Taxation Law - Entry Tax – Use or Consumption – Refining of Crude Oil – Petition Dismissed – Petitioners, including Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. (now known as Patanjali Foods Ltd.), challenged the imposition of Entry Tax on crude soya oil brought into Madhya Pradesh for refining, arguing that the refining process does not amount to manufacture, and no new product emerged – Held: The refining of crude oil, which undergoes processes like degumming and deodorization, constitutes "use" of the crude oil as it leads to the production of refined oil, which is a different commercial commodity from crude oil – Entry Tax was correctly imposed [Paras 21-22, 33].

Definition of Manufacture – Exclusion of Refining Process – Petitioners argued that the process of refining crude soya oil had been excluded from the definition of "manufacture" under Notification No. 18 dated 01-04-1995 issued under Section 2(o) of the MPCT Act – Held: Even though refining does not constitute manufacture, the Entry Tax is applicable under Section 3(1) of the Entry Tax Act as it covers "use" or "consumption," both of which apply in this case, given that refined oil is a new marketable product [Paras 23, 27].

Supreme Court Precedents – Relevance to the Entry Tax Act – The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments, including Mamta Surgical Cotton Industries vs Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Rajasthan (2014) and Commissioner of Trade Tax vs M/s Mishra Tea Blending (2023), which clarified that processes transforming a raw material into a commercially different product amount to "use" under entry tax laws, irrespective of whether the process constitutes "manufacture" – Applied the same principle to the refining of crude soya oil [Paras 26, 29].

Decision:

The writ petitions were dismissed, upholding the imposition of Entry Tax on the crude soya oil brought into Madhya Pradesh and refined into a new marketable product – No order as to costs [Para 34].

Criminal Law – Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – The appellant was convicted for the murder of his neighbor following an altercation over a disputed will – The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and a dying declaration made by the deceased – The trial court convicted the appellant, despite acquitting the co-accused on the same evidence – Held: The conviction was overturned on appeal due to contradictions in the testimonies of key witnesses, inconsistencies between the dying declaration and initial medical history provided by the deceased, and lack of independent corroboration – The court ruled that the dying declaration could not be relied upon exclusively to convict the appellant, especially in light of conflicting evidence [Paras 30-55].

Dying Declaration – Reliability and Contradictions – The deceased initially told doctors that his injuries were accidental, caused by a fall, but later implicated the appellant in a dying declaration – The court emphasized that a dying declaration, if contradictory or delayed, requires corroboration – Here, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case, and the dying declaration was deemed unreliable [Paras 40-45].

Inconsistent Testimonies – Eyewitness Reliability – The prosecution’s key witnesses were family members of the deceased, and their accounts contained material contradictions, particularly concerning the sequence of events and the timing of the complaint – The court held that their testimony lacked credibility due to inconsistencies and their status as interested witnesses [Paras 50-60].

Decision: The appeal was allowed – The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges – The court emphasized that when evidence is circumstantial and inconsistent, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused.

Consumer Law – Award of Interest – Execution of Forum's Order – The respondent was awarded 15% interest on the deposited amount by the Consumer Forum, with a recovery certificate issued for further interest on the interest amount – Held: Interest is payable only on the principal sum adjudged, not on the interest component, as per Section 34 of the CPC and Section 3(3) of The Interest Act, 1978 – The Forum's order awarding interest on interest was set aside as illegal [Paras 17-23]​.

Judicial Review – Interest on Principal vs. Interest on Interest – The Court clarified that interest on interest cannot be awarded unless expressly provided by statute or contractual terms – Reiterated that courts ordinarily award interest only on the principal sum – The impugned orders were quashed, and the petition was allowed [Paras 23-24]​.

Decision – Writ petition allowed – Impugned orders of 01/01/2020 and 15/03/2021 set aside – No order as to costs [Para 24]​.

Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Scope Expanded – The applicants filed for anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with accusations under Sections 451, 394/34 of IPC – Held: The scope of anticipatory bail has been expanded compared to the earlier provision under Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973, removing guiding factors like the gravity of accusations and criminal antecedents, thus widening judicial discretion – The Court found no intention to commit the alleged offenses based on the facts and granted anticipatory bail on conditions of cooperation with the investigation and ensuring no interference with evidence [Paras 4-7].

Administrative Law – Correction in Educational Records – CBSE By-Laws – Petitioner requested corrections to reflect her biological mother’s name in her Class 10th certificate, which currently shows the name of her stepmother due to her father’s remarriage – Held: The correction was permitted, considering the petitioner’s fundamental right to be recognized by her true identity, especially when the biological mother had raised the petitioner since her secondary education [Paras 1, 10, 12, 19, 21, 22].

Fundamental Right – Identity and Dignity – Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioner argued for recognition by her biological mother’s name in official documents, stating that the current misrepresentation caused emotional distress and hindered professional opportunities – Held: Right to identity and dignity under Article 21 is crucial, and the petitioner’s request to reflect her biological mother’s name is both reasonable and just [Paras 10, 12, 19, 21, 22].

Delay and Laches – Defense by CBSE – CBSE contended that the petitioner’s request was barred by delay, as the Class 10th certificate was issued in 2008, and the petition was filed in 2023 – Held: The petitioner's emotional and personal struggles justify condonation of delay, as rigid application of legal timelines would result in injustice [Paras 8, 11].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – The CBSE is directed to correct the petitioner’s name from ‘Shweta Sangwan’ to ‘Shweta’ and her mother’s name to ‘Smt. Santosh Kumari’ in her Class 10th certificate within one month – Petitioner's request to change her father’s name from ‘Sh. Dharampal Sangwan’ to ‘Sh. Dharampal’ was denied – The petition is disposed of accordingly [Paras 22-24].

Administrative Law – Correction in Educational Records – CBSE By-Laws – Petitioner requested corrections to reflect her biological mother’s name in her Class 10th certificate, which currently shows the name of her stepmother due to her father’s remarriage – Held: The correction was permitted, considering the petitioner’s fundamental right to be recognized by her true identity, especially when the biological mother had raised the petitioner since her secondary education [Paras 1, 10, 12, 19, 21, 22].

Fundamental Right – Identity and Dignity – Article 21 of the Constitution – Petitioner argued for recognition by her biological mother’s name in official documents, stating that the current misrepresentation caused emotional distress and hindered professional opportunities – Held: Right to identity and dignity under Article 21 is crucial, and the petitioner’s request to reflect her biological mother’s name is both reasonable and just [Paras 10, 12, 19, 21, 22].

Delay and Laches – Defense by CBSE – CBSE contended that the petitioner’s request was barred by delay, as the Class 10th certificate was issued in 2008, and the petition was filed in 2023 – Held: The petitioner's emotional and personal struggles justify condonation of delay, as rigid application of legal timelines would result in injustice [Paras 8, 11].

Decision:

Petition partly allowed – The CBSE is directed to correct the petitioner’s name from ‘Shweta Sangwan’ to ‘Shweta’ and her mother’s name to ‘Smt. Santosh Kumari’ in her Class 10th certificate within one month – Petitioner's request to change her father’s name from ‘Sh. Dharampal Sangwan’ to ‘Sh. Dharampal’ was denied – The petition is disposed of accordingly [Paras 22-24].

Service Law - ACP Scheme – Benefit of Past Service for Grant of 2nd ACP – Past Service Must Be Counted – The petitioner, a clerk, sought the 2nd ACP on completion of 9 years of service after being transferred from one Sessions Division to another – The Court held that the petitioner’s past service must be counted for the benefit of the ACP scheme since the rule restricting this benefit (Rule 4.8(b)) was introduced after the petitioner’s transfer, and cannot be applied retrospectively [Paras 7.2, 7.3].

Discrimination – Similarly Situated Employees Granted ACP Benefit – Petitioner Entitled to Equal Treatment – The Court found that other similarly situated employees were granted the benefit of ACP, but the petitioner was denied the same – This was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory, warranting relief [Paras 7.4, 7.6].

Precedent – Court Denies “Wrong Cannot Be Perpetuated” Argument – The respondents argued that a prior wrong decision could not be a precedent, but the Court held that the petitioner’s claim was lawful and justified based on prior service and existing rules [Para 7.5].

Decision: The petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to the petitioner by respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The impugned order dated 09.01.2020 is set aside, and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the 2nd ACP.
 

Labour Law – Criminal Law - Unfair Labour Practice – Quashing of Proceedings – Section 482 CrPC – Criminal Complaint Quashed – Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 25(T) and 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, alleging that the company engaged in unfair labour practices by coercing workmen to resign from the union and terminating five employees. The petitioners argued that the complaint was filed before the termination of the employees, and the proceedings were premature. Held: The criminal complaint was quashed as the termination was still pending adjudication before the Labour Court, and no conclusion of unfair labour practices could be drawn without prior adjudication [Paras 19-21].

Adjudication of Labour Disputes – Precondition for Criminal Action – The Court reaffirmed that the adjudication of termination disputes by a competent Labour Court is a necessary precondition for invoking criminal provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act. Without a final adjudication of the labour dispute, criminal proceedings are premature and an abuse of process [Paras 22-23].

Section 482 CrPC – Scope of Quashing – Premature Criminal Proceedings – The High Court, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the criminal proceedings, emphasizing that allowing the trial to proceed when the underlying labour disputes were yet to be adjudicated would amount to an abuse of legal process [Paras 24-25].

Decision: Criminal proceedings quashed – The Court held that the complaint and summons issued by the Magistrate were premature as the underlying labour dispute regarding termination was still pending before the Labour Court. The continuation of the criminal proceedings was deemed an abuse of the process of law [Paras 26-28].
 

Bail Cancellation – Alleged Violation of Conditions – Matrimonial Dispute – The petitioner sought the cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2, alleging that he had violated bail conditions by threatening her – Held: The alleged violation pertained to a separate incident for which an FIR was filed belatedly, and respondent No.2 had complied with the bail conditions post the Sessions Court's order – Petition dismissed [Paras 9-11].

Delayed FIR – Questionable Credibility – The FIR for the alleged threat by the respondent was lodged 25 days after the incident – The delay in filing the FIR raised doubts about the genuineness of the allegations – Held: The delay in filing the FIR undermined the credibility of the petitioner’s claim of threat [Para 9].

No Grounds for Bail Cancellation – Regular Compliance with Bail Conditions – Respondent No.2 had been regularly attending court and had not violated any conditions since the Sessions Court's previous order – Held: No valid grounds for cancellation of bail were made out – Petition dismissed [Paras 10-11].

Decision:   Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed – Respondent No.2 to continue on bail as per the existing conditions​.