Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

RUMA PAL

152 judgments delivered by benches including this judge.

PONDICHERRY KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARDversusP. KULOTHANGAN AND ANR.

2003 INSC 59131 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a temporary instructor, was absent from work and later denied re‑employment by the appellant. He filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court seeking reinstatement and regularisation, which was dismissed along with his appeal. Subsequently, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, whic

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAIversusD.P. SANDU BROS. CHEMBUR (P) LTD.

2005 INSC 5531 January 2005Dismissed

The respondent, D.P. Sandhu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd., entered into a 50‑year lease in 1959 and prematurely surrendered its tenancy rights in March 1986, receiving Rs 35 lakhs. The Assessing Officer treated the receipt as income from other sources under Sec. 10(3) read with Sec. 56, while the Commissioner of Income Tax (A

K.RAVINDRANATHAN NAIRversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM

2000 INSC 55430 November 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an individual processing cashew nuts in ten units (four in Kerala, two owned and two leased), declared a lock‑out of the Kerala units due to labour problems and later settled with trade unions by paying five days' wages per year of service, amounting to Rs 4,18,107. He claimed a deduction for this paymen

ASHUTOSHversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 39030 August 2005Disposed off

A decree for a construction work claim was passed against the State of Rajasthan and the partnership firm Sharma & Co. The State recovered the decree amount and sought execution against the firm’s securities, including a house owned by partner Smt. Dhanwanti Devi, who had earlier executed a will bequeathing the house t

V.P. PITHUPITCHAI AND ANR.versusTHE SPECIAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

2003 INSC 26930 April 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, who collected and sold seashells from the Tamil Nadu coast, were directed by the State Government to obtain mining leases and pay royalty on the basis that seashells were classified as "lime shell", a major mineral under the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957. The appellants chall

MAYAR (H.K.) LTD. AND ORS.versusOWNERS & PARTIES, VESSEL M.V. FORTUNE EXPRESS AND ORS.

2006 INSC 4630 January 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Mayar (HK) Ltd. and other plaintiffs filed an admiralty suit in the Calcutta High Court alleging that the carrier, Trustrade Enterprises PTE Ltd., failed to deliver 456 timber logs that were to be shipped on the deck of the vessel M.V. Fortune Express from Malaysia to Calcutta. The defendants argued that the Bill of La

UNION OF INDIAversusAHMEDABAD ELECTRICITY CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 57929 October 2003Dismissed

The Court examined whether cinder, the unburnt portion of coal left after its use as fuel in factories, is liable to excise duty under Entry 26.21 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It held that cinder is not a product of manufacture because coal is used only as fuel and no transformation creates a new substance;

PENTAKOTA SATYANARAYANA AND ORS.versusPENTAKOTA SEETHARATNAM AND ORS.

2005 INSC 45829 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Pentakota Srirammurthy executed a registered will in 1980 bequeathing a portion of his self‑acquired property to his first wife, Seetharatnam, and the remainder to his children by his second wife, Alla Kantamma. After his death, Seetharatnam and Krishna Bhagavan (who claimed to be an adopted son) filed suits seeking ma

HEMALATHA GARGYAversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2002 INSC 50028 November 2002Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the three‑month payment period prescribed in Section 67(1) of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme, 1997 could be extended. The Court held that the word "shall" makes the deadline mandatory and that Section 67(2) expressly deems a declaration invalid if payment is not made within

AIR INDIA LTD. AND ORS.versusVISHAL KAPOOR AND ORS.

2005 INSC 45228 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned seniority of Air India co‑pilots: whether it should be based on the date a pilot obtained an Air Lines Transport Pilot (ALTP) licence or on the date of entry as a co‑pilot with only a Commercial Pilot Licence (CPL). The ‘Adhikari group’ (ex‑IAF/Navy pilots with ALTP) challenged Clause 7(C) of a 19

STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.versusJ.K. UDAIPUR UDYOG LTD. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 55928 September 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The Rajasthan government introduced a Sales Tax Exemption Scheme for industries under its Fourth Industrial Policy, classifying cement units under different categories. Two sick cement manufacturers applied for exemption claiming parity with new units, but while their applications were pending the government issued a c

T.N. RAJASEKARversusN. KASIVISWANATHAN AND ORS.

2005 INSC 32128 July 2005Disposed off

The appellant, a Class II heir of an unmarried, issueless deceased, filed a partition suit seeking his one-fifth share of the estate valued at Rs. 2,98,79,569. The trial judge allotted a house (Item No.6) worth Rs. 1,50,00,000 to the appellant, exceeding his share of Rs. 59,75,914, and ordered the excess Rs. 90,24,086

KRISHNA MOHAN PVT. LTD.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.

2003 INSC 34028 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Krishna Mohan Pvt Ltd owned a cinema complex on which it installed plant, machinery, lifts and air‑conditioners. The Municipal Corporation of Delhi assessed property tax by adding the cost of these items to the building's rateable value. The company appealed, arguing that such costs are movable and should be excluded,

M/S. SUNRISE ASSOCIATESversusGOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

2006 INSC 26128 April 2006Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined whether the sale of lottery tickets falls within the definition of "goods" for the purpose of State sales tax statutes. The Court held that a lottery ticket is merely a token evidencing a chance to win a prize, which constitutes an actionable claim under the Transfer of Property Act, not a mo

INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETYversusNEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE AND ORS.

2003 INSC 26328 April 2003Dismissed

The Indian Red Cross Society owned a building in Delhi, part of which it occupied for its charitable offices and the rest it let out on rent. The New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) levied property tax on the entire building. The Society claimed exemption under Section 62(1) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994,

P. ANAND GAJAPATHI RAJU AND ORS.versusP.V.G. RAJU (DIED) AND ORS.

2000 INSC 16428 March 2000Disposed off

During the pendency of an appeal, the parties executed an arbitration agreement and sought to have the Supreme Court refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court examined whether the phrase "which is the subject of an arbitration agreement" required the agree

M. JANARDHANA RAOversusJOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

2005 INSC 5228 January 2005Disposed off

The appellants, former partners of a dissolved firm, challenged the taxability of proceeds from the sale of the firm's assets, arguing that the transaction did not constitute a slump sale and that no capital‑gain tax could be levied before the 1999 amendment. They filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,

M/S. MANGALORE GANESH BEEDI WORKSversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MYSORE AND ANR.

2005 INSC 5328 January 2005Disposed off

Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works appealed to the Supreme Court against a Karnataka High Court order that affirmed the Income‑Tax Appellate Tribunal’s findings without providing any discussion or reasons. The appeals were filed under section 260‑A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Supreme Court held that even when a higher c

STATE OF UPversusBRIJPAL SINGH

2005 INSC 44927 September 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Brijpal Singh was appointed as a seasonal clerk on a temporary basis and his services were terminated on 3 July 1987. He obtained a stay of the termination order from the Allahabad High Court but did not resume work. Six years later, relying on the stay, he filed an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Di

ABDUL WAHEED KHAN @ WAHEED AND ORS.versusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2002 INSC 35427 August 2002Dismissed

The appellants conspired to rob Hazi Mohd. Yakub and, when he resisted, three of them stabbed him repeatedly with knives, causing his death and stealing cash and drafts. The trial court convicted them of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC, but the Andhra Pradesh High Court altered th

N. BAGAVATHY AMMALversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI AND ANR.

2003 INSC 3927 January 2003Dismissed

The appellants, two sisters who were shareholders of a company in liquidation, received agricultural land as part of the distribution of the company's assets. The Assessing Officer treated the market value of the land as a capital gain under Section 46(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and levied tax. While the Commissio

J.P. SRIVASTAVA AND SONS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.versusM/S GWALIOR SUGAR CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 62026 October 2004Leave Granted & Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined a petition filed by a group of minority shareholders, including a family trust, under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act alleging oppression and mismanagement by Gwalior Sugar Co. The Court had to decide whether the petitioners satisfied the 10% shareholding requirement, whether a co‑t

JINDAL STRIPE LTD. AND ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2003 INSC 51626 September 2003

The petitioners, manufacturers in Haryana, challenged the constitutional validity of the Haryana Local Area Development Tax Act, 2000, alleging it violated Article 301 of the Constitution and was not saved by Article 304(b). They argued that the Act imposed an entry tax on goods moving into local areas, effectively a s

CHIMAJIRAO KANHOJIRAO SHIRKE AND ANR.versusORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

2000 INSC 35526 July 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The deceased Mahendra Shirke had insured his goods truck for Rs 10 lakhs under a comprehensive motor policy that included "unlimited personal injury and property" coverage, for which an additional premium of Rs 134 was paid. After his death in a road accident, his parents sued Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. fo

HARI CHAND AND ORS.versusFARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.

2005 INSC 23126 April 2005Dismissed

The petitioners were former employees of the Faridabad Development Board who retired between 1976 and 1986 and sought pension benefits under a scheme introduced in 1992. They relied on a prior civil suit where similarly situated employees were granted pension, arguing that the decree should bind the administration as r

DELHI FARMING AND CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

2003 INSC 18526 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Delhi Farming and Construction (P) Ltd., an investment company, received compensation for compulsory acquisition of agricultural land in 1962. The directors transferred the entire amount to a capital reserve and did not declare any dividend for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, citing accumulated losse

SECUR INDUSTRIES LTD.versusM/S. GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 13826 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Secur Industries Ltd filed a claim petition under Section 6 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, referring the dispute to the Uttar Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council. The respondent filed a suit in a civil court seeking a declaration that the petition w

KILLICK NIXON LTD., MUMBAIversusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI AND ORS.

2002 INSC 49325 November 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Killick Nixon Ltd. filed its return for AY 1992‑93 and, after a revised return, the Assessing Officer disallowed several claims. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld some items but set aside four heads – bad debt, income from house property, capital gains and a disallowance under Rule 6D – and remitted the m

ANUMATIversusPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

2004 INSC 61625 October 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant and her husband held a joint fixed deposit with an "either or survivor" clause. The husband allegedly pledged the deposit as security for a loan taken by his proprietary firm, and the bank adjusted the deposit against that loan without the wife’s consent. The wife filed a complaint under the Consumer Prot

PROBODH CHANDRA GHOSHversusURMILA DASSI AND ANR.

2000 INSC 35225 July 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute concerned possession of a suit‑property that had been sold to the appellant, Probodh Chandra Ghosh, while the respondent, Urmila Dassi, claimed title as the heir of the original owner. The appellant filed an application under Section 144 of the CPC on 17 April 1986 for restoration of possession, which was a

STATE OF TAMIL NADUversusSELVI J. JAYALALITHA

2000 INSC 24925 April 2000Disposed off

The State of Tamil Nadu appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to uphold criminal revision petitions filed in the Madras High Court against the trial of Selvi J. Jayalalitha. The accused, through counsel, requested permission to withdraw those revision petitions without prejudice to her right to raise all contentions af

M/S. CASTROL INDIA LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA-I

2005 INSC 10825 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Castrol India Ltd manufactured a blended lubricating oil called ‘Super TT’ with a flash point below 94°C and classified it under tariff heading 2710.99, claiming exemption under Notification 120/84‑CE which exempts blended or compounded lubricating oils. The Central Excise Department argued that the notification applie

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHversusGIR PRASAD AND ORS.

2004 INSC 12925 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Uttar Pradesh introduced an irrigation programme that affected the agricultural lands of Gir Prasad, who filed a complaint under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 alleging that the State had manipulated the conditions of water supply and engaged in a restrictive trade practice. The M

PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR JHAversusSTA TE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

2006 INSC 24224 April 2006Dismissed

Purushottam Kumar Jha, appointed as a Field Clerk on compassionate grounds by the State of Bihar in 1996, was provisionally transferred to the newly created State of Jharkhand after the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000. He claimed he was actually a Law Officer/Legal Assistant, refused clerical duties, and alleged that th

M/S. GEM GRANITESversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TAMIL NADU

2004 INSC 66723 November 2004Dismissed

Mis. Gem Granites, an exporter of cut and polished granite, claimed a deduction under Section 80‑HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1987‑88. The issue was whether processed granite fell within the exclusionary clause "minerals and ores" in sub‑section (2)(b) of the provision as it stood before the

CEMENTO CORPORATION LTD.versusCOLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE

2002 INSC 43523 October 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Cemento Corporation Ltd manufactured a lime‑pozzolana mixture called Lympo from 1982 and claimed it was a cement substitute, seeking classification under the residuary Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which would exempt it from excise duty. The Collector of Central Excise classified Lympo as a

DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHYversusARUNDHATL TRIPATHY

2005 INSC 37023 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Durga Prasanna Tripathy married Arundhati Tripathy on 5 March 1991. The wife left the matrimonial home in October 1991 and the parties lived apart for about 14 years. The husband filed a petition for divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and desertion. The Family Court granted the decr

INTELLECTUALS FORUM, TIRUPATHIversusSTATE OF A.P. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 10123 February 2006Disposed off

The Intellectuals Forum filed writ petitions challenging Government Orders that alienated the bed lands of the historic Peruru and Avilala tanks in Tirupati to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, the Tirupati Urban Development Authority and the A.P. Housing Board for housing projects. The High Court dismissed the petiti

SIDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 9623 February 2005

Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a cooperative sugar manufacturer, claimed a rebate under Notification No. 132/82 for excess sugar production in May‑September 1982, calculating average production over three years (including two years of nil output) as 11,009.67 quintals. The revenue authorities ignored the two

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISEversusM/S. RATAN MELTING AND WIRE INDUSTRIES, CALCUTTA

2005 INSC 9723 February 2005Matter referred to larger bench

The Supreme Court considered the dispute between the Commissioner of Central Excise and Mis. Ratan Mel Ting & Wire Industries concerning the effect of Central Board of Excise and Customs circulars that interpreted a statutory provision differently from a Constitution Bench judgment in Collector of Central Excise, Vadod

SHENYANG MASTSUSHIT S. BATTERY CO. LTD.versusM/S. EXIDE INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 9823 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Chinese manufacturer of lead‑acid batteries, challenged the imposition of anti‑dumping duty by the Designated Authority (DA) after the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal set aside the DA’s finding that the company operated on market‑economy principles. The domestic industry had initi

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATLON AND ORS.versusZAKIR HUSSAIN

2005 INSC 36622 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, Zakir Hussain, was appointed as a daily‑wage conductor on a two‑year probation and was terminated for unsatisfactory performance without any enquiry. He appealed to the departmental authority, which dismissed his grievance, and then filed a suit in a civil court seeking a declaration that the terminatio

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusKAMLA DEVI

2005 INSC 30722 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant Union of India challenged a Central Administrative Tribunal order that granted pension benefits to a deceased canteen employee who retired before the cut‑off date of 1 October 1991. The employee’s husband had retired on medical grounds on 12 July 1990 and died on 28 March 1991. Earlier Supreme Court judgm

RAMASHRAY SINGHversusNEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 32722 July 2003Dismissed

The appellant, owner of a passenger‑carrying vehicle, insured the vehicle with New India Assurance Company. A khalasi (crew member) employed by the appellant died in an accident. The heirs claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act against both the appellant and the insurer. The Workmen's Compensation Co

M/S. W.P.I.L. LTD., GHAZIABADversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT, U.P.

2005 INSC 9122 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Mis. W.P.1.L. Ltd., a manufacturer of power driven pumps, challenged demand notices for excise duty on parts of pumps used in its own factory between 1 March and 21 April 1994. The appellant argued that such parts had been exempt from duty since 1978 and that the omission of this exemption in the consolidated Notificat

M/S. S & S. ENTERPRISEversusDESIGNATED AUTHORITY AND ORS.

2005 INSC 9222 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant imported lead‑acid batteries from Bangladesh and the Designated Authority found that the quantity of these imports was less than 3% of total imports of like batteries, which under Rule 14(d) should have led to immediate termination of the anti‑dumping investigation. The Authority instead relied on the val

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALPAIGURIversusOM PRAKASH MITTAL

2005 INSC 9322 February 2005Disposed off

The Commissioner of Income Tax appealed against an order of the Income Tax Settlement Commission that had treated a loan claimed by O.P. Mittal as an advance and refused to declare the settlement void. The revenue argued that the settlement was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and that the Commission could be mo

KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusB.S. HULLIKATTI

2001 INSC 4022 January 2001Disposed off

The respondent, a bus conductor with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, was found in a domestic inquiry to have issued tickets of Rs 1.75 instead of the correct fare of Rs 2.25 for 35 passengers, thereby short‑charging each passenger. He was dismissed, but the Labour Court set aside the dismissal, holding

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDOREversusM/S. S. KUMARS LTD. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 58021 November 2005Disposed off

The Commissioner of Central Excise challenged the valuation method used by Mis. S. Kumars Ltd. for processed grey fabric. The respondent sometimes processed fabric on its own account and sometimes on a job‑work basis for "merchant manufacturers". For 1‑Sept‑1985 to 28‑Feb‑1989 it valued the processed goods at the whole

MASS HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR.

2005 INSC 51721 October 2005Dismissed

Mass Holdings Pvt Ltd erected a hoarding in the Mahalaxmi area and was served a notice by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to remove it, citing the Maharashtra Heritage Regulations, 1995. The appellant argued that the Mahalaxmi Precinct was merely a "location" in the schedule and not a heritage precinct, and

VINIT SAXENAversusPANKAJ PANDIT

2006 INSC 15821 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Vinita Saxena married Pankaj Pandit in 1993, but the marriage lasted only five months and was never consummated because the husband suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, rendering him incapable of performing matrimonial duties. The wife alleged mental and physical cruelty, including abuse by the husband and his mother,

MANISH MOHAN SHARMA AND CO.versusRAM BAHADUR THAKUR LTD. AND ORS.

2006 INSC 16021 March 2006Appeal(s) allowed

Two groups of family shareholders in Ram Bahadur Thakur Ltd. filed a petition under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, 1956, alleging ouster from management. The Company Law Board (CLB) removed the directors, facilitated a family settlement and, on 19 August 1999, passed an order under Section 402 incorporating

HANS RAJ AGARWAL AND ANR.versusCHIEF COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

2002 INSC 57320 December 2002Dismissed

The appellants sought to set aside a second compulsory purchase order issued by the Central Government under Chapter XX‑C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, alleging that the order was beyond the statutory limitation period, concerned an undivided share contrary to the demarcated portions, and that the consideration was not

ABDUL RAHMANversusPRASONY BAI AND ANR.

2002 INSC 48220 November 2002Dismissed

Abdul Rahman (appellant) claimed that Prasony Bai (respondent) was not the daughter of the original land allottee Mangal Singh and that he had acquired the land by adverse possession. The dispute stemmed from earlier escheat proceedings, cancellation of an allotment to the appellant and mutation proceedings, all of whi

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.versusALL INDIA MANUFACTURERS ORGANIZATION AND ORS.

2006 INSC 23520 April 2006Dismissed

The State of Karnataka entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and a Framework Agreement (FWA) with a private consortium to develop the Bangalore‑Mysore Infrastructure Corridor, requiring acquisition of about 20,193 acres of land. Several public‑interest writ petitions challenged the FWA on grounds of fraud, misrepr

SECRETARY, O.N.G.C. LTD. AND ANR.versusV.U. WARRIER

2005 INSC 21720 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned V.U. Warrier, a former "gold‑collar" officer of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC), who after retirement failed to vacate a residential quarter allotted to him and was charged penal rent. ONGC deducted Rs.53,632 of the penal rent from the gratuity payable to Warrier under the ONGC (Death, Reti

SHIV DUIT JADIYAversusGANGA DEVI

2002 INSC 9420 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed

In the first suit, the tenant defaulted on rent but deposited the arrears in court under Section 13(4) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, and the trial court denied eviction. The landlord appealed, withdrew the appeal, and meanwhile filed a second suit alleging a new default for the per

R.C. TOBACCO PVT. LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 43119 September 2005Dismissed

The petitioners, job‑workers manufacturing cigarettes under exemption notifications issued in 1999, were ordered by the High Court to receive refunds of excise duty. After the High Court upheld the refunds, Parliament enacted Section 154 of the Finance Act, 2003, retrospectively withdrawing the exemption and authorisin

MAN ROLAND DRUCKIMACHINEN AGversusMULTICOLOUR OFFSET LTD. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 28719 April 2004Disposed off

The appellant, a German manufacturer of printing machines, sold a machine to the Indian respondent and was later accused before the MRTP Commission of unfair trade practices and faced a compensation claim. The appellant challenged the Commission's jurisdiction on two grounds: a contractual clause that stipulated German

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR,versusM/S. OM PRAKASH S.S. AND COMPANY AND ANR.

2000 INSC 9019 February 2000Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether a licence fee paid to the Government for the right to carry on the liquor trade makes the licencee a "buyer" under the explanation to sub‑section (11) of Section 206‑C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court held that the licence merely authorises the holder to conduct business and doe

ESSAR OIL LTD.versusHALAR UTKARSH SAMITI AND ORS.

2004 INSC 4019 January 2004Disposed off

Essar Oil Ltd., Bharat Oman Refineries Ltd. and Gujarat Positra Port Co. sought to lay crude‑oil pipelines through the Jamnagar Marine National Park and Sanctuary. Public‑interest litigants challenged the Gujarat State Government's permission under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA) sections 29 and 35(6), argui

STATE.OF H.P. AND ORS.versusGUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENT LTD. AND ANR.

2005 INSC 29818 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision allowing a writ petition under Article 226 despite the existence of statutory remedies. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. was held to be a "prestigious cement industrial unit" entitled to sales‑tax exemption from the date it commenced commercial production (2

GURDEV KAUR AND ORS.versusKAKI AND ORS

2006 INSC 23118 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a dispute over the validity of a will executed by the deceased, Chanan Singh, in favour of his second wife, Bhagwan Kaur, which disinherited the daughters of his first wife. The trial court and the first appellate court upheld the will as a natural document executed by a sound mind. The High Court, o

SMT. CLAUDE-LILA PARULEKARversusM/S. SAKAL PAPERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 15918 March 2005Disposed off

The appellant, a beneficiary of a trust, claimed a pre‑emptive right under Article 57‑A of the company's Articles of Association to purchase 3,417 and 93 shares held by joint executors, but the executors sold those shares to a third‑party group without complying with the Articles or Section 108 of the Companies Act. Th

M. AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJIversusTAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE KERALA AND ORS.

2005 INSC 8418 February 2005Dismissed

The appellant, M. Ahamedkuty Haji, constructed a shopping complex in 1987 and was assessed building tax by the assessing authority under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 on 15‑Feb‑1988. After the local authority later fixed the capital value, the assessing authority invoked Section 15(1) to rectify the

HARYANA SEEDS DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.versusSADHU AND ANR.

2005 INSC 8518 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The farmers, including Sadhu Singh, purchased wheat seeds from Haryana Seeds Development Corporation and a cooperative credit society and alleged poor germination, filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The District Consumer Forum, State Commission, and National Commission all allowed the complaint

M/S VIKRAM CEMENTversusCOMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE

2006 INSC 3218 January 2006Reference answered

Vikram Cement sought CENVAT credit for explosives used in quarrying limestone, which were later used in cement production, despite the explosives never entering its factory. The issue was whether the earlier Supreme Court decision in Jaypee Rewa Cement, which allowed MODVAT credit for such inputs, applied to the CENVAT

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER-CUM-LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BELLARYversusSRI S.T. POMPANNA SETTY

2004 INSC 72817 December 2004Case Partly allowed

The State appealed the award of compensation for 5.99 acres of land acquired for a tank restoration, where the land bore fruit‑bearing trees. The Reference Court had valued the land on a yield basis, multiplying the income from the trees by a 15‑year capitalization factor and awarded Rs 5 lakh (the claimant’s claim) wi

DR. (MRS.) RENUKA DATLA AND ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KARNATAKA AND ANR.

2002 INSC 55017 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants were assessed for AY 1992-93 and appealed, resulting in partial modifications and a waiver of interest. A demand was re‑computed on 31‑12‑1998 and remained unpaid when the appellants filed a declaration under Section 88 of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (Finance Act, 1998). The designated authority reject

DR. MANJU VARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2004 INSC 65317 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Manju Varma filed a writ petition in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court seeking promotion based on seniority. Respondent No.6 (Dr. Gauri Ganguli) applied to the Chief Justice for transfer of the petition to the Allahabad Bench under paragraph 14 of the United Provinces High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1

STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.versusVAM ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 56617 October 2003Dismissed

The State of Uttar Pradesh imposed a licence fee of 15 paise per litre on specially denatured spirit (SDS) under Rule 3(a) of the 1978 Rules, which the respondents challenged as an illegal tax. The Supreme Court examined whether the fee was a genuine regulatory fee supported by a quid pro quo relationship with the cost

M/S. SOMAIYA ORGANICS (INDIA) LTD.versusSTATE OF UTT AR PRADESH AND ANR.

2001 INSC 21117 April 2001Case Partly allowed

The appellant, Mis. Somaiya Organics (India) Ltd., manufactured industrial alcohol and was initially exempt from a vend fee under the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. The exemption was withdrawn in 1979 and the company filed writ petitions; the High Court ordered it to give a bank guarantee and/or deposit amounts in a separate a

GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 15617 March 2005Dismissed

The petitioners, customers of goods‑transport operators and clearing‑and‑forwarding agents, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act 2000 and Section 158 of the Finance Act 2003 which retrospectively validated service‑tax levies that had been struck down in *Laghu Udyog Bharati*

M/S. S.J.S. BUSINESS ENTERPRISES (P) LTD.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 18117 March 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant, S.J.S. Business Enterprises Ltd., had obtained a loan from Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. (BICICO) for a hotel project but defaulted, prompting BICICO to invoke Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 to sell the hotel. After a series of valuations, BICICO issued a se

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA ETC. ETC.versusM/S. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 12017 February 2004Dismissed

The Commissioner of Customs issued a show‑cause notice to Indian Oil Corporation alleging that the company had misdeclared the value of imported petroleum products by including demurrage charges paid to ship owners. The Revenue demanded additional customs duty and penalty, but the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appe

KANKAVALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA AND ORS.versusM.R. GAVALI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 62416 December 2005Dismissed

The first respondent, M.R. Gavali, was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a temporary basis for two consecutive academic years to a post reserved for SC/ST/NT candidates because no such candidate was available. He belongs to the OBC (Hindu Mali) category. Under Rule 9(9)(a) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Sch

M/S. GAMMON INDIA LTD.versusSPL. CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS.

2006 INSC 8816 February 2006

Mis Gammon India Ltd., a construction company, was alleged to have falsely issued Form‑G and claimed concessional tax rates under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (APGST). The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued show‑cause notices and, after hearing the appellant, confirmed additional tax an

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusR. SARANGAPANI AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

2000 INSC 14815 March 2000Disposed off

The case concerned whether technicians appointed before 1 January 1986 were entitled to have their training period counted for salary increments under Government O.M.s dated 22 Oct 1990 and 31 Mar 1992. Different benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had given conflicting rulings, with the Bangalore, Jab

KRISHNADEV ARAYA EDUCATION TRUST AND ANRversusL.A. BALAKRISHNA

2001 INSC 2715 January 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, L.A. Balakrishnan, was appointed as an Assistant Professor on probation and was terminated twice within the probation period—first on 16 June 1991 citing unsatisfactory job proficiency, and later on 1 August 1991 by a brief order. Both terminations were challenged before the Educational Tribunal on the

F.C.I. AND ORS.versusSONELAL

2005 INSC 56514 November 2005Disposed off

The Food Corporation of India (FCI) initiated disciplinary proceedings against its employee, Sonelal, and imposed compulsory retirement under Regulation 56 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. Sonelal challenged the order, arguing that it was passed by an authority lower in rank than the appointing authority, the Zona

FAIRGROWTH INVESTMENTS LTD.versusTHE CUSTODIAN

2004 INSC 60814 October 2004Dismissed

Fairgrowth Investments Ltd. was notified under the Special Courts (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 and filed a petition of objection under Section 4(2) more than 30 days after the notification. The Special Court rejected the petition on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court exa

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAIversusM/S. BUREAU VERITAS AND ORS.

2005 INSC 7614 February 2005Dismissed

The assignee imported an oil drilling rig and declared its CIF value for customs clearance. The Customs Commissioner rejected the declared price, deeming it under‑declared, and levied duty, penalty and confiscation, arguing that the buyer and seller were related parties and the price was therefore not the transaction v

KAILASH NATH AGRAWAL AND ORS.versusPRADESHYA INDST. & INV. CORP. OF U.P. AND ANR.

2003 INSC 8714 February 2003Leave Granted & Dismissed

The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corp. of U.P. (PICUP) advanced a loan to Shefali Papers Ltd., secured by mortgage and guarantee bonds executed by Kailash Nath Agrawal and others. After the company was declared sick under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA), PICUP issued demand not

G. BASSI REDDY ETC. ETC.versusINTERNATIONAL CROPS RESEARCH INSTT. AND ANR.

2003 INSC 8814 February 2003Dismissed

The petitioners, former employees of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi‑Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), challenged their termination and sought a writ of mandamus directing ICRISAT to frame service rules approximating Indian labour standards and to compel the Union of India to fulfil a clause of the 1972 a

M/S. DALE AND CARRINGTON INVT. P. LTD. AND ANOTHERversusP.K. PRATHAPAN AND OTHERS

2004 INSC 51513 September 2004Dismissed

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of M/s. Dale & Carrington Investments Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director P.K. Ramanujam, upholding the Kerala High Court’s order that the allotment of 6,865 equity shares to Ramanujam was invalid. The Court held that no valid Board meeting had taken place, the company did not ne

AJENDRAPRASADJI NARENDRAPRASADJI PANDEYversusSWAMI K. NARAYANDASJI AND ORS.

2005 INSC 28013 May 2005Disposed off

The case concerned the removal of Ajendraprasadji Narendraprasadji Pandey from the post of Acharya of a Swaminarayan religious institution and the subsequent appointment of Rakesh Prasadji Mahendra Prasadji. The removal was based on a resolution passed by a body calling itself Satsangha Mahasabha, whose authority was c

JINDAL STAINLESS LTD. AND ANR.versusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 22413 April 2006Reference answered

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Haryana Local Area Development Tax Act, 2000, which imposed an entry tax on goods entering local areas. The key issue was whether such a tax qualified as a "compensatory tax" and therefore fell outside the prohibition of Article 301 of the Constitution. The

M/S. MONGA RICE MILLversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

2004 INSC 26413 April 2004Dismissed

Monga Rice Mill, a Haryana-based miller, bought paddy, processed it into rice and sold the rice to an exporter who exported it. The miller claimed exemption from purchase tax on the paddy under Article 286 of the Constitution and Sections 5(3) and 15(ca) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, arguing that the purchase was

U.P. STATE BRIDGE CORPORATION LTD. AND ORS.versusU.P. RAJYA SETU NIGAM S. KARAMCHARI SANGH

2004 INSC 10913 February 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. terminated the services of 168 muster‑roll employees after they remained absent for more than ten consecutive days, invoking Clause L‑2.12 of its Certified Standing Orders. The employees, represented by a union, filed writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the termination. T

HARDIE TRADING LTD. AND ANR.versusADDISONS PAINT AND CHEMICALS LTD.

2003 INSC 47612 September 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Hardie Trading Ltd. (Hardie) owned the trademarks "Spartan" and "Spartan Velox" and a warrior device, which it used in India under a 1946 collaboration agreement with Addisons Paint and Chemicals Ltd. (Addisons). After the agreement lapsed, Addisons applied to delete Hardie's marks under s.46 of the Trade and Merchandi

COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P. AND ANR.versusM/S. KAJARIA CERAMICS LTD.

2005 INSC 28812 July 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Trade Tax, U.P. appealed against the eligibility certificate granted to Mis. Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. for exemption from trade tax under the 1991 Notification. The company had expanded its ceramic tile plant in three stages between 1990 and 1994, increasing capacity from 12,000 TPA to 60,000 TPA, and c

KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARDversusSRI C. KENCHAPPA & ORS.

2006 INSC 32312 May 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) appealed against a Karnataka High Court order that quashed a notification under Section 3(1) of the KIADB Act and directed a one‑kilometre green‑belt around villages, on the ground that the lands were needed for industrial development. The Supreme Court examined

RAMA NARANGversusRAMESH NARANG AND ANR.

2006 INSC 22212 April 2006Hearing Adjourned

The petitioners, father and half‑brothers, entered into a "Minutes of Consent Order" that settled a series of family and corporate disputes and was incorporated into a court decree. The respondents later allegedly breached specific clauses of that consent order concerning the control of a company. The petitioners filed

INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSHRIKRISHNA OIL MILLS AND ORS.

2005 INSC 19912 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Indore Development Authority could lawfully approve Town Development Scheme No. 78 after the earlier Improvement Trust had invited objections under the Trust Act. The Court held that the Authority duly complied with the procedure prescribed by the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram N

U.P.S.R.T.C.versusMAHENDRA NATH TIWARI AND ANR.

2005 INSC 56311 November 2005Case Partly allowed

The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (U.P.S.R.T.C.) dismissed conductor Mahendra Nath Tiwari for driving a bus without authority, failing to issue a ticket to a lone passenger, and possessing twelve used tickets. The Labour Court reduced the punishment, reinstated him with continuity of service, and order

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIAversusMADHU SINGH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 37611 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The State Board conducted a combined entrance exam for MBBS and BDS seats for the 1997‑98 session. Respondent No. I, not selected for MBBS, opted for BDS and was admitted. After some MBBS seats became vacant, petitioners sought mid‑stream admission to those seats; the Patna High Court directed the Controller of Examina

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR.versusKAMLA MILLS LTD.

2003 INSC 31011 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai reassessed the rateable value of land belonging to Kamla Mills Ltd. after the company demolished old structures and began constructing a new building. The corporation treated the land as "under construction" and raised its rateable value based on market rates, which the asses

TECHNIP SAversusSMS HOLDING (PVT.) LTD. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 27211 May 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Technip SA and its French subsidiary Coflexip acquired a controlling stake in SEAMEC, an Indian company, prompting SEBI to invoke the Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeover Regulations, 1997. SEBI held that French law governed the determination of when control was obtained, concluding that Technip gained contro

SONA BALA BORA AND ORS.versusJYOTIRINDRA BHATACHARJEE

2005 INSC 19711 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The widowed appellant Sona Bala Bora and her children claimed that their father‑in‑law Bhogirath Bora, who had sold three bungalows to the respondent Jyotirindra Bhatachary, was of unsound mind when he executed the sale deed and that a prior criminal‑case compromise required him to gift one bungalow to the first appell

J.H. JADHAVversusM/S. FORBES GOKAK LTD.

2005 INSC 7511 February 2005Appeal(s) allowed

J.H. Jadhav, an employee of Forbes Gokak Ltd., was denied a promotion and raised an industrial dispute, claiming that the Gokak Mills Staff Union had espoused his cause. The Industrial Tribunal, after examining oral and documentary evidence, held that the dispute was industrial because the Union, though not a majority

UDAY SHANKAR TRIYARversusRAM KALEWAR PRASAD SINGH AND ANR.

2005 INSC 55810 November 2005Dismissed

The landlord filed an eviction suit against A.N. Singh and the District Congress Committee (DCC). Both appealed the eviction decree, but the appeal memorandum was signed only by A.N. Singh and was accompanied by a vakalatnama executed solely by him, with no separate vakalatnama for DCC. After A.N. Singh's death, the DC

M/S. I.T.C. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI AND ANR.

2004 INSC 51210 September 2004

ITC Ltd, a cigarette manufacturer, printed the maximum retail price (MRP) on its packs as required by the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the Packaged Commodities Rules. The Revenue alleged that the printed MRP was false, that ITC under‑priced its cigarettes to evade excise duty, and imposed penalties. The Ce

M.P.CEMENT MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATIONversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

2003 INSC 6989 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The M.P. Cement Manufacturers' Association, representing captive power producers, challenged a 2001 amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Upkar Adhiniyam that imposed a cess of 20 paise per unit on electricity produced. The High Court held the cess was on consumption and within State competence under Entry 53 of List II. The

M/S. SAHAKARI KHAND UDYOG MANDAL LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

2005 INSC 1249 March 2005Dismissed

M/S. Sahakari Khano Udyog Mandal Ltd., a sugar manufacturer, claimed a refund of excise duty on excess sugar production under Notification No. 257/76 and Notification No. 108/78. The claim was filed after the six‑month period prescribed by Section 11B of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, and the factory had not so

SMT. ANOKHAversusTHE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

2003 INSC 6958 December 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The widowed mother, Smt. Anokha, consented to the adoption of her infant daughter Alka by an Italian couple who had known the family for years. The couple filed a petition under Sections 7, 10 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, submitting extensive evidence of their suitability. The District Judge and the Raj

SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.versusC.I.T., KOLHAPUR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 5018 September 2004Dismissed

The case concerned several Maharashtra sugar‑co‑operative societies that deducted amounts from the cane price payable to their farmer members as non‑refundable and refundable deposits and as contributions to various funds. The Income Tax Department treated these deductions as trading receipts and taxed them under the I

P.V. MAHADEVANversusM.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD

2005 INSC 3468 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

P.V. Mahadevan, a Superintending Engineer of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, was served with a charge memo in 2000 for alleged irregularities in issuing a sale deed in 1990. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated after a delay of more than ten years, with the Board offering no satisfactory explanation for the lapse.

S.D. SINGHversusJHARKHAND HIGH COURT, THROUGH R.G. AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5977 December 2005Dismissed

The petitioner, an Additional District Judge, was ordered by the Jharkhand High Court to retire at age 58, denying him the benefit of the extended retirement age to 60 years mandated by Supreme Court directions. He challenged the order under Article 32, arguing that the High Court had not complied with the Supreme Cour

M/S. WESTERN INDIA PLYWOODS LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, KOCHIN

2005 INSC 4977 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Western India Plywoods Ltd. imported a set of pulp‑making machinery that included a motor vibrator with actuator. The Customs department classified the motor vibrator under the residuary heading 8479.89 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, while the importer argued it should fall under heading 8439.91 as a part of pulp

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusAZADI BACHAO ANDOLAN AND ANR.

2003 INSC 5267 October 2003Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Central Board of Direct Taxes' Circular No. 789, issued under Section 119 of the Income‑Tax Act, was ultra vires the Act and whether the Indo‑Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Convention (DTAC), notified under Section 90, could override inconsistent provisions of the Income‑Tax

SRI KANT TRIPATHI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

2001 INSC 4337 September 2001Disposed off

The case concerned multiple recruitments to the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service where the Allahabad High Court had fixed the direct‑recruitment quota on the basis of a percentage of total cadre strength rather than on the actual vacancies and those likely to arise in the next two years as required by Rules 6 and

RAI VIMAL KRISHNA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2003 INSC 3037 July 2003Dismissed

The appellants challenged the Patna Municipal Corporation's assessment of property tax, arguing that the assessment lists were prepared and published in violation of the Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951. They contended that the mode of publication prescribed in Section 149(1) – beat of drum and placards – was mand

SMT. AMIYHA BALA PAULversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHILLONG

2003 INSC 3047 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Sm. Amiya Bala Paul constructed a house and disclosed investment amounts in the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The Assessing Officer rejected the second disclosure and, invoking Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, referred the valuation of the house's construction cost to a Valuation Officer appointed under the W

M/S. T.T.G. INDUSTRIES LTD., MADRASversusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR

2004 INSC 3797 May 2004Appeal(s) allowed

T.T.G. Industries Ltd. entered into a contract with Bhilai Steel Plant to design, supply, and erect hydraulic mudguns and tap‑hole drilling machines. Components were imported and some were manufactured at its Chennai factory, then shipped to the steel plant where they were assembled on a concrete platform 25 feet above

GAJRAJ JAINversusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3807 May 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant, Gajraj Jain, a director of Mis Katihar Flour Mills, challenged the sale of the company's flour mill assets by Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd (BICICO) to Stichworth Exports Pvt Ltd. BICICO, as the first charge holder under the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, had taken possession

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITYversusSKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR.

2005 INSC 1887 April 2005Directions issued

The Supreme Court examined the findings of the Justice Bahri Commission on alleged diversion of funds by Skipper Construction in the Barakhamba Road project and on the claims of purchasers in the Technology Parks Ltd. schemes. The Court held that the Commission’s detailed valuation and accounting analysis was reliable

KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE.

2005 INSC 1227 March 2005Dismissed

Kirloskar Brothers Ltd filed two price lists for its compressors, one showing a lower price for sales to alleged bulk buyers. The revenue authorities disallowed the lower price, contending that bulk buyers could not be distinguished from other wholesale buyers and that only one price could be charged for the same class

NIRMALJIT KAURversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

2005 INSC 5936 December 2005Disposed off

The widow Nirmaljit Kaur filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking production of her minor daughter, alleging that the husband's siblings forcibly took the child after his death and concealed her whereabouts. The respondents claimed the child had lived with them since birth and produced a passport, later asserting

HARINARAYAN G. BAJAJversusRAJESH MEGHANI AND ANR.

2004 INSC 6946 December 2004Dismissed

The appellant, Harinarayan G. Bajaj, bought shares through broker Rajesh Meghani but failed to pay for them. The National Stock Exchange (NSE) declared the broker a defaulter and the broker referred his claim for the unpaid amount to arbitration under NSE by‑laws. The arbitral tribunal awarded the broker Rs 3,46,89,636

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAXversusM/S. BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE

2002 INSC 5226 December 2002Appeal(s) allowed

The Bharat Diamond Bourse, a company limited by guarantee, claimed exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act for AY 1989‑90 and 1990‑91, asserting it was a charitable institution. The Assessing Officer denied the exemption, holding that the Bourse’s objects were not charitable and that it had breached Section 13

CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR .versusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

2005 INSC 4886 October 2005

The Supreme Court examined a petition challenging the appointment of Ms. Neera Yadav as Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, where she faced pending corruption investigations and disciplinary proceedings. The petition raised whether Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, barred prosecution of a public servan

GOPALDAS UDHAVDAS AHUJA AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2004 INSC 3936 July 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, Gopaldas Udhavdas Ahuja and his widow, were found to possess primary gold that had been seized by Income‑Tax authorities in August 1974 and subsequently taken over by a Gold Control Officer under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. They claimed they were unaware of the gold hidden in a secret compartment and

M/S. SATYAM INFOWAY LTD.versusM/S. SIFFYNET SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.

2004 INSC 3686 May 2004Leave Granted & Allowed

The appellant, Satyam Infoway Ltd., had registered several domain names containing the word ‘Sify’ in 1999 and built a substantial reputation as an internet services provider. The respondent, SiffyNet Solutions Pvt. Ltd., began using similar domain names with ‘Siffy’ in 2001‑2002 and the appellant sued for passing off,

STATE OF PUNJABversusM/S. NESTLE INDIA LTD. AND ANR.

2004 INSC 3415 May 2004Dismissed

The respondents, manufacturers of milk products, stopped paying purchase tax on milk for the period 1‑April‑1996 to 4‑June‑1997, relying on a series of public statements by the Punjab Government that the tax had been abolished. The State later issued demands for the tax and appealed the High Court’s order quashing thos

BHAGAWATI OXYGEN LTD.versusHINDUSTAN COPER LTD.

2005 INSC 1845 April 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Bhagawati Oxygen Ltd. (BOL) entered into a contract with Hindustan Copper Ltd. (HCL) for the supply of oxygen, which contained an arbitration clause. An arbitrator awarded Rs. 74,84,521.34 to BOL and granted interest at 18% per annum, dismissing HCL's counter‑claim. HCL challenged the award under Section 30 of the Indi

M/S CHANNY ENTERPRISESversusCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH

2005 INSC 1855 April 2005Dismissed

Channy Enterprises operates two hot‑rolled steel mills, each equipped with its own reheating furnace. After installing a second furnace (with a single motor that prevents simultaneous operation), the Commissioner, relying on the 26‑February‑1998 circular, fixed the unit’s Annual Capacity of Production (ACP) by adding t

ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

2005 INSC 1815 April 2005Dismissed

Associated Cement Companies Ltd. manufactures cement at Kymore and was levied a terminal export tax of 0.50% on cement by the Kymore Municipal Council under a 1991 notification. The State Government later issued a circular on 15 December 1995 prescribing a uniform rate of 0.20% for cement across Madhya Pradesh. The com

INTERNATIONAL COACH BUILDERS LTD.versusKARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPN.

2003 INSC 1475 March 2003Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether State Financial Corporations (SFCs) could exercise their statutory power under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 to sell mortgaged assets of a company that had been ordered to be wound up, without involving the Company Court. The Court held that once a winding‑up

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR.versusSHREYAS PAPERS PVT. LTD. AND ORS

2006 INSC 155 January 2006Dismissed

The State of Karnataka appealed against Shreyas Papers Pvt. Ltd., which had purchased the land, building, plant and machinery of a defaulting company after the Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation took over those assets under the State Financial Corporation Act. The Commercial Tax Officer i

RAJENDER SINGHversusLT. GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS AND ORS.

2005 INSC 4744 October 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a college lecturer, sought regularisation of his service and award of senior scale and selection grade under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme. The Central Administrative Tribunal had granted these benefits, but the Calcutta High Court set aside the tribunal's order and later rejected the appellant's rev

P.T. THOMASversusTHOMAS JOB

2005 INSC 3304 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant and his elder brother (respondent) partitioned their father's property, but the brother failed to vacate a portion of a theatre belonging to the appellant, leading to a suit for mandatory injunction which was decreed in the appellant's favour. While the appeal was pending, the dispute was referred to a Lo

STATE OF HARYANAversusSTATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

2004 INSC 3904 June 2004

The Supreme Court upheld a 2002 decree that mandated the State of Punjab to complete the Sutlej‑Yamuna Link (SYL) canal within one year, directing the Union of India to intervene if Punjab failed. Punjab’s subsequent suit challenging the decree, the constitutionality of Section 78 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966

STATE OF KARNATAKAversusMAN JANNA

2000 INSC 2834 May 2000Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka prosecuted Manjan for raping a girl who was 15 years old at the time of the offence. The trial court convicted him based on the victim’s testimony, corroborative eyewitness accounts, medical findings of injuries and seminal stains on the victim’s clothing, and the victim’s stated date of birth. T

BODH RAJ @ BODHA AND ORS.versusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

2002 INSC 3603 September 2002Dismissed

The accused Bodh Raj and others were charged with murder of a moneylender under IPC sections 302 and 120B, alleging a conspiracy motivated by a large loan. The trial court convicted three of the accused and acquitted six, while the Jammu & Kashmir High Court set aside the acquittals of four and convicted them as well.

UNICHEM LABORATORIES LTD.versusCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BOMBAY

2002 INSC 3623 September 2002Appeal(s) allowed

Unichem Laboratories Ltd., a bulk drug manufacturer, filed classification lists on 3 March 1986 before Notification No. 234/86 was issued. After the notification, it obtained a certificate from the Drugs Controller and claimed exemption from excise duty, but the Assistant Collector denied the claim, insisting that exem

MAHAKOSHAL TOURIST, NAPIER TOWN AND ORS.versusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

2002 INSC 3633 September 2002Dismissed

The appellants, bus operators holding All‑India Tourist permits, challenged the constitutional validity of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1991, alleging that it lacked a mechanism to assess tax liability and grant refunds for vehicles not used in the state. The High Court had dismissed the writ petitions, h

RAJSEKHAR GOGOIversusSTATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

2001 INSC 2523 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned the settlement of a country liquor shop in Assam under the tender system prescribed by the Assam Excise Rules, 1945. Respondent No. 4, an educated unemployed applicant, submitted a tender but failed to provide the detailed financial particulars required by Rule 206(2). The Board of Revenue rejected t

A JAYACHANDRAversusANEEL KAUR

2004 INSC 6892 December 2004Appeal(s) allowed

The husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking divorce on the ground of mental cruelty, alleging that his wife used abusive language, made false accusations of adultery and caused him severe emotional distress. The Family Court found mental cruelty but granted only judicial separa

M/S. VADILAL CHEMICALS LTD.versusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

2005 INSC 3252 August 2005Appeal(s) allowed

Mis. Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. set up a small‑scale unit in Medak to produce liquor ammonia and to refill anhydrous ammonia into cylinders. It obtained a final eligibility certificate under the 1993 Government Order granting a five‑year sales‑tax holiday. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (DCCT) later issued pre

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. AND ANR.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 1332 March 2006Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the provision of telephone services by telecom operators constitutes a sale of goods, a service, or a composite contract of both, and consequently whether State governments can levy sales tax under Entry 54 of List II. The petitioners argued that the transaction is purely a service, i

DELHI JAL BOARDversusMAHINDER SINGH

2000 INSC 4261 September 2000Dismissed

The Supreme Court considered a Special Leave Petition filed by the Delhi Jal Board challenging a Delhi High Court order that had allowed Mahinder Singh, a senior employee, to receive a promotion recommended by a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) despite a later disciplinary inquiry. The Court held that the right t

M.S. MADHUSOODHANAN AND ANR.versusKERALA KAUMUDI PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

2003 INSC 3611 August 2003Disposed off

The case involved a family dispute over the control of Kerala Kaumudi Pvt. Ltd., focusing on the validity of share transfers from Mani and his children to M.S. Madhusoodhanan, the removal of Madhusoodhanan as Managing Director and the deletion of Article 74, the allotment of additional shares to Ravi and Srinivasan, an

MERCANTILE BANK LTD., BOMBAYversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY-III

2006 INSC 2741 May 2006Case Partly allowed

The Supreme Court examined two questions arising from Mercantile Bank Ltd.'s assessment for AY 1978‑79. First, it held that interest on doubtful advances kept in a suspense account was not assessable income, as the 1952 Central Board of Direct Taxes circular exempted such interest when there was no real probability of

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPURversusM/S. SIMPLEX MILLS CO. LTD.

2005 INSC 1111 March 2005Dismissed

The Commissioner of Central Excise appealed against the classification of grey cotton canvas cloth, belting and duck manufactured by Simplex Mills Co. Ltd. The issue was whether these goods should be taxed under tariff headings 52.02/54.08 (non‑made‑up goods) or under heading 59.09/59.11 (made‑up goods for industrial u

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search