clause Upheld: Supreme Court Decides Fire Insurance Dispute, Dismisses Insured’s Claim for Higher Compensation” Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 64 UM(2) – Insurance Policy – Dispute regarding an insurance claim settlement after a fire incident – The primary issues revolve around the applicability of the Reinstatement Value Clause in the insurance policy, the correct method of calculating depreciation, and the settlement amount – Appellant contends that the claim was settled correctly by applying a 60% depreciation rate and challenges the NCDRC’s order which partly allowed the insured’s complaint – Respondent argues for a higher compensation, claiming that the base figure for depreciation calculation should have been higher and that the depreciation rate should be 32%. – The Supreme Court allowed Appellant’s appeal, set aside the NCDRC’s order, and upheld the depreciation rate at 60%, concluding that the claim was rightly settled at Rs.7.88 crores – The Court found that the Reinstatement Value Clause was part of the policy and that the insured was unable or unwilling to reinstate the property, thus justifying the depreciation basis for settlement – The Court rejected the application of the Oswal Plastic Industries judgment to this case and found no breach of IRDA Regulations – The Supreme Court concluded that appellant’s settlement of the claim was justified, and the appeals filed by the insured were dismissed – The original complaint before the NCDRC was also dismissed.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 356 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGER — Appellant Vs. M/S TATA STEEL LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Surya…

I P C

“High Court’s Order Quashing Dowry Harassment Case Partially Overturned by Supreme Court: Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues Analyzed” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 323, 498A, 504 and 506 – Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Sections 3 and 4 – Jurisdiction – The appellant challenges the High Court’s order quashing proceedings against respondents for offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act due to alleged dowry harassment – The appeal raises questions about the correctness of the High Court’s order based on non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C., omnibus allegations, and jurisdiction of the Jamshedpur court – The appellant contends that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings, arguing that the complaint discloses offenses and the Jamshedpur court has jurisdiction – Respondents support the High Court’s decision, arguing that the arrests were made without due process, the Jamshedpur court lacks jurisdiction, and the complaint contains general allegations – The Supreme Court partly allows the appeal, setting aside the quashing order against respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 8, while upholding it for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 – The Court finds that the allegations against respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 8 are specific enough to warrant investigation, and the Jamshedpur court has jurisdiction as the appellant resides there – The Court emphasizes that quashing proceedings requires careful consideration and cannot be based on a mini trial or premature merits assessment – The Supreme Court’s decision reinstates proceedings against certain respondents and clarifies jurisdictional and procedural aspects of the case.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 357 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRIYANKA JAISWAL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and…

Stamp Act State Laws

“Supreme Court Clarifies State’s Power to Levy Stamp Duty on Insurance Policies” Stamp Act, 1899 – Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 – Power to levy and collect stamp duty – The primary issues are the legislative competence of the State to levy stamp duty on insurance policies and the applicability of the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 or the 1998 Act – LIC contends that the state lacks legislative competence to impose stamp duty on insurance policies and challenges the demand for stamp duty payment for policies issued using stamps purchased from Maharashtra – The State of Rajasthan argues that it has the power to collect stamp duty on insurance policies under Entry 44 of List III, as per the rate prescribed by the Parliament under Entry 91 of List I – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment, and affirmed the state’s power to levy stamp duty. However, it directed that the state shall not demand and collect the stamp duty as per the orders dated between 1993-94 and 2001-02 – The Court reasoned that the state has the legislative competence to impose and collect stamp duty on insurance policies, and the 1952 Act applies to the case – The Court analyzed the constitutional provisions and previous judgments to conclude that the state can impose stamp duty using rates prescribed by the Parliament – The Supreme Court concluded that while the state’s power to levy stamp duty is upheld, the specific demands for stamp duty payment in this case were set aside due to the circumstances presented.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 358 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam Sri…

I P C

“Supreme Court Overturns Lower Courts, Orders Trial for Alleged Marriage Fraud and Conspiracy (IPC Sections 420 & 120-B)” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420 read with Section 120-B – The appellant challenged lower courts’ orders regarding the summoning of respondents for alleged dishonest inducement in a marriage – The appellant claimed he was deceived into marrying a married respondent and that all respondents conspired to induce him into marriage and leave him with a significant sum of money – The respondents argued that there was no concealment or cheating, as all facts were disclosed to the appellant from the beginning – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restored the Magistrate’s order for the respondents to face trial – The court found that a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents, and the lower courts’ approach was not legally sustainable – The court concluded that the respondents should face trial for the alleged offences, and the case will be decided on its merits based on the evidence presented by the parties.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 342 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKAR — Appellant Vs. SHARMILA DAS AND OTHERS ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Specific Relief Act

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 6 – Suit by person dispossessed of immovable property – The appellants, owner of the property, allegedly evicted the respondent illegally and by force – The main issue was the maintainability of the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and the illegal dispossession – The appellants contended voluntary handover of possession and challenged the maintainability of the suit – The respondent filed a suit within six months of dispossession under Section 6 of the Act – The Trial Court decreed in favor of the respondent, and the High Court dismissed the appellant’s revision – The High Court concurred with the Trial Court on the illegal dispossession and maintainability of the suit – The appeal was dismissed based on concurrent findings and evidence on record – The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 345 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJAY MARUTI JADHAV AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMIT TATOBA SAWANT — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra…

I P C

“Conspiracy Theory Revived: Supreme Court Orders Trial in Forged Documents Case Involving Government Land” Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 120(B) and 34 – The case involves allegations of a conspiracy to illegally transfer government land using forged documents – The respondents, along with others, are accused of manipulating judicial processes and revenue records to acquire government lands – The primary issue is whether the High Court was correct in quashing the order taking cognizance against the respondents, given the evidence of a conspiracy and manipulation of documents – The State argues that the High Court overlooked circumstantial evidence of a broader conspiracy and failed to appreciate the severity of the offences, which could undermine public trust in land administration – The respondents challenged the order of cognizance, arguing insufficient evidence directly implicating them in the conspiracy – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the trial to proceed against the respondents – The Court found that the High Court’s decision was based on an incomplete assessment of facts and that a detailed trial is necessary to fully unravel the extent of the alleged conspiracy – The Court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of evidence and witnesses by the Trial Court to determine the actual harm caused to the public exchequer – The Supreme Court concluded that the case should not be dismissed at the preliminary stage and must be examined judiciously in a trial setting to ensure the integrity of ongoing investigations and judicial processes.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 346 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF ODISHA — Appellant Vs. NIRJHARINI PATNAIK @ MOHANTY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

Customs & Excise

“Central Excise Dispute: Fresh Start Ordered! Court Remands Case for Tribunal to Reassess Impact of Missing Letter on Show Cause Notices” Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 35C (2) – Orders of Appellate Tribunal – The appellant, M/S Madura Coats is involved in a legal dispute with the Commissioner of Central Excise regarding the clearance of goods without payment of duty – The case involves multiple orders and appeals, with the primary contention being the non-furnishing of a crucial letter dated 20.01.2001 – The main issue is whether the non-furnishing of the letter dated 20.01.2001 has caused prejudice to the appellant’s ability to respond to the show cause notices effectively – The appellant contends that the final order by the tribunal, which directed the respondent to furnish the letter dated 20.01.2001, is binding and its non-compliance should result in the appeals being allowed – The respondent argues that the letter dated 20.01.2001 is the appellant’s own document and its absence does not prejudice the appellant’s case – They also assert that the appellant has been delaying the adjudication process – The court affirmed the High Court’s decision to remand the matter back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication of the show cause notices, subject to the appellant demonstrating how the non-furnishing of the letter has caused prejudice – The court reasoned that the letter dated 20.01.2001 was not relied upon adversely against the appellant and that the appellant should have retained a copy of their own document – The court found that the non-furnishing of the letter did not violate principles of natural justice as it was not used to draw adverse inferences against the appellant – The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs, and the matter was remanded back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication, with the appellant’s contentions kept open

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 336 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Pamidighantam…

I P C

“Sudden Fight, Not Murderous Intent: Supreme Court Reclassifies Conviction, Reduces Sentenc” Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 304 – The appeal challenges the High Court’s decision to uphold the appellant’s conviction for murder, arguing that the conviction under Section 302 can be converted to Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder – The appellant argued that the incident occurred in a sudden fight without premeditation and there was no intention to cause death, suggesting the offense falls under Section 304 – The respondent-State maintained that the concurrent findings of the courts below were correct and warranted no interference – The Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Part I of Section 304, sentencing the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for eight years and a fine – The Court found that the incident occurred in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, without undue advantage or cruelty by the appellant – The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the conviction to Part I of Section 304 with a reduced sentence and fine, considering the time already served by the appellant.

May 5, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 338 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. AHSAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.…

You missed

Consumer

The flat was purchased for the personal use of one of its directors and his family — The appellant created confusion by double allotment of the flat and unfairly forfeited the deposited amount —The NCDRC ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the appellant to refund the deposited amount with interest — The Supreme Court upheld this decision —The respondent was considered a consumer as the flat was for personal use — The appellant’s actions were deemed deficient and unfair due to the double allotment and premature cancellation —

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Anticipatory bail — Cancellation of — The appellant had his anticipatory bail cancelled without notice due to failure to plant saplings —Whether the cancellation of anticipatory bail without notice was justified The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting additional time to plant 500 trees —The anticipatory bail granted to is revived, and he must deposit the cost of saplings with the Forest authorities.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Bail Granted

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420 and 34 — Nature of Offence —The Court’s decision to grant bail in a case involving Sections 420 and 34 IPC indicates that while these sections pertain to serious offenses (cheating and criminal conspiracy, respectively), bail may still be granted if the circumstances of the case, such as the nature of the transaction and the relationship between the parties, warrant it.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw
Tenders & Contracts

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) — PPA between Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited, and the Hirehalli Solar Power Project LLP — The respondent sought an extension of the scheduled commissioning date (SCD) under the force majeure clause of the PPA due to delays in obtaining necessary approvals and licenses —The Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) rejected the force majeure claim, but the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) reversed the decision, finding that the delay was not attributable to the respondent and that the force majeure clause was applicable — The Supreme Court agreed with the APTEL’s findings and dismissed the appeals — The court also rejected the appellant’s contention that the APTEL’s direction to pay late payment surcharge to the respondent was unjustified, as it was rooted in the PPA and in furtherance of the intention of the parties.

Aug 29, 2024 sclaw