Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Arbitration

You missed

C P C

“Illegal Construction on Disputed Land: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order Permitting Compound Wall, Demands Impleading Affected Parties:” Land Dispute – The case involves a dispute over land ownership and the construction of a compound wall, which was permitted by the High Court under police protection without considering the rights of affected third parties – The main issue is whether the High Court was justified in allowing the construction of the compound wall under police protection, and whether necessary parties were impleaded – The petitioners argued that the High Court’s order was illegal due to non-joinder of necessary parties and that the principles of natural justice were not followed – The respondents claimed that no one was prejudiced by the construction of the compound wall and that the rights of adjacent landowners were not adversely affected – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, restored the writ petition, and directed the High Court to decide the case afresh after impleading all necessary parties – The Court found that the High Court ignored the affidavits of government officers indicating that third parties would be affected by the wall’s construction – The Court emphasized that orders based on “Minutes of Order” are not consent orders and must be lawful, considering the rights of all affected parties – The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was illegal and remanded the case for a fresh decision, with the possibility of demolishing the compound wall if found illegal.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
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
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
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