JASLOK HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTREversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2007 INSC 110831 October 2007Dismissed
Jaslok Hospital obtained a Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) under para 2 of the 1988 Notification for importing equipment. The DGHS cancelled the CDEC on 14 November 2000 for failure to provide the free treatment stipulated in para 2. After three years, the hospital sought re‑categorisation under para 1, which…
VENEET AGRAWALversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2007 INSC 111231 October 2007Dismissed
The petitioners challenged the SEBI (Stock Brokers and Sub Brokers) Rules and Regulations, 1992 on the ground that they were not laid before both Houses of Parliament for the full thirty‑day period required by Section 31 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, because the Houses were adjourned sine die…
M/S. CRAFT INTERIORS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE & ANR.
2006 INSC 76231 October 2006Appeal(s) allowed
Craft Interiors Pvt. Ltd. installed storage units, kitchen counters, running counters and large reception tables as part of turnkey interior projects. The Central Excise authorities treated these items as "furniture" under Tariff Item 9403 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and levied excise duty. The company conte…
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAIversusMIS. TOYO ENGINEERING INDIA LIMITED
2006 INSC 57131 August 2006Dismissed
The appellant, Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, challenged the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal's order granting project import benefits to Mis. Toyo Engineering India Ltd for auxiliary equipment used in setting up a fertilizer plant. The revenue authorities had rejected the application on the grou…
VALLIAMMAL (D) BY LRS.versusSUBRAMANIAM AND ORS.
2004 INSC 48831 August 2004Dismissed
The appellant, Valliammal (by LRs), sought a declaration that he was the true owner of a 10.37‑acre plot purchased in his wife Ramayee Ammal's name, alleging the transaction was benami to shield the property from creditors of his late brother. The trial court and the first appellate court held the sale was benami, but …
V.M. SALGAOCAR AND BROS.versusBOARD OF TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MORMUGAO AND ANR
2005 INSC 17231 March 2005Dismissed
The appellant, an iron‑ore exporter, claimed a rebate of Rs 62,46,548.10 from the Board of Trustees of Mormugao Port, alleging that the Board had unlawfully levied a surcharge and refused full rebate. The Board raised two defenses under Section 120 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963: that the appellant had not served t…
BHARTI TELENET LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2005 INSC 17331 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed
Bharti Telenet Ltd., a basic telephone service licensee in Madhya Pradesh, disputed the interconnection points with BSNL and sought a TRAI order on 15 June 2001, which was declared of general applicability. The company asked its industry association (ABTO) to file a collective review, which was dismissed; subsequently …
NATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF OFFICERS ASSON. OF CENTRAL PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2004 INSC 68330 November 2004Disposed off
The petitioners, representing employees of British India Corporation Ltd. and its two units—sick public sector undertakings registered with the BIFR—sought the application of the revised IDA pay scales under the Government Order of 19 July 1995, which had been denied by the Central Government. They relied on an earlier…
SHIV GOPAL SAH@SHIV GOPAL SAHUversusSITA RAM SARAUGI AND ORS.
2007 INSC 35330 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed
In 1986 the original plaintiff filed an eviction suit which was later converted into a title suit after the defendant claimed ownership based on a sale deed dated 4‑Oct‑1985. The plaintiff failed to amend the pleadings to challenge that deed despite being directed to do so, and the suit remained pending for many years.…
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX THIRUVANANTHAPURAMversusM/S BABY MARINE EXPORTS, KOLLAM
2007 INSC 35830 March 2007Disposed off
Mis Baby Marine Exports, a supporting manufacturer, sold marine products to export houses and received, in addition to the FOB value, a 2.25% export‑house premium. The assessee claimed the premium as part of its export turnover and sought a deduction under Section 80HHC(IA) of the Income‑Tax Act. The Assessing Officer …
M/S.TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAMSHEDPUR
2007 INSC 120329 November 2007Appeal(s) allowed
M/s. Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. manufactured chassis whose value depended on standard fitments. The price lists for November 1994 and April 1995 mistakenly recorded Engine No. 692 DI and Gear Box GBS 30 as standard, whereas the actual standard fitments were Engine No. 697 NA and Gear Box GBS 40. The Central…
M/S. ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI
2006 INSC 66929 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed
ISPAT Industries Ltd imported iron ore pellets that were off‑loaded from the mother vessel at Bombay Floating Light (BFL) onto barges and taken to Dharamtar jetty. The Customs authorities added the barge transportation charges to the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, invoking Rule 9(2) of the …
ORIENT CERAMICS & INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
2008 INSC 55429 April 2008Dismissed
Orient Ceramics & India Ltd imported two consignments of tiles and claimed they were unglazed porcelain tiles under tariff heading 6907.90, which is freely importable without a licence. Physical examination and tests by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) showed the tiles were glazed, which are classified und…
HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITEDversusSTATE OF KERALA
2008 INSC 55529 April 2008Dismissed
Hawkins Cookers Ltd manufactured aluminium cookware coated with satilon (and later tuflon), which makes the products non‑stick. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether such cookware should be taxed under Entry 5 of the First Schedule of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 as “aluminium household utensils” or …
M.C.D.versusSTATE OF DELHI AND ANR.
2005 INSC 23929 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) appealed against a Delhi High Court order that granted probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to builder Gurcharan Singh, who had been convicted under Sections 332 and 461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The High Court had not called for …
HALDIA REFINERY CANTEEN EMPS. UNION AND ORS.versusM/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.
2005 INSC 24029 April 2005Dismissed
The appellants, workers employed in a statutory canteen of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) at Haldia, were engaged through a contractor. They sought a writ directing IOCL to absorb and regularise them, arguing that the canteen is a statutory requirement under the Factories Act and that IOCL exercised control over th…
HANS RAJ BANGAversusRAM CHANDER AGGARWAL
2005 INSC 24229 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The Ministry of Rehabilitation constructed a market shop that formed part of the compensation pool under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and was sold by tender to Hans Raj Banga. The predecessor‑in‑interest, Bhagwan Das, a squatter and not a displaced person, failed to bid and did not …
SMT. SHAILversusSHRI MANOJ KUMAR AND ORS.
2004 INSC 21629 March 2004Disposed off
The petitioner, Smt. Shail, was a victim of offences under Sections 376 and 328 of the IPC by the respondent, Manoj Kumar, who later married her to avoid conviction but subsequently deserted her. She filed a maintenance application under Section 125 of the CrPC before the Family Court, which was delayed; the High Court…
GOBARBHAI NARANBHAI SINGALAversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
2008 INSC 11229 January 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined two murder cases in which the accused, Jayrajsinh Temubha Jadeja, had been granted regular bail by the Gujarat High Court on the grounds of prolonged judicial custody, non‑commencement of trial and prior compliance with temporary bail conditions. The State of Gujarat contended that the High C…
PROCTER & GAMBLE HYGIENE & HEALTH CARE LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHOPAL.
2005 INSC 59128 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed
Procter & Gamble manufactured detergent powder (AMS) in 25 kg bulk packs at its Bhopal plant and sent the powder to an independent job‑worker, IED, for repacking into 20 g and 30 g sachets. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that the assessee had suppressed the true price of the product and, as the sachets…
CHAIRMAN, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND ORS.versusRAJIV KUMAR BHASKER
2005 INSC 32028 July 2005Disposed off
The Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) had introduced a Salary Savings Scheme under which employers were required to deduct insurance premiums from employees' salaries and remit them to LIC. When an employer failed to make the deductions, the employee’s policy lapsed and the claimant sought the assured sum after the empl…
S.D.O. GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD. AND ORS.versusTIMUDU ORAM
2005 INSC 32228 July 2005Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined three writ petitions filed under Article 226 seeking compensation for deaths caused by electrocution from live wires owned by the Grid Corporation of Orissa (GRIDCO). The High Court had awarded compensation on the basis that the snapped wires and resulting deaths amounted to negligence on the…
M/S. KALIDAS SHEET METAL INDUSTRIES P. LTD.versusSTATE OF KERALA
2008 INSC 27128 February 2008Dismissed
Kalidas Sheet Metal Industries Ltd., a dealer in copper and brass sheets, was assessed tax at 8% on its turnover for 1984-85 and 1985-86 under entries 116A (copper) and 1160 (brass) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. The company contended that sheets are "unclassified" items taxable at 5% and that the entries a…
SRIDEVI AND ORS.versusJAYRAJA SHETTY AND ORS.
2005 INSC 5428 January 2005Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined an appeal by the daughters and a granddaughter of Padmayya Kambali challenging a will dated 28‑03‑1976 that bequeathed certain properties to the testator's two sons. The appellants argued that the will was not duly executed, citing the testator's advanced age, his death within 15 days of exec…
G.K. CHOKSI & COMPANYversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT
2007 INSC 118827 November 2007Dismissed
The appellant, a firm of chartered accountants, constructed a residential building for its low‑paid employees and claimed an initial depreciation of 40% under Section 32(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Income Tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that the provision applies only to "business" and not to "…
U.P. FOREST CORPORATION AND ANR.versusDY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW
2007 INSC 119427 November 2007Dismissed
The U.P. Forest Corporation sought exemption from income tax on the ground that it was a charitable institution under Section 11(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The corporation had not obtained registration under Section 12A, which is a prerequisite for invoking the charitable exemption. The Supreme Court held that …
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.versusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
2006 INSC 91427 November 2006Disposed off
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOC) purchased petroleum products from Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. (BRPL) and paid sales tax at the time of purchase under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. It later resold the same products at government‑fixed prices that included a surcharge to be remitted to the Oil Po…
SRI INDER SAIN BEDI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusM/S. CHOPRA ELECTRICALS
2004 INSC 48427 August 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, S. Bedi, leased a specifically described portion of his industrial property to the respondent, Chopra Electricals, for 11 months under a licence deed that excluded a second, green‑coloured portion which was scored off. The respondent later occupied that green portion and claimed it formed part of the ten…
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusINSULATION ELECTRICAL (P) LTD
2008 INSC 41527 March 2008Dismissed
The appellant, Commissioner of Central Excise, challenged the classification of four items manufactured by the respondent—rail assembly front seat, adjuster/assembly slider seat, YE‑2 rear back lock assembly and 1000 cc rear back lock assembly. The respondent had classified them under Chapter 8708.00 of the Central Exc…
UNION OF INDIAversusHARINDER PAL SINGH AND ORS.
2005 INSC 52926 October 2005Dismissed
The Union of India sought to acquire 3,512.33 acres in five villages for the extension of the Amritsar Cantonment. The Collector awarded compensation based on land categories, but claimants obtained enhanced compensation through the belting method in the District Court. The Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the b…
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHIversusC-NET COMMUNICATION (L) PVT. LTD.
2007 INSC 97726 September 2007Dismissed
The case concerned the customs tariff classification of a signal decoder used by a cable operator to decode satellite signals received via a dish antenna. The Revenue (Commissioner of Customs) argued that the decoder should be classified under Entry 8528 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as a "reception apparatus for tel…
STATE THROUGH C.B.I.versusAMARMANI TRIPTHI
2005 INSC 44026 September 2005Disposed off
The State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by the CBI, appealed against the Allahabad High Court's orders granting bail to Amarmani Tripathi, a former minister, and his wife Madhumani Tripathi in a murder case involving the killing of Madhumita Shukla. The prosecution alleged a conspiracy in which Amarmani, who had an ill…
M/S PRAGATI SILICONS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI
2007 INSC 46826 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed
Pragati Silicones Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of plastic name plates for motor vehicles, sought classification of its products under headings 87.08 and 87.14 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as "parts and accessories" of vehicles. The revenue department re‑classified the plates under heading 39.26 (other articles o…
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAIversusM/S. GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION
2006 INSC 65125 September 2006Dismissed
The assessee, a general insurance company, incurred Rs. 1,04,28,500 as stamp duty and registration fees in connection with the increase of its authorized share capital and the issuance of bonus shares. The Assessing Officer disallowed the amount as capital expenditure, but the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allow…
RAMBHAU NAMDEO GAJREversusNARAYAN BAPUJI DHOTRA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.
2005 INSC 38425 August 2005Dismissed
The appellant, R.N. Gajre, occupied agricultural land after acquiring it through a chain of agreements of sale, the first between the original owner (Narayan Bapuji Dhotra) and Pishorrilal Punjabi, and the second between Pishorrilal and the appellant. The respondent, legal representatives of the original owner, sued fo…
SMT. SWARNAM RAMACHANDRAN AND ANR.versusARAVACODE CHAKUNGAL JAYAPALAN
2004 INSC 47625 August 2004Dismissed
The vendors (appellants) entered into a sale agreement for land with a bungalow, requiring payment of the purchase price in instalments. The purchaser (respondent) paid part of the consideration but missed the stipulated deadline for a later instalment. The vendors claimed that time was of the essence, extended the dea…
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.versusROAD TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, SILGURI AND ANR.
2003 INSC 11925 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The State of West Bengal and its Commissioner of Commercial Taxes appealed against a West Bengal Taxation Tribunal order that had suspended Explanation‑I to Section 2(1a‑1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 and declared sub‑sections 6 and 7 of Section 4C and Rule 48L(4) of the Sales Tax Rules unconstitutional…
SHANTI DEVIversusSTATE OF SIKKIM AND ANR.
2008 INSC 10325 January 2008Case Allowed
Shanti Devi, a widow, continued to run a grocery‑stationery shop in rented premises after her husband's death. The trade licence was in her husband's name and the authorities refused to issue a fresh licence to her without a No‑Objection Certificate (NOC) from the landlord, invoking Rule 12(m) of the Sikkim Trade Licen…
UNION OF INDIAversusKRIMPEX SYNTHETICS LTD.
2005 INSC 37524 August 2005Dismissed
The case concerned Krimpex Synth Ltd.'s claim for a Central Investment Subsidy under the Central Outright Grant or Subsidy Scheme, 1971. The High Court, after a remand, held Krimpex entitled to 25% of Rs 50,72,258 but rejected the company's later affidavit seeking the maximum subsidy because the material had not been p…
ASST. COMMNR. OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & ORS.versusRUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD.
2008 INSC 52124 April 2008Disposed off
The Commercial Tax Officer seized the books and documents of Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. under Section 66 of the West Bengal Sales Tax Act, 1994 on 18 October 2000. As the investigation could not be completed within the statutory one‑year period, the Additional Commissioner extended the retention of the seized records u…
STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.versusTATA CUMMINS LTD. AND ANR.
2006 INSC 17924 March 2006Dismissed
The State of Jharkhand sought to deny Tata Cummins Ltd. the sales‑tax exemption granted under Industrial Policy 1995 and notifications 478/479, arguing that the company did not have legal title to the land and could not produce a registered lease of fifteen years. Tata Cummins contended that it owned the building in wh…
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATIONversusBURWAL SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. AND ORS.
2004 INSC 12624 February 2004Dismissed
The Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corporation (appellant) took possession of the scheduled property of Burwal Sugar Mills Ltd. (respondent) under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971. The respondent challenged the acquisition of its registered office, a house in Kanpur, arguing it was not part of the…
SUBRAMANI AND ORS.versusM. CHANDRALEKHA
2004 INSC 66923 November 2004Dismissed
The respondent, M. Chandralekha, filed a suit for partition and possession of her late father‑in‑law's properties, claiming a share as the wife of the deceased Kandasamy. She produced a registered maintenance release deed that contained a recital stating that their marriage was dissolved under the customary law of the …
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMYversusELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
2008 INSC 107723 September 2008Dismissed
Subramanian Swamy, as president of the de‑recognised Janata Party, challenged Clause 10A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which allows a six‑year grace period for a party that loses its recognised status to retain its exclusive symbol. He argued that the provision was arbitrary, violated…
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHIversusSONY INDIA LTD.
2008 INSC 107823 September 2008Dismissed
Sony India Ltd. imported various components of colour televisions (CTV) under a duty‑free exemption notification. The Revenue issued a show‑cause notice alleging that Sony had evaded customs duty by misdeclaring completely knocked‑down (CKD) kits as mere components, thereby breaching the Exim Policy 1992‑97 and invokin…
AKKAYANAICKERversusA.A.A. KOTCHADAINAIDU AND ANR.
2004 INSC 54323 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant obtained a decree for a debt on 2 May 1973 and filed an execution petition the same year, which was stayed due to a legislative bar under the Tamil Nadu Indebted Agriculturists (Temporary Relief) Ordinance and subsequent Acts. The decree was later scaled down and amended on 18 October 1979 under the Tamil…
P.C. KESAVAN KUTTYNAYAR ETC. ETCversusHARISH BHALLA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 50723 September 2003
The Supreme Court examined whether the Central Government could grant permission to increase student intake or renew permission for medical colleges in contravention of Sections 10‑A and 10‑B of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the regulations framed by the Medical Council of India (MCI). The petitioners allege…
RISHIROOP POLYMERS PVT. LTD.versusDESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY
2006 INSC 16923 March 2006Disposed off
Rishiroop Polymers imported Acrylonitrile‑Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from Germany and Korea. The Designated Authority, under the Customs Tariff Act, found that such imports caused material injury to the domestic industry and imposed an anti‑dumping duty. The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal later conve…
RISHI ROOP POLYMERS PVT. LTD.versusDESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ADDL. SECRETARY AND ORS.
2006 INSC 17023 March 2006Case Partly allowed
Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd filed an anti‑dumping petition alleging that imports of Styrene Butadiene Rubber (SBR) from several countries were injuring the domestic industry. The Designated Authority (DA) investigated, classified the imports under custom sub‑heading 4002.19, and recommended anti‑dumping duties which t…
M/S. U.K. ENTERPRISES & ANR.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE & ANR.
2007 INSC 117522 November 2007Disposed off
M/s. U.K. Enterprises imported integrated circuits from Hong Kong and the Customs authorities deemed the declared value to be severely undervalued, fixing a transaction value of Rs.23.4 lakh and demanding differential duty of Rs.4.91 lakh. The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000 under Section 114A and a redempt…
M/S. SARVESH REFRACTORIES (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
2007 INSC 117622 November 2007Disposed off
M/s. Sarvesh Refractories (P) Ltd. bought a 'Loadall' material handling equipment from its manufacturer, Mis. Escorts JCB Ltd., which had classified the item under tariff heading 84.29 and paid excise duty accordingly. The purchaser claimed MODVAT credit under Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, but the assessi…
M/S. C.T. COTTON YARN LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE
2006 INSC 64422 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed
Mis. C.T. Cotton Yarn Ltd., a 100% export‑oriented unit, purchased cotton domestically and manufactured yarn for export. During carding and combing, soft cotton waste was generated, which the company sold in the domestic market. Initially it was informed that the waste was non‑excisable, but after the Finance Act, 1995…
JAYANTI FOOD PROCESSING (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJASTHAN
2007 INSC 85422 August 2007Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the scope of Sections 4 and 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in relation to the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 and its Packaged Commodities Rules. It held that Section 4A applies only when five conditions are satisfied: the goods are excisable, sold in packages, a statutory req…
M/S. DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD., CALCUTTversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
2006 INSC 53822 August 2006Disposed off
Mis. Duncans Industries Ltd., a cigarette manufacturer, was served with two show‑cause notices covering the period July 1973‑February 1983, one by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and another by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. The Assistant Collector incorporated the material of the Delhi …
PUSHKAR SINGHversusANSUIYA
2006 INSC 53522 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord, Pushkar Singh, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act claiming a bonafide requirement for his family and seeking possession of a flat let to the tenant, Ansuiya, since 1990. The Additional Rent Controller allowed the petition, holding that the landlord could not be…
KAVERIPATNAM SUBBARAYA SETTY ANNAIAH SETTY CHARITIES TRUSTversusS.K. VISWANATHA SETTY
2004 INSC 40022 July 2004Dismissed
The Kaveripatnam Subbaraya Setty Annaiah Setty Charities Trust (appellant) owned a shop that it let to S.K. Viswanatha Setty (respondent) from 1950. In 1969 the trust demolished the old building and completed a new one in 1975; the respondent vacated the old shop and later sought to be re‑let in the new building, offer…
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusRAJA MOHAMMED AMIR MOHAMMAD KHAN
2005 INSC 51321 October 2005Dismissed
The respondent, an Indian citizen and sole heir of the late Raja of Mahmudabad, sought the return of properties that had been vested in the Custodian of Enemy Property after his father, a Pakistani citizen, migrated to Pakistan. The High Court held that the vesting was only for possession, management and control and or…
MRF LTD., KOTTAYAMversusASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ASSESSMENTS) SALES TAX AND ORS.
2006 INSC 63621 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed
MRF Ltd. invested heavily in expanding its tyre and rubber manufacturing unit in Kerala under a Memorandum of Understanding that promised a seven‑year sales‑tax exemption. The company obtained an eligibility certificate and a Board of Revenue exemption order covering 30 Dec 1996 to 29 Dec 2003. The Kerala Government la…
U.P. MADHYAMIK SHIKSHA PARISHAD AND ORS.versusRAJ KUMAR AGNIHOTRI
2005 INSC 22321 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent, a government employee, sought to have his date of birth corrected from 30‑07‑1941 to 16‑10‑1945, alleging an error in his 1960 High School Certificate. He filed an application for correction in 1981, but the suit was only instituted in 1995, more than three decades after the certificate’s issuance and s…
KOKILAMBAL AND ORS.versusN. RAMAN
2005 INSC 22621 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed
Kokilambal, a Hindu widow with no issue, executed two settlement deeds in 1963‑64 granting her nephew Varadan a life usufruct and an absolute interest after her death. Varadan died in 1979 before Kokilambal, who then revoked the deeds and executed a fresh settlement in favour of Babu and Shanthi. Varadan's brother, N. …
NORTH EASTERN COALFIELDS COAL INDIA LTD.versusMUBARAK ALI AND ORS.
2005 INSC 22721 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, North Eastern Coalfields Coal India Ltd, succeeded the private Assam Railway and Trading Company (ARTC) whose coal mining assets were vested in the Central Government under the Coal Mines (Nationalization) Act, 1973. The Additional Deputy Commissioner declared the land held by the appellant as "Sarkari" …
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONversusK.M. SHARAN
2008 INSC 22921 February 2008Disposed off
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigated K.M. Sharan, former Vice‑Chairman of the Delhi Development Authority, and his son for alleged illegal gratification from DLF and for possessing cash of Rs.36 lakh recovered from the son’s residence. The CBI filed a charge‑sheet under IPC sections 120B (criminal con…
INDIA LITERACY BOARD AND ORS.versusVEENA CHATURVEDI AND ORS.
2005 INSC 8821 February 2005Disposed off
The India Literacy Board, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, appointed the respondents as teachers on a fixed‑term contractual basis for periods ranging from eight to thirteen years. After the contracts expired, the Board advertised fresh recruitment, but the respondents filed a writ petition un…
ZAHIRUL ISLAMversusMOHD. USMAN AND ORS.
2002 INSC 56920 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, Zahirul Islam, sued Mohd. Usman and others. One of the defendants (Defendant No.2) died on 1 February 1995, but the trial court proceeded ex parte against him without substituting his legal representative. The legal representative later sought a stay of execution of the decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of th…
K. SIVARAMAIAHversusRUKMANI AMMAL
2003 INSC 65520 November 2003Disposed off
The appellant and respondent owned adjoining properties in Chennai, where the appellant opened windows and a ventilator that overlooked the respondent's land. The respondent's mother sued in 1976 for an injunction to close the openings, but the trial court dismissed the injunction claim without deciding any easement ri…
A.C. ANANTHASWAMY AND ORS.versusBORAIAH (D) BY LRS.
2004 INSC 46020 August 2004Dismissed
Patel Chikkahanumaiah, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellants, sought to set aside an ex‑parte decree against him on the ground of non‑service of summons. He first filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, alleging only non‑service, without any claim of fraud, and later filed a suit under s.9 CPC al…
SHAMSU SUHARA BEEVIversusG. ALEX AND ANR.
2004 INSC 46120 August 2004Disposed off
The appellant, Shamsu Suhara Beevi, entered into a sale agreement with the respondents, G. Alex and others, but failed to execute the deed. The respondents sued for specific performance; the trial court ordered them to deposit the balance sale consideration and directed the appellant to register the deed. The responden…
ANIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
2004 INSC 46320 August 2004Dismissed
Anil Kumar Srivastava challenged a NOIDA scheme to develop a commercial hub on a 54,320.18 sq m plot, alleging that the reserve price of Rs 27,500 per sq m was arbitrarily low and that the accepted bid of Rs 31,850 per sq m was undervalued, violating Article 14. The Court examined the distinction between reserve (upset…
M/S. H.V. INDUSTRIAL ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS
2006 INSC 45320 July 2006Dismissed
H.V. Industrial Electronics Pvt Ltd manufactures power controllers (light dimmers/heat controllers) and initially classified them under heading 8543.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, later reclassifying them under 8536.90. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs issued show‑cause notices asserting that th…
M/S. FALCON TYRES LTD.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
2006 INSC 45420 July 2006Dismissed
Falcon Tyres Ltd., a tyre manufacturer in Karnataka, procured rubber from Kerala and claimed exemption from entry tax under the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1979, arguing that rubber is agricultural produce covered by Section 3(6) and the Second Schedule. The assessing authority, the Joint Commissioner, and the…
M/S. H.P.L. CHEMICALS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH
2006 INSC 23620 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed
H.P.L. Chemicals Ltd., a manufacturer of hydrazine, produced a by‑product called "denatured salt" and claimed it should be classified under heading 25.01 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, which carries a nil duty rate. The Deputy Commissioner classified the product under heading 38.23 (now 38.24), a residuary hea…
M/S. PEEKA Y RE-ROLLING MILLS (P) LTD.versusTHE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ANR.
2007 INSC 31720 March 2007Appeal(s) allowed
Peeka Y Re‑rolling Mills (P) Ltd., a registered dealer under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, purchased steel ingots that were exempt from tax under a notification issued under Section 10 of the State Act. The State assessed purchase tax under Section 5A on the same ingots, arguing that no tax had been collected…
DAEWOO MOTORS INDIA LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 11420 February 2003Dismissed
Daewoo Motors India Ltd imported plant and equipment under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme, which required it to meet export obligations equal to six times the CIF value of the imports. The company furnished bank guarantees for licences exceeding Rs 100 crore. Although the export‑obligation period was …
M/S MOTOR INDUSTRIES CO. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AURANGABAD
2006 INSC 3920 January 2006Appeal(s) allowed
M/s Motor Industries Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of nozzles, nozzle holders and injectors, was served a show‑cause notice demanding central excise duty on its nozzles and nozzle holders used in the assembly of injectors, the department alleging they were intermediate products under tariff heading 8409.00 and that the comp…
BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION OF ASSAMversusMD. SARIFUZ ZAMAN AND ORS.
2003 INSC 74919 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed
A student discovered that his date of birth was incorrectly recorded on the Board of Secondary Education, Assam certificate and applied for correction eight years after the certificate was issued. The Board, relying on Regulation 8, rejected the application because it was filed beyond the three‑year period prescribed f…
PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMAversusUNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS.
2006 INSC 72219 October 2006Dismissed
Prabhat Kumar Sharma, a member of the Lohar community in Bihar, claimed Scheduled Tribe status to obtain reservation benefits in the Civil Services examinations. The UPSC initially allowed him to appear as a Scheduled Tribe candidate based on a High Court direction, but later treated him as an Other Backward Class afte…
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALOREversusM/S SPICE TELECOM, BANGALORE
2006 INSC 71419 October 2006Dismissed
Spice Telecom imported 30 radio terminals in 1998 and claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 11/97 (as amended) which exempts BTS ancillary equipment. The Revenue argued that the radio terminals are independent equipment and not ancillary, rejecting the claim. The Customs Tribunal, relying on techni…
THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR.versusSMT. CHABUNGBAM THOIBISANA DEVI AND ORS.
2007 INSC 44319 April 2007Disposed off
The State of Manipur advertised for two Assistant Government Advocate‑cum‑Assistant Public Prosecutor posts and conducted written and oral tests as directed by a High Court Single Judge. Subsequently, the State imposed a ban on direct recruitment and declaration of results for most departments, prompting the respondent…
M/S. P & B PHARMACEUTICALS (P) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
2003 INSC 11119 February 2003Appeal(s) allowed
M/s P & B Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd., a small‑scale manufacturer of patent and proprietary medicines, used the logo "P/B" assigned by M/s P & B Laboratories Ltd. The Central Excise authorities issued several show‑cause notices alleging that its distributor was a related person and that the logo was also used by the assig…
R & M TRUSTversusKORAMANGALA RESIDENTS VIGILANCE GROUP AND ORS.
2005 INSC 4219 January 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, builders of multi‑storeyed apartments in Koramangala, Bangalore, obtained licences from the City Municipal Corporation to construct up to three floors. A residents' association filed a public‑interest petition seeking cancellation of the licences and demolition of the building, alleging strain on public…
M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2005 INSC 3818 January 2005Dismissed
Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) operated a unit in the Kandla Free Trade Zone (FTZ) and exported two steel bridges to Malaysia in 1986. It procured steel from domestic sources at domestic prices and claimed reimbursement of the price differential under the International Price Reimbursement Scheme (IPRS). The Government reje…
THE MANAGEMENT OF THE TATA IRON & STEEL CO. LTD.versusCHIEF INSPECTING OFFICER AND ORS.
2004 INSC 72517 December 2004Dismissed
The Management of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. established a hospital to provide medical care to its employees, their families, associated companies, as well as government and private patients for a fee. The authorities issued a notice requiring registration of the hospital under the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1…
BAHADURSINH LAKHUBHAI GOHILversusJAGDISHBHAI M. KAMALIA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 72817 December 2003Dismissed
An auction was held by the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation (then Gujarat) in 1951 for a 99‑year lease of a vacant plot. The highest bidder, Shri Vajubha (predecessor of the appellant), paid only part of the premium and was given a three‑month extension to pay the balance, with a condition that failure would can…
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ORS.versusA. SANKARAIAH
2003 INSC 56417 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent was appointed Junior Engineer in 1980, later declared surplus and redeployed to the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) in 1988 under the Government's 1966 Office Memorandum (OM) which treated redeployed staff as fresh entrants for seniority purposes. The CPWD's 1991 OM provided a higher pay scale aft…
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNEversusSHIRKE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LTD.
2007 INSC 61517 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune appealed against a Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld the assessment of Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd. The issues were whether Section 80‑AB of the Income Tax Act applies to Section 80‑HHC and whether unabsorbed business losses under Section 72 can be set off against pro…
M/S INDCON STRUCTURALS (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI
2006 INSC 22917 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed
Indcon Structurals (P) Ltd, a manufacturer of cement tiles, claimed exemption from a 15% ad valorem excise duty under Notification No. 59/90‑CE, which excluded "floor coverings in rolls or in the form of tiles" from the benefit. The Revenue argued that the tiles fell within the excluded category. The adjudicating autho…
MEDIQUIP SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.versusPROXIMA MEDICAL SYSTEM G.M.B.H.
2005 INSC 15417 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed
Medi Quip Systems Pvt Ltd filed an appeal against a winding‑up petition filed by Proxima Medical System GmbH under Section 433(e) of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging that the appellant had failed to refund US$5,000 and US$11,000 received as bid security. The appellant contended that the US$11,000 was remitted by a dif…
MANICKA POOSALI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.versusANJALI AMMAL AND ANR.
2005 INSC 15517 March 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned a dispute over certain properties alleged to be part of a joint Hindu family estate. The trial court and first appellate court held that items 22‑26 and 29 were self‑acquired by Mottaya Poosali and that the settlement deed and will in his favour were valid. The Madras High Court, hearing a second app…
PANCHANAN MISHRAversusDIGAMBAR MISHRA AND ORS.
2005 INSC 3417 January 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The respondents, convicted of murdering the complainant’s two sons and attempting to murder other family members, were released on bail by the High Court of Patna through non‑speaking orders that failed to consider the seriousness of the offences, the risk of evidence tampering and witness intimidation. The Supreme Cou…
SIDDHARTHA TUBES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE (MP)
2005 INSC 62216 December 2005Case Partly allowed
Siddhartha Tubes Ltd manufactured MS pipes and subsequently galvanized them before clearing the finished product from its factory. The company argued that galvanization was not a manufacturing process and therefore its cost should not be added to the assessable value of the pipes. The Commissioner held that, although g…
SIDDARTHA TUBES LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE (MP)
2005 INSC 62316 December 2005Dismissed
Siddartha Tubes Ltd., a manufacturer of m.s./g.i. pipes, purchased sockets from the market and had them fitted by Madhya Pradesh Laghu Udyog Nigam Ltd. The company claimed a deduction for the cost of the sockets and the service charges incurred in fitting them under Rule 173‑C of the Central Excise Rules. The departmen…
SONA CHANDI OAL COMMITTEE AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2004 INSC 71916 December 2004Dismissed
The appellants, licensed money lenders, challenged the inspection fee levied under Section 9‑A of the Bombay Money‑Lenders Act, 1946 for renewal of their licences, contending that it was a tax in disguise, excessive and violative of Article 14. The State argued that the fee was a regulatory charge necessary for inspect…
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTAversusINDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD.
2008 INSC 83616 July 2008Case Allowed
The Commissioner of Customs appealed against a Tribunal order that had allowed Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd. to claim duty exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus for three re‑imported consignments. The assessee had originally relied on Notification No. 158/95-Cus, executing separate bonds and agreeing to re‑export…
BHUPENDRA STEEL (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
2008 INSC 69516 May 2008Dismissed
Bhupendra Steel (P) Ltd, a manufacturer of steel bars, rods and ingots, claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No.208/83-CE as amended by Notifications 90/88-CE and 202/88-CE, asserting that its inputs were "pieces roughly shaped" as defined in tariff heading 72.08. The department held that the i…
JANATHA TEXTILES & ORS.versusTAX RECOVERY OFFICER & ANR.
2008 INSC 69916 May 2008Dismissed
Janatha Textiles, a partnership firm with four partners, was in arrears of income‑tax for several assessment years. The tax department attached agricultural land owned by the partners and sold it by public auction on 5 August 1996 under the procedures of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The sale was con…
SURESHversusMAHADEVAPPA SHIVAPPA DANANNAVA AND ANR.
2005 INSC 7916 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant was accused of cheating under Section 420 IPC for allegedly failing to honour a 1988 agreement to sell a house and retain an advance payment. The complainant sent a legal notice in 1996, which the appellant denied, and only filed a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC in 1999, more than eleven years a…
ANJALEEM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, AHMEDABAD
2006 INSC 2516 January 2006Dismissed
Anjaleem Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., a manufacturer of a computer‑based STD‑PCO unit, appealed against the Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, challenging the inclusion of the value of a programmed EPROM in the assessable value of the unit and seeking exemption under Notification No.84/89 which exempts computer softw…
VISHNU DUTT AND ORS.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
2005 INSC 61815 December 2005Dismissed
The dispute concerned the validity of inter‑State stage‑carriage permits issued under Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A 1968 reciprocal transport agreement between Rajasthan and Haryana fixed a ceiling of 13 permits, which had to be countersigned by the other State. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corpor…
P.R. METRANIversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE
2006 INSC 84715 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, was searched under Section 132 of the Income‑Tax Act and unaccounted money, gold and documents were seized. The assessing officer made a provisional assessment under Section 132(5) and later the regular assessment incorporated additions based on a presumption that the seized asse…
STATE OF KARNATAKAversusAZAD COACH BUILDERS PVT. LTD. ETC.
2006 INSC 8615 February 2006Directions issued
The State of Karnataka challenged the claim of exemption under Section 5(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act by Azad Coach Builders, a bus‑body manufacturer that supplied completed bus bodies to exporters (TATA/Ashok Leyland) for subsequent export of whole buses. The department argued that the sale was only of bus‑bodies, …
ONKAR NATH MISHRA & ORS.versusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
2007 INSC 130114 December 2007Case Partly allowed
Onkar Nath Mishra and others appealed against the State of Delhi challenging the framing of charges under Sections 406 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint lodged by the complainant, his wife. The trial court had discharged all accused, but the Sessions Court and High Court later ordered that charges …
M/S NORTH WEST SWITCHGEAR LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
2006 INSC 8414 February 2006Disposed off
M/s North West Switchgear Ltd and M/s Kesharbai Electronics manufactured fan regulators and classified them under sub‑heading 8414.20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, claiming they are electric fans. The revenue issued show‑cause notices alleging short payment of duty, arguing that the regulators are accessories…
DAULAT SINGH SURANA AND ORS.versusFIRST LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ORS.
2006 INSC 83813 November 2006Dismissed
The appellant, Daulat Singh Surana, owned premises that had been requisitioned and used by the West Bengal Government since 1943 as the office and residence of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Security Control). The State issued a notification under Section 4 and a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition …
AZEEZ SAIT 'DEAD' BY L.RS. AND ORS.versusAMAN BAI AND ORS.
2003 INSC 54113 October 2003Dismissed
The dispute concerned a partition deed executed in 1914 between two brothers, M and S, which the appellants claimed was a sham and never acted upon. The trial court had upheld the deed for three of the four properties but dismissed the claim for Item No.1, a house called Abba Manzil. The High Court affirmed this findin…
STATE OF KARNATAKAversusANNEGOWDA
2006 INSC 42513 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The State of Karnataka filed an appeal against a High Court order that allowed the accused, Annegowda, to defer the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) until the trials of ten other related cases were completed. The accused faced eleven charge sheets for alleged misappropr…
AMIT KUMAR SHAW AND ANR.versusFARIDA KHATOON AND ANR.
2005 INSC 20213 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, Amit Kumar Shaw and Anand Kumar Shaw, purchased the suit property from the original defendants during the pendency of two second appeals before the Calcutta High Court. They filed applications under Order I Rule 10 and Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC seeking substitution of their names in place of the ori…
M/S SYNCO INDUSTRIES LTD.versusASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX, MUMBAI & ANR.
2008 INSC 35813 March 2008Dismissed
Mis Synco Industries Ltd., a company with oil and chemical divisions, earned profits in 1990‑91 and 1991‑92 but had earlier losses in its oil division. It claimed deductions under Sections 80HH, 80I and 80‑1 of the Income‑Tax Act, arguing that each unit should be treated separately and that the earlier oil losses shoul…
D.D.A. AND ORS.versusJOGINDER S. MONGA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 71712 December 2003Dismissed
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) fixed a market value of Rs 7,50,00,000 for a leasehold plot and demanded Rs 3,62,44,420 as 50% of the unearned increase, which the respondents (heirs of the original sub‑lessee) challenged, arguing that later circulars issued by the Central Government and the DDA in 1999 waived the…
P. JANARDHANA RAO.versusKANNAN AND ORS.
2004 INSC 59512 October 2004Appeal(s) allowed
P. Janardhana Rao obtained a decree for possession of his property in an ejectment suit filed in 1989. When the decree was executed, three persons (Kannan, Krishnan and Raji) obstructed his taking possession, prompting Rao to file a miscellaneous petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of the CPC for removal of the obstruction…
M/S. PREMIER ENGINEERSversusM/S. TAJ RUBBER INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
2005 INSC 36112 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed
Mis Taj Rubber Industries ordered a rubber mixing machine from Mis Premier Engineers in 1980, but the machine was delivered only in 1990 and was alleged to be defective, fitted with second‑hand parts and lacking an oil system. The respondent filed an application under Section 12‑B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trad…
ORIENT TRADERSversusCOMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, TIRUPATI
2008 INSC 34812 March 2008Dismissed
Orient Traders, a dealer in silver bullion, challenged a reassessment that imposed a 2% sales tax for the year 1994-95, arguing that Government Orders (G.O.) No. 1092 (1994) and No. 252 (1995) which reduced the rate to 1.5% and 0.5% respectively, applied to both gold and silver bullion and specie. The State argued that…
KERALA ROAD LINESversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN
2008 INSC 34412 March 2008Disposed off
The assessee, Kerala Road Lines, entered into an agreement to purchase land with buildings, demolished the structures and sold the scrap as business income. Because the purchase price was delayed, the assessee paid Rs 4 lakh interest under the contract and claimed it as a revenue expenditure under s.37(1) of the Income…
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.versusMANGALAM TIMBER PRODUCTS LTD. ETC.
2003 INSC 62511 November 2003Dismissed
The State of Orissa, through its industrial policy, promised Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. a fixed price for raw material, inducing the company to set up an industry in the state. Later the State attempted to retrospectively revise the royalty rate and raw material price, backdating the change. The Orissa High Court st…
M/S. MERCANTILE COMPANYversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA
2007 INSC 103611 October 2007Dismissed
Mis. Mercantile Company received raw chemicals from Mis. T. Paul & Sons, supplied by Mis. Philips India Ltd., and carried out filtering, repacking into 50 ml containers, labeling and marketing them as distinct cleaning products. The Central Excise authorities classified these goods under sub‑heading 3402.90 of the Cent…
M/S. BALKRISHNA HATCHERIESversusCLARIFICATION & ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY
2006 INSC 59211 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Mis. Balkrishna Hatcheries, sold dressed chicken in polythene bags that were closed by stapling, crimping, or a rubber band. The Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 exempts meat sold in non‑sealed containers, but imposes tax on meat sold in sealed containers. The issue was whether such bags constitute "sealed …
M/S. BARAKA OVERSEAS TRADERSversusDIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE AND ANR.
2006 INSC 59311 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed
Mis Baraka Overseas Traders obtained three advance licences for exporting fresh frozen seafood under the EXIM Policy 1997‑2002. After fulfilling export obligations it applied for endorsement of transferability, which the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) refused on the ground that the licences were wrongly place…
MARAGATHAMMALversusKAMALAMMAL
2006 INSC 59611 September 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The landlord filed an eviction petition against the tenant for willful non‑payment of rent from March 1990 to July 1997 and alleged sub‑letting and demolition. Under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 the Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit all admitted arrears in Court …
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.versusDESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ORS.
2006 INSC 59111 September 2006Disposed off
Reliance Industries Ltd., a PTA manufacturer with a captive power plant, challenged the Designated Authority’s (DA) anti‑dumping duty order which imposed duty only on imports from Spain. The appellant argued that the DA wrongly computed the Non‑Injurious Price (NIP) by using the actual cost of captive electricity rathe…
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.versusZORA SINGH AND ORS.
2005 INSC 35411 August 2005Dismissed
The Punjab State Electricity Board (the Board) was appealed against for refusing to supply electricity to a group of agriculturists (Zora Singh and others) despite receipt of security deposits and compliance with formalities. The District Consumer Forums, State Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commis…
SUDHIR JAGGI AND ANR.versusSUNIL AKASH SINHA CHOUDHURY AND ORS.
2004 INSC 43911 August 2004Dismissed
The plaintiff, the executors of P.K. Chowdhury, purchased two flats from the developer and, after a variation of the agreement, was handed possession of the incomplete flats in May 1967, with the keys and authority to construct permanent partitions, doors and windows at his own cost. The plaintiff paid the majority of …
RAMESH B. DESAI AND ORS.versusBIPIN VADILAL MEHTA AND ORS.
2006 INSC 41511 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The petitioners, nine shareholders of Sayaji Industries Ltd., filed a Company Petition under Section 155 of the Companies Act seeking rectification of the register on the ground that the managing director, Bipin Mehta, had fraudulently used company funds to purchase its own shares, violating Section 77. The respondents…
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPURversusM/S. MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LTD.
2007 INSC 56111 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed
Mis Mahavir Aluminium Ltd. melted aluminium ingots and added alloys to produce aluminium billets, which were used captively for irrigation pipe manufacture (exempt) and also sold in the open market. The Commissioner of Central Excise demanded excise duty on the billets, holding that the conversion constituted "manufact…
RAM BIRAJI DEVI AND ANR.versusUMESH KUMAR SINGH AND ANR.
2006 INSC 31811 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed
The complainant, Umesh Kumar Singh, alleged that the appellants, Ram Biraji Devi and another, accepted part payment for a plot of land but later refused to transfer it, leading him to file a criminal complaint under IPC sections 406, 419, 420 and 120B. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, and the ap…
M/S. QUINN INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD
2006 INSC 31911 May 2006
Quinn India Ltd manufactured a product called Penetrator 4893, originally classified under tariff item 68 and later under 3801.19. In 1986 the company re‑classified it under heading 3402.90 as a wetting (surface‑active) agent, relying on reports from a Chemical Examiner and the Chief Chemist of the Central Revenue Cont…
PRADIP J. MEHTAversusCOMMNR. OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD
2008 INSC 48811 April 2008Case Allowed
The appellant, a marine engineer employed abroad, claimed "not ordinarily resident" status for AY 1982‑83 under s.6(6)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to exclude his foreign income under s.5(1)(c). The Assessing Officer rejected the claim, holding that the appellant had been resident in India for more than 730 days in t…
SUDARSHAN SILKS AND SAREESversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA
2008 INSC 49111 April 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The assessee, Sudarshan Silks & Sarees, was found to be maintaining double books and concealing income, leading to a search that uncovered undisclosed assets. The assessee subsequently filed revised returns disclosing additional income, after which the Assessing Officer levied the maximum penalty under section 271(1)(c…
ABAN LOYD CHILES OFFSHORE LTD. & ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2008 INSC 49211 April 2008Dismissed
The appellants, offshore drilling companies, operated oil rigs in India's designated offshore areas (continental shelf and exclusive economic zone) and sought to import stores for the rigs without customs duty, relying on the exemption for foreign‑going vessels under the Customs Act. The Revenue authorities, citing not…
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAIversusM.M.K. JEWELLERS & ANR.
2008 INSC 33911 March 2008Dismissed
The Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai issued a show‑cause notice demanding customs duty and penalty from M.M.K. Jewellers for a shortage of duty‑free gold detected during a stock‑taking in 1995. The respondent argued that the shortage was due to permissible manufacturing wastage, that the gold existed as dust/slurry, and…
RAMGARH CANTONMENT BOARD & ANR.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS
2008 INSC 34011 March 2008Dismissed
RAMIAHversusN. NARAYANA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS.
2004 INSC 43310 August 2004Dismissed
The case concerned a suit filed by Ramiah in 1984 for possession of 1 acre 21 gunthas of land, after a previous decree in 1971 that had awarded possession to N. Narayana Reddy. The trial court and High Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation, holding that the suit was filed 13 years after the appellant’s ouste…
MALAYALA MANORAMA CO. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM
2008 INSC 47810 April 2008Appeal(s) allowed
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. consistently claimed depreciation in its profit and loss account at the rates prescribed by the Income‑Tax Rules, not at the rates in Schedule XIV of the Companies Act. The Assessing Officer, invoking section 115J of the Income‑Tax Act, recomputed the company’s book profit by substituting the…
NANYA IMPORTS & EXPORTS ENTERPRISESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI
2006 INSC 22010 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed
Nanya Imports & Exports Enterprises, a partnership dealing in leather‑footwear materials, imported PU‑coated leather fabrics intended for use as insoles and midsoles. The goods were supplied in 50‑metre lengths and rolled for safe transport, but the Customs authority denied the exemption under Notification No. 20/99, c…
M/S A.P. PRODUCTSversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
2007 INSC 7289 July 2007Dismissed
A.P. Products purchased various spices that were taxable under Entry 182 of the First Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957. It mixed and ground these spices to produce masala powder and claimed that, because the ingredients had already been taxed, the finished product should be exempt from further…
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KERALAversusM/S. TARA AGENCIES
2007 INSC 7299 July 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala appealed against the High Court’s order allowing Tara Agencies to claim a weighted deduction under Section 35B(IA) of the Income Tax Act for export‑related expenses. Tara Agencies purchased various grades of tea, blended them, and exported the blended product. The issue was whethe…
UNION OF INDIAversusBELGACHI TEA CO. LTD. & ORS.
2008 INSC 6269 May 2008Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether income from the sale of green tea leaves by Belgachi Tea Co. Ltd. should be taxed as business income under the Income Tax Act, 1961, or as agricultural income under the Bengal Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1944. The Court held that the mixed income from tea grown and manufactured must …
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MUMBAIversusM/S. BELL GRANITO CERAMICA LTD.
2006 INSC 3089 May 2006Dismissed
The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs appealed against a tribunal order that held M/s Bell Granito Ceramica Ltd.'s polished ceramic tiles were not "glazed" and therefore not liable for differential excise duty. The assessee manufactures both polished (glossy) and unpolished tiles, initially classified under tari…
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAIversusM/S. PENTAMEDIA GRAPHICS LTD.
2006 INSC 3099 May 2006Dismissed
The appeal concerned the classification of imported 'Motion Capture Animation Files' and whether they qualified for customs duty exemption under Customs Notification No.20/99-Cus as 'information technology software'. The respondent imported the files, valued at Rs. 7.02 crore, and claimed exemption, but the assessing a…
RAM DAYAL RAIversusJHARKHAND STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS
2005 INSC 1259 March 2005Disposed off
The appellant, a retired foreman of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board, failed to vacate the Board's quarters after retirement and sought extensions from the High Court, which were eventually granted up to 1 November 1999. He finally vacated the premises on 6 January 2000, after which the Board imposed a permanent 5…
VASANTIBEN PRAHLADJI NAYAK AND ORS.versusSOMNATH JUIJIBHAI NAYAK AND ORS.
2004 INSC 1519 March 2004Dismissed
The appellants, Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak and others, sued the respondents, S.J. Nayak and others, for declaration of title, possession and injunction over ancestral land. The respondents claimed ownership by adverse possession, arguing the suit was barred by limitation. The lower courts held in favour of the responde…
FIRM ASHOK TRADERS AND ANR. ETC.versusGURUMUKH DAS SALUJA AND ORS. ETC.
2004 INSC 299 January 2004Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined a dispute among partners of the unregistered liquor‑trading firm Mis Ashok Traders, where a partner of Group A sought an interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of a receiver. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that …
AJAI AGRAWAL AND ORS.versusHAR GOVIND PRASAD SINGHAL AND ORS.
2005 INSC 5488 November 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, legal heirs of a tenant, challenged a suit for recovery of arrears and eviction filed by the landlord who claimed periodic rent enhancements to Rs 200 and Rs 400 per month after the tenant carried out improvements. The lower courts had accepted the landlord's oral agreement for such enhancements based s…
M/S. AMAR ALCOHOLI LTD.versusSICOM LTD. AND ANR.
2005 INSC 5498 November 2005Dismissed
Mis. Amar Alcohol Ltd. obtained a Rs.90‑lakh loan from SI Com Ltd., a State Financial Corporation (SFC) originally 100% owned by the Maharashtra Government. After the government reduced its share to 49%, the borrower defaulted and SI Com invoked Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to take possessio…
PATTAMMAL AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
2005 INSC 5508 November 2005Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the fixation of market value for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for a stadium in Karaikal. The Reference Court had classified the lands as potential house sites and fixed the market value at Rs.13,500 per acre, while the Madras High Court reduced it to Rs.7,000 per acre using a…
MAHATAMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY & ANR.versusGIS JOSE & ORS.
2008 INSC 10208 September 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent secured only 53.3% marks, below the university's 55% cut‑off, yet was admitted to the M.Sc. Computer Science programme. The university’s Controller of Examinations directed the college to cancel her admission and reject her examination applications, but the principal allowed her to continue and sit for t…
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusISHAAN RESEARCH LAB (P) LTD. & ORS.
2008 INSC 10218 September 2008Dismissed
The Revenue challenged the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal’s finding that 22 products of Ishan Research Lab were Ayurvedic medicines under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff, liable to 10% duty, rather than cosmetics under Chapter 33 at 40% duty. The Court examined whether the products should…
DAMODARAN PILLAI AND ORS.versusSOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD.
2005 INSC 4108 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent (South Indian Bank Ltd) obtained a decree against the appellants (Damodaran Pillai & ors.) and filed an execution petition which was dismissed for default on 1 November 1990 under Order 21 Rule 105(2) of the CPC. The appellants filed a restoration application on 4 April 1998, claiming they learned of the…
G.M., O.N.G.C. LTDversusSENDHABHAI VASTRAM PATEL AND ORS.
2005 INSC 3458 August 2005Dismissed
The appellant, G.M. O.N.G.C. Ltd., challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired by the Gujarat State under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector had fixed a market value of Rs.1.55 per sq. m. based on deeds of sale, but the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.10 per sq. m. relying solely…
TATA POWER COMPANY LIMITEDversusRELIANCE ENERGY LIMITED & ORS.
2008 INSC 7818 July 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute arose when Reliance Energy (formerly BSES) alleged that Tata Power Company (TPC) was encroaching on its distribution area by supplying electricity directly to retail consumers, contrary to licence terms and government policy. The Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) initially held that TPC’s…
SPUN CASTING AND ENGG. CO. PVT. LTD.versusDWIJENDRA LAL SINHA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.
2005 INSC 1948 April 2005Dismissed
The dispute arose from a settlement in 1954 whereby the original lessees transferred the entire iron‑casting foundry business, together with land, building, machinery and fittings, to the appellant for a fixed term. After the term expired, the appellant failed to vacate the premises (referred to as "B Schedule property…
ARUNKUMAR AND ANR.versusSHRINIWAS AND ORS.
2003 INSC 2218 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed
Sitabai executed a will bequeathing her self‑acquired property to her husband, Ramachandra, for his lifetime and thereafter to three minor nephews. After the testator and her husband died, the husband's brother and his children took possession, and a compromise decree was obtained in an injunction suit, which the minor…
M/S. PUMA AYURVEDIC HERBAL (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR
2006 INSC 1458 March 2006Disposed off
Mis. Puma Ayurvedic Herbal (P) Ltd., a licensed manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicines, challenged the classification of its products as cosmetics by the CEGAT, which attracted a higher excise duty. The Supreme Court applied the well‑settled "twin test"—the common‑parlance test and the Ayurvedic‑text‑book ingredients test…
M/S UDAYANI SHIP BREAKERS LTD.versusCOMMNR. OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT
2006 INSC 768 February 2006Dismissed
Udayani Ship Breakers Ltd. purchased a ship that had been imported by another Indian company for ship‑breaking. The ship was damaged after arrival in India and was sold to the appellant on an "as is where is" basis for a reduced price of Rs 12.01 crore, whereas the original import price was Rs 24.78 crore. The appellan…
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUTversusM/S. MAHARSHI AYURVEDA CORPORATION LTD.
2005 INSC 5957 December 2005Dismissed
Maharshi Ayurveda Corporation Ltd manufactured a tonic called “Herbonic”, a mixture of vegetables, nuts, seeds and other plant parts, and claimed nil excise duty under heading 2001.90 of Chapter 20 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Revenue argued that the product should be classified under the residuary headi…
COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, JODHPURversusM/S. VISHNU METALS
2006 INSC 7907 November 2006Appeal(s) allowed
Vishnu Metals, a manufacturer of stainless steel sheets, expanded its installed capacity and claimed a sales‑tax exemption under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989, on the ground that its total production—including job‑work performed for others—had increased by more than 25% of the original capacity. Th…
RAMESHWAR PRASAD AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
2005 INSC 4917 October 2005
The Supreme Court examined writ petitions challenging the Governor's proclamation dated 23 May 2005 that dissolved the Bihar Legislative Assembly after the state had been placed under President's Rule on 7 March 2005. The petitions argued that the dissolution was unconstitutional because the assembly was kept in suspen…
HARNEK SINGHversusCHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS.
2005 INSC 4987 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned an election for Chairman of a Gram Panchayat in Punjab where the initial poll resulted in a tie and the process was adjourned due to law‑and‑order problems. The Returning Officer fixed a new date for the continuation of the election, but the respondent argued that only the State Election Commission c…
SARGUNAM (D) BY LR.versusCHIDAMBARAM AND ANR.
2004 INSC 5867 October 2004Dismissed
The plaintiff, Chidambaram, entered into a sale agreement on 14‑June‑1979 to purchase a premises, but the vendor failed to deliver title. While the suit for specific performance was pending, the vendor purportedly sold the same property to Sargunam on 29‑Nov‑1979, allegedly under a prior agreement dated 15‑Apr‑1978. Th…
MD. MOHAMMAD ALI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSRI JAGADISH KALITA AND ORS.
2003 INSC 5277 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The original owner transferred land to two brothers who partitioned it; one brother's son amalgamated the holdings, sold one portion and leased the other to a cooperative society (respondent No.3). The heirs of the other brother and the original owner's heirs later transferred their possessory rights in the leased port…
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.versusBASANT NAHATA
2005 INSC 4067 September 2005Dismissed
The respondent, Basant Nahata, sought registration of a power of attorney, which the Sub‑Registrar refused under a Rajasthan Government notification issued pursuant to Section 22‑A of the Indian Registration Act. The notification declared such documents "opposed to public policy" and barred their registration. The resp…
RANVIR SINGH AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA
2005 INSC 4087 September 2005Disposed off
The Union of India issued four notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to acquire land in Delhi’s village Rithala. Different compensation rates were awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, enhanced by a Reference Court, and further increased by the Delhi High Court relying on circle‑rate not…
UNION OF INDIAversusPRAMOD GUPTA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS.
2005 INSC 4097 September 2005Disposed off
The case concerned the acquisition of about 5,000 bighas of land in Masoodpur for the construction of Jawaharlal Nehru University. The Union of India appealed against the Delhi High Court’s award of compensation based on questionable valuation methods, the grant of interest during a stay, and the allowance of amendment…
VIJAYALASHMI RICE MILL AND ORS.versusTHE COMMERICAL TAX OFFICERS, PALAKOL AND ORS.
2006 INSC 4917 August 2006Dismissed
The appellants, rice millers, challenged the constitutionality of a 5% cess levied under the Andhra Pradesh Rural Development Act, 1996, arguing that it was neither a tax nor a fee within the constitutional entries and that no specific service was rendered to them. The State contended that the levy was a fee for rural …
ABAN LOYD CHILES OFFSHORE LIMITED AND ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MAHARASHTRA
2006 INSC 4927 August 2006Case Partly allowed
The appellants, contractors for ONGC, carried out offshore oil operations and moved goods between ONGC's rigs and the shore without payment of customs duty under a customs exemption. After ONGC shifted operations to Nhava Base, the Customs Department issued show‑cause notices alleging unauthorized loading, unloading an…
LATA SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
2006 INSC 4077 July 2006Case Allowed
Lata Singh, a 27‑year‑old graduate, married a man of a different caste of her own free will. Her brothers filed false missing‑person and kidnapping reports, leading police to arrest her husband’s relatives. Despite a police final report and a medical opinion that Lata was mentally fit, the magistrate recorded her state…
AMARENDRA KOMALAM AND ANR.versusUSHA SINHA AND ANR.
2005 INSC 1917 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants Amarendra Komalam and others sued respondent Usha Sinha for specific performance of a lease renewal clause, while the respondent had earlier filed an eviction suit and, in earlier proceedings, undertook not to contest the authenticity of the 02‑09‑1978 lease agreement. The respondent later attempted to r…
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPURversusDUGAR TETENAL INDIA LIMITED
2008 INSC 3197 March 2008Dismissed
The assessee, Dugar Tetenal India Ltd., cleared photographic chemicals under the brand name “Tetenal” claiming exemption under Notification No. 175/86‑CE of the Central Excise Act. Investigation revealed that the brand belonged to a German collaborator, not the assessee, and that the assessee had willfully declared the…
SWAIKA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
2008 INSC 1497 February 2008Dismissed
The appellants' land was notified for acquisition under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 in 1975 and a declaration was made in 1984 directing them to surrender possession. They first approached the Calcutta High Court, which was stayed by the Supreme Court on jurisdictional grounds. Possession was taken in 198…
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, GOAversusPHIL CORPORATION LTD.
2008 INSC 1507 February 2008Disposed off
Phil Corporation Ltd. processed cashew nuts, peanuts and almonds by dry/oil roasting, salting, seasoning and packed them in small containers, clearing the goods without paying excise duty and claiming classification under Chapter 8 (0801.00) at a nil rate. The Revenue argued that the processed products fall under Chapt…
BHARAT HYDRO POWER CORPN. LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
2004 INSC 247 January 2004Dismissed
The Assam State Legislature enacted the Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1996 to acquire a stalled hydro‑electric project and vest it in the State Electricity Board. The appellants, Bharat Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. and its partner, challenged the Act as ultra vire…
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusVINOD KUMAR
2007 INSC 12346 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed
Vinod Kumar, a bus conductor employed by U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, was found to have collected fare from passengers without issuing tickets, amounting to misappropriation of funds. An internal disciplinary inquiry led to his dismissal, which was challenged in an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. …
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMversusJOSEPH VALAKUZHY
2008 INSC 5876 May 2008Dismissed
The appellant, the Commissioner of Income Tax, challenged the assessment of film producer Joseph Valakuzhy who claimed a carry‑forward of amortisation expenses under Rule 9A of the Income Tax Rules for a feature film that was not exhibited for 180 days and did not recover its production cost. The revenue argued that th…
B LEELAVATHIversusHONNAMMA AND ANR.
2005 INSC 2656 May 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, B. Leela Vathi, claimed ownership of a property alleging that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant, Honnamma, without issuing a show‑cause notice under Section 64 of the BDA Act and that she had acquired title by adverse possession since 1940. The …
VELLIKANNUversusR. SINGAPERUMAL AND ANR.
2005 INSC 2676 May 2005Dismissed
The appellant, Vellikannu, a daughter‑in‑law, claimed inheritance of the joint family property of her deceased father‑in‑law, Ramasami Konar, asserting her right as his widow. The sole son of the deceased, Respondent No.1, had murdered his father and was convicted under Section 302 IPC, later released. The issue was wh…
SUBHADRA RANI PAL CHOUDHARYversusSHEIRLY WEIGAL NAIN AND ORS.
2005 INSC 1876 April 2005Disposed off
The mother bequeathed two properties to her daughters, Subhadra Rani Pal Choudhary and Jyotsnamayee Pal Choudhary, who obtained probate. The brothers appealed; during pendency the sisters were appointed administrators‑cum‑joint receivers and were permitted by the Calcutta High Court to lease the premises to Harvard Hou…
M/S. VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI- I
2007 INSC 1096 February 2007Appeal(s) allowed
Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. filed a loss return for AY 1996-97 which was later reduced to a loss of Rs. 11,02,255 after disallowances and adjustments. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 31,71,692 under Section 271(1)(c)(iii) for concealment of income, despite the fact that no tax was payable. The ITAT deleted …
CRYSTAL DEVELOPERS ETC. ETC.versusSMT. ASHA LATA GHOSH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS., ETC. ETC.
2004 INSC 5765 October 2004
Balai Chand Ghosh, who had three wives and nine children, executed a will bequeathing a suit property to his son Arindam (the third wife's son) and appointed him executor. During the testator's lifetime, sale agreements were executed by Arindam as a constituted attorney, and the testator received part of the considerat…
AMIN CHAND PAYARELALversusINSPECTING ASSTI. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX AND ORS.
2006 INSC 5795 September 2006Dismissed
Amin Chand Payarelal filed income‑tax returns for assessment years 1959‑60 to 1965‑66 after the extended period allowed under Section 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and paid interest on the delayed filing. The Assessing Authority, an Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(a). The …
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHIversusCARRIER AIRCON LTD.
2006 INSC 3965 July 2006Dismissed
The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged Carrier Aircon Ltd's classification of its chillers under tariff heading 84.18 (refrigerating or freezing equipment) instead of heading 84.15 (air‑conditioning machines). The Revenue argued that because more than 90% of the chillers were used as integral parts of central ai…
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.versusASSOCIATED DISTRIBUTORS LTD.
2008 INSC 5785 May 2008Case Allowed
The Commissioner of Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh assessed a 10% sales tax on bubble‑gum, treating it as an unclassified item, while the assessee argued it should be taxed at 6.25% as a sweetmeat (mithai) or confectionery. The First Appellate Court and the High Court held bubble‑gum to be a confectionery and reduced the rat…
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusINDIAN JUTE MILLS ASSOCIATIONS AND ORS.
2005 INSC 2635 May 2005Disposed off
The Supreme Court heard appeals by the Union of India challenging High Court judgments that had quashed government notifications reducing compulsory jute packaging and had directed the Standing Advisory Committee to hear workers and growers before making recommendations. The Court examined whether the Committee could m…
RAJU S. JETHMALANI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
2005 INSC 2605 May 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The 1986 development plan for Pune earmarked a privately‑owned 1.5‑acre Plot No.438 as a garden, but the Municipal Corporation and the State Government never acquired the land. After the owners (appellants) bought the plot, the Government de‑reserved it by notification on 12‑Feb‑1993, citing lack of funds. Residents fi…
U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS CHAIRMANversusOMADITYA VERMA AND ORS.
2005 INSC 1825 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) challenged a High Court order that directed the State Transport Authority to issue 38 stage‑carriage permits to private operators for the Muzaffarnagar‑Chajlet route. The permits covered the Bijnor‑Noorpur segment, which had been notified as a state‑run road‑t…
M/S. LOHIA SHEET PRODUCTSversusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
2008 INSC 3175 March 2008Appeal(s) allowed
M/s. Lohia Sheet Products imported copper/brass waste and scrap for making handicrafts and claimed exemption under Notification No.8/96‑CE (Entry 74.04) which provides a NIL rate of additional customs duty. The Customs authorities and the Tribunal rejected the claim, holding that the exemption applied only to waste gen…
SMT. DAYAMATHI BAIversusSRI K.M. SHAFFI
2004 INSC 4194 August 2004Dismissed
The plaintiff, K.M. Shaffi, sued for a declaration of ownership of a plot and an injunction against the defendant, relying on a certified copy of a 1944 sale deed (Ex.P1) and a 1966 gift deed (Ex.P2). The trial court admitted the documents, applying the presumption of authenticity under Section 90 of the Evidence Act b…
SANDEN VIKAS (INDIA) LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI
2003 INSC 1444 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed
Sanden Vikas (India) Ltd., a manufacturer of car air‑conditioning kits, claimed exemption under Notification No.166/86‑CE by classifying its kits under Item 5 of Heading 8415. The Assistant Collector treated the kits as air‑conditioners under Item 3, leading to a demand for duty. After the amendment on 20 March 1990 in…
GOVINDARAJUversusMARIAMMAN
2005 INSC 644 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The dispute concerned the title to a property claimed by Govindaraju, who purchased it from descendants of Muthuswamy Moopanar, and by Mariamman, who purchased it from descendants of Veeramuthu Moopanar. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed Mariamman's suit for declaration of title, holding that neit…
THE ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.versusGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.
2006 INSC 84 January 2006Dismissed
The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. challenged the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act’s amendment that introduced two different tax rates for cement depending on whether the price included packing material (16%) or excluded it (20%). The appellants argued that this differential treatment violated Article 14 of the C…
PALLA VI REFRACTORIES AND ORS. ETC. ETC.versusM/S. SINGARENI COLLERIES CO. LTD. ETC. ETC.
2005 INSC 74 January 2005Dismissed
The state-owned Singareni Collieries Ltd., which supplies coal to both core (priority) and non‑core industries, issued Notification No. 3/96‑97 imposing a 20% surcharge on non‑core customers. The appellants, small‑scale coal‑using manufacturers, challenged the surcharge as arbitrary discrimination violating Article 14 …
FEDDERS LLOYD CORPORATION LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
2007 INSC 12133 December 2007Dismissed
Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd manufactured condensing units at its Delhi plant and procured cooling units from local manufacturers. It assembled these components with pipe kits, cords, remote controls and performed quality checks at its Mumbai workshop, thereby creating a complete split air‑conditioner that was sold un…
MEENAKSHIAMMAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ORS.versusCHANDRASEKARAN AND ANR.
2004 INSC 6353 November 2004Dismissed
The deceased Siva executed a will bequeathing his property to his step‑brother's children, excluding the plaintiffs who were children of his real sister. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration and possession, claiming they were the rightful heirs. The trial court held the will proved and dismissed the suit. The lower ap…
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.versusR. HANUMAIAH AND ORS.
2005 INSC 4713 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) acquired land for the Koramangala layout under the Mysore/Land Acquisition Acts, paid compensation and took possession. The predecessor Board of Trustees (CITB) passed a 1972 resolution to re‑convey 6 acres 20 guntas to R. Hanumaiah, subject to the withdrawal of compensation, w…
CAMLIN LIMITEDversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI
2008 INSC 10103 September 2008Disposed off
Camlin Limited manufactures various inks, including marker inks and other inks used in pens. The Central Excise Tariff classifies "writing inks" under CSH 3215.10 (nil duty) and "other inks" under CSH 3215.90 (16% duty). The Tribunal, relying on the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN), placed marker inks in the lat…
WHIRLPOOL OF INDIA LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
2007 INSC 11212 November 2007Dismissed
Whirlpool of India Ltd, a refrigerator manufacturer, challenged Notification No. 9 of 2000 issued under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, which required the maximum retail price (MRP) to be printed on the package of goods. The company argued that a refrigerator is not a “packaged commodity” within the meaning of th…
SUNIL KUMARversusRAM SINGH GAUD AND ORS.
2007 INSC 11232 November 2007Appeal(s) allowed
Sunil Kumar, a mini‑truck driver, was injured in a collision on 10 July 2003, sustaining three fractures and a 45% permanent disability. He claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for loss of earnings, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs 45,000 for disability, Rs 21,000 for t…
COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P., LUCKNOWversusMIS. MODIPAN FIBRES COMPANY
2006 INSC 4862 August 2006Dismissed
Mis. Modipan Fibres Company claimed exemption under Uttar Pradesh Notification No. 1093/1991 for the turnover of goods sold in excess of its base production. The Assessing Authority allowed exemption only on sales made after the base production was achieved, while the company argued that exemption should apply to the e…
ISHWAR DUTTversusLAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR AND ANR.
2005 INSC 3262 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed
The Supreme Court examined a dispute arising from the acquisition of land for a road project in Himachal Pradesh, where possession was taken in 1968 but formal acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was delayed. A 1985 public‑interest writ directed the State to complete acquisition and to pay the…
SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS.versusGULBAHAR SHEIKH AND ORS.
2004 INSC 2262 April 2004Leave Granted & Allowed
The appellants filed a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking recovery of possession of immovable property from which they claimed to have been dispossessed. The trial court decreed in their favour, but the respondents filed a revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and t…
KUMAR DHIRENDRA MULLICK AND ORS.versusTIVOLI PARK APARTMENTS (P) LTD.
2004 INSC 6291 November 2004Dismissed
The trustees of a trust estate had leased premises to a lessee for 21 years, who later assigned the lease to TIVOLI PARK APARTMENTS (the respondent). An oral agreement was made to renew the lease for 70 years on increased rent and premium, but the trustees failed to execute the transfer deed. The respondent obtained a …
TATA CUMMINS LTD.versusSTATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.
2006 INSC 4801 August 2006Dismissed
Tata Cummins Ltd, a diesel engine manufacturer, obtained an eight‑year exemption from sales tax on raw material purchases under the Bihar Industrial Policy, 1995, valid until 31‑Dec‑2003. After the creation of Jharkhand, the state introduced the Jharkhand Industrial Policy, 2001, effective 15‑Nov‑2000, whose Clause 28.…
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE, M.P.
2006 INSC 4811 August 2006Appeal(s) allowed
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. operated an electrical and mechanical workshop at Korba to repair mining equipment for adjacent coal mines. The Central Government had declared the workshop a "mine" under Section 82 of the Mines Act, 1952. The assessee claimed exemption from central excise duty under Notification No. 63/9…