“Divided Verdict in Narcotics Case: One Conviction Upheld, Another Overturned Due to Procedural Lapses” Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 42, 50 and 67 – The appeals arise from a common judgment by the Gujarat High Court, dismissing appeals against a trial court’s conviction of the appellants under the NDPS Act for possession of narcotics – The main issues revolve around the compliance with mandatory procedures of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure, and the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – The appellants contend non-compliance with Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act, questioning the seizure procedure and the reliability of witnesses – The NCB argues that the procedures were followed correctly, the witnesses are reliable, and there was no motive to falsely implicate the appellants – The Court dismissed Anwarkhan’s appeal, upholding his conviction, while allowing Appellant’s appeal, acquitting him due to insufficient evidence and doubts about the seizure procedure – The Court found the evidence against Anwarkhan convincing but had reservations about the evidence against Appellant, particularly the identification and the admissibility of his confessional statement – The Court applied the principles from the case of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, which ruled that confessional statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are not admissible as evidence – Anwarkhan’s conviction stands, while Appellant is acquitted and his bail bonds discharged. The Court directed Anwarkhan to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.
2024 INSC 351 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH FIRDOSKHAN KHURSHIDKHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna Bhalachandra…
“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.
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…
“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.
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.…
“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.
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…
“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.
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…
“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.
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, 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.
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…