1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1766 OF 2009 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE …APPELLANT VERSUS MADHAN AGRO INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD. …RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.67036710 OF 2009 J U D G M E N T RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. … Read More Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) holding that the coconut oil manufactured and packed in “small containers” by the respondent(s)assessee(s) is classifiable under Heading 1513 and not under Heading 3305 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 = the coconut oil in small packings in respect of which the present dispute with regard to classification has arisen is more appropriately classifiable under Chapter 15, Heading 1513 and not under Chapter 33, Heading 3305.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3020 OF 2018 THE ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS S.N. RAJ KUMAR AND ANOTHER …..RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2995 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2994 OF 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2996 OF 2018… Read More THE ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED can not order for payment of 50% on the market value from the allotees after registering the sale deed and in the absence of plea of violation of conditions of the deed= Condition restraining alienation – Where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely restraining the transferee or any person claiming under him from parting with or disposing of his interest in the property, the condition or limitation is void, except in the case of a lease where the condition is for the benefit of the lessor or those claiming under him: PROVIDED that property may be transferred to or for the benefit of a women (not being a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist), so that she shall not have power during her marriage to transfer or charge the same for her beneficial interest therein. Civil Appeal No. 3020 of 2018 & Ors. Page 12 of 18 11. Restriction repugnant to interest created – Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created absolutely in favour of any person, but the terms of the transfer direct that such interest shall be applied or enjoyed by him in a particular manner, he shall be entitled to receive and dispose of such interest as if there were no such direction. Where any such direction has been made in respect of one piece of immovable property for the purpose of securing the beneficial enjoyment of another piece of such property, nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any right which the transferor may have to enforce such direction or any remedy which he may have in respect of a breach thereof.” – the land is not used for putting a factory building but was used for some other purpose is concerned, no such case was pleaded by the appellantCorporation in the High Court or even in these appeals. This was not the reason for initially cancelling the allotment or demanding payment of 50% of the prevailing market value. = It is to be borne in mind, as rightly held by the High Court, that the appellant-Corporation had withdrawn the action of cancellation of the plots. Instead, it demanded 50% of 6 (1978) 1 SCC 405 Civil Appeal No. 3020 of 2018 & Ors. Page 17 of 18 the prevailing market value in lump sum towards the cost of the plots. There is no legal basis for such a demand, more so, after the registration of the sale deeds in favour of the respondents thereby transferring the ownership in these plots in their favour.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3500 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.26401 of 2017) CHHOTANBEN AND ANR. …..Appellant(s) :Versus: KIRITBHAI JALKRUSHNABHAI THAKKAR AND ORS. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1. This appeal, by special leave, takes exception… Read More r Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. = suit for declaration and injunction= plea of barred by limitation – a mixed question of law can not be decided at threshold = we find that the appellants (plaintiffs) have asserted that the suit was filed immediately after getting knowledge about the fraudulent sale deed executed by original defendant Nos.1 & 2 by keeping them in the dark about such execution and within two days from the refusal by the original defendant Nos.1 & 2 to refrain from obstructing the peaceful enjoyment of use and possession of the ancestral property of the appellants. We affirm the view taken by the Trial Court that the issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order VII Rule 11(d).
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) 302 OF 2018 Bharatiya Janata Party West Bengal …. Petitioner(s) Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. …. Respondent(s) O R D E R R.K. Agrawal, J. 1) By the present writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India,… Read More ELECTIONS= writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the West Bengal State Election Commissionrespondent No. 6 to issue nomination forms to the candidates of the petitioner so as to enable them to file their nomination in the ensuing upcoming panchayat elections as also to take immediate steps to make arrangements for submission of nomination papers through email and to provide police protection to the candidates of the petitioner so as to enable 1 them to collect and deposit the nomination forms for the purpose of contesting the panchayat elections already notified and also direct the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to call for Central Para-Military Forces to maintain the law and order during the conduct of the panchayat elections in the State of West Bengal.= We are, therefore, inclined to dispose of this petition by granting liberty to all political parties, their candidates, including any independent candidate/s proposing to contest the election in question, to approach the State Election Commissioner with their any individual or/and collective grievance.If any such grievances are made by any political parties or/and any candidate/s in writing then needless to say, the State Election Commissioner would ensure disposal of any such grievance so made by the party concerned strictly in accordance with law forthwith. We hope and trust that in order to ensure fair and free election to the panchayats, the State Election Commission shall take appropriate steps to remove the apprehensions of the petitioner and/or intending candidates and they may not be deprived of their chance to contest the panchayat elections. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 903 OF 2012 Kameshwar Singh .. Appellant Versus State of Bihar & Ors. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 904 OF 2012 Tarkeshwar Singh and others ..Appellants Versus State of Bihar ..Respondent J U D G M E N T Mohan… Read More BENEFIT OF DOUBT = no specific evidence which points towards the guilt of other persons or the participation of Nagina Koiri in the commission of the offence. It is no doubt true that the evidence on record creates suspicion in the mind of the Court about the participation of the other accused, but any amount of suspicion may not take the place of proof.=-It is no doubt true that one man alone could not have committed such a ghastly crime by separating the dead body into two pieces. He must have taken the assistance of others. The prosecution has come out with seven names including Kameshwar Singh, but so far as the other accused are concerned, particularly in respect of the other appellants (except Kameshwar Singh), except the omnibus and vague evidence that they were also present and they also joined hands with the accused – Kameshwar Singh, no other specific and reliable material has come on record. Common object is also not proved. As mentioned supra, any amount of suspicion will not take the place of proof and hence after removing the grain from the chaff, we are of the opinion that the judgment of conviction passed against the accused Kameshwar Singh needs to be confirmed, and the same is hereby confirmed. Insofar as other appellants are concerned, since there is no reliable evidence on record, the benefit of doubt needs to be given to the other appellants.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.515-516 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 6453-54 of 2015) MUNSHIRAM …APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. ETC. …RESPONDENT (S) J U D G M E N T N. V. RAMANA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These… Read More whether the FIR filed under Section 306 of IPC be quashed on the grounds the alleged offence of abetment of suicide was not made out in this case ?. = Apex court held that High court committed error = we are of the opinion that the High Court has prematurely quashed the FIR without proper investigation being conducted by the Police. Further, it is no more res integra that Section 482 of CrPC has to be utilized cautiously while quashing the FIR. – We are apprised of the FSL report which categorically states that the handwriting of the deceased and the handwriting as present in the suicide note has similarities. Further, the status report filed before the High Court notes as under: During investigation, after receiving information of the deceased Brijesh Singh from the hospital and after recording death FIR 15/13 under section 174 CrPC, investigation was started. Handwriting was recovered from the place of incident during inspection, which was identified by the complainant as the handwriting of his son and same was taken into custody. Statements under section 161 CrPC of complainant Munshi Ram, witnesses Sh. Ajay Kumar, Hakam Singh, Smt. Ombati, Smt. Rekha, Smt. Meena, Smt. Pushpa, and Sh. Sher Singh were recorded. Thereafter, Munshi Ram got registered FIR No. 318/2013. The post-mortem and panchayatnama of the deceased was done and during this, written unsigned note was recovered from the half pant of the deceased and the same was also taken into possession. The post-mortem of the dead body of the victim was conducted. The clothes worn by the deceased were taken into custody and the dead body was handed over to the family members for last rites. On 3.8.2013, the file was forwarded to Ld. ACC, Sadar for further investigation who 7 sent the suicide note to FSL for examination. Call details of the suspect were obtained and on 17.2.2014, the main file was entrusted to Ld. AACP, Vaishali Nagar. FSL Report with regard to suicide note was obtained by him. On 18.2.2014, case file was sent to Deputy Commissioner for further investigation who took statements of Smt. Shrawni Devi, Smt. Vimla Devi, Smt. Kalawati, Smt. Radha Agarwal, Smt. Manju Chowdhary, Shri Deepakshi @ Charu, Shri Harish Agarwal under section 161 CrPC. Based on the investigation carried out as per the order no 8225-27 of DCP in case no 318/13 by the Deputy Commissioner and based on the evidence available on record, it is established that Accused persons (1) Khushboo (2) Dharampal (3) Smt. Sushila (4) Hawa Singh have committed offence under section 306 IPC. Accused Smt. Khushboo W/o Brijesh Singh D/o Dharampal Singh caste Bawaria, Age 25 years, Sushila W/o Shri Dharampal Singh caste Bawaria, Age 43 years and Dharampal Sing S/o late Shri Ram Singh caste Bawaria, Age 45 years were arrested in this case. Remaining enquiry. Accused Hawa Singh could not be arrested since he was absconding and since 8.8.2014, the Hon’ble High Court has stayed the investigation. The Status Report of facts is being sent to you. (emphasis supplied)
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO 675 OF 2013 SEEMA UPADHYAY ..Petitioner VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THR. THE SECRETARY, MIN. OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS AND ORS ..Respondents J U D G M E N T Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD, J 1 Invoking the jurisdiction of… Read More public interest litigation = whether the second respondent owns multiple dealerships or outlets for petroleum products, in violation of the applicable rules and regulations, has to be determined by the oil company or companies concerned with the issue. None of the oil companies were impleaded to these proceedings. In their absence, it would not be possible for the Court to make any factual determination. Whether an individual holds a dealership or outlet benami would turn on an appreciation of factual material which cannot be inquired into in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 32. Consequently all that we observe is that it would be open to the petitioner to bring such material as she has in her possession to the attention of the concerned oil companies for such action as is deemed necessary. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of such a claim, which is left open to be determined in accordance with law, after hearing all necessary parties. = “a) As a constant drive, the PSU OMCs undertake regular and surprise inspection of Retail Outlets and take action under the provisions of the Marketing Discipline Guidelines (MDG) and Dealership Agreements against the outlets found indulging in irregularities/malpractices like adulteration, short delivery etc. Further, the MDG provides for termination of outlet in the first instance itself for serious malpractices like adulteration, tampering of seats and unauthorized fittings/gears in the dispensing units and graded penalties for other malpractices/irregularities. b) The Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 issued by the Central Government under Essential Commodities Act, 1955 provides for punitive action against malpractices such as adulteration. Provisions are also available in the contractual documents and administrative guidelines to prevent malpractices in the trade of petroleum products. c) A Quality Control Cell is also functional in each of the Public Sector OMCs which carries out surprise inspections at Ros for checking various irregularities including adulteration. It may be appreciation that during the last three years and current year (upto June 2016), OMCs have carried out 5,61,796 number of inspections at their Ros across the country. d) Industry Transport Discipline Guidelines (ITDG) have been revised and strengthened in 2014 by making penal action more stringent. On first instance of established pilferage, Tank Truck is blacklisted and on second instance transportation contract is terminated and all TTs under that contract are blacklisted for two years across industry automatically through e-portal. There is a similar provision of penal action in case any tampering with Vehicle Tracking System (VTS_. e) Furthermore, OMCs have resorted to other initiatives to prevent irregularities in Retail outlets and Monitoring of movement of tank trucks through Global Positioning System (GPS). It is submitted that as on 01.09.2016, there are 52653 number of Retail Outlets across India, out of which 18586 number of Retail Outlets are automated and 13211 number of Retail Outlets already compiled with the standard of “No Automation No Operation” (NANO). The advantage of Retail Outlets complied with Standard NANO is that the dispensing unit becomes automatically non-operative if any efforts for 9 manipulation of dispensing unit or storage tank are made. This will ensure OMCs to keep a track of the activities at the Retail Outlet. Under this initiative, tank stocks and sales of each dispensing unit can be tracked online and analysed.” Moreover, it has been stated that the Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply, Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 2005 and the Kerosene (Restriction on Use and Fixation of Ceiling Price) Order, 1993 have made provisions to enable the States and Union Territories to take action against malpractices. Moreover, it has been stated that the Ministry intends to implement the direct transfer scheme in kerosene in identified districts of different states on a pilot basis.