Central Excise – Manufacture – Boilers in CKD Condition – Bought-Out Items – Final product (steam-generating plant) assembled at site using bought-out items and CKD parts – Such assembly results in immovable property – Held: Not “goods” within meaning of Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – Excise duty not leviable – Valuation under Section 4 cannot determine excisability [Paras 33–44, 64].

Excise Law – Section 3 vs Section 4 – Valuation Follows Levy – Held: Section 3 is charging provision; Section 4 is machinery/valuation provision – Assessing excisability based on transaction value under Section 4 is impermissible – Transaction value relevant only if goods are excisable [Paras 41–43].

Movability – Immovable Property – Boiler Assembly at Site – Boiler parts embedded in earth using cement, bricks, asbestos and other materials – Boiler cannot be dismantled without substantial damage – Such structure is immovable – Therefore, not excisable goods under Central Excise Act [Paras 45–63].

Excise Valuation – Bought-Out Items – Cost of bought-out items delivered directly to buyer not includible in assessable value – These items never entered manufacturer’s factory and were not processed – No evidence of forming integral part of excisable goods – CESTAT erred in including their value [Paras 18–19, 66–69].

Limitation – Extended Period under Section 11A – No Wilful Suppression – All facts disclosed in statutory returns – Bought-out items duty paid by third-party vendors – No positive act of concealment or intention to evade duty – Held: Extended limitation period not invocable – Show cause notice time-barred and invalid [Paras 74–80].

CESTAT Order – Reversal of Lower Authorities – CESTAT erred in ignoring evidence and settled law – Failed to address immovability issue despite it being raised and accepted earlier – Wrongly relied on tariff headings to infer excisability [Paras 10–14, 65–67].

Excess Duty Collection – Not Determinative – Mere recovery of duty from buyer on bought-out items does not confer excisability – Proper remedy is under Section 11D, not valuation under Section 4 – Recovery mechanism distinct from liability [Paras 70–73].

Decision: Appeals allowed – CESTAT’s order set aside – Show cause notice held invalid – No excise duty payable on bought-out items or final boiler – No penalty or interest payable – Demand quashed [Paras 82–84].

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Plaint – Maintainability of Appeal – Commercial Suit filed without Pre-Institution Mediation under Section 12A of CCA 2015 – Trial Court rejected plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint amounts to a 'decree' under Section 2(2) CPC – Such decree is appealable under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – High Court erred in holding appeal to be non-maintainable [Paras 5, 9, 13-15, 20-21]

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1A) – Interpretation – Main provision permits appeals against judgments and orders of Commercial Court – Proviso restricts appeals only for interlocutory orders listed in Order XLIII CPC – Held: Rejection of plaint is not an interlocutory order and not covered by the proviso – Hence appeal lies under the main provision [Paras 16-17]

Distinction from Precedent – Bank of India v. Maruti Civil Works – Distinguished – In that case, rejection of application under Order VII Rule 10 or 11(d) was challenged – Court clarified only allowed orders under Rule 10 are appealable under Order XLIII – But rejection of plaint (not application) constitutes a decree, hence distinguishable and appealable [Paras 18-19]

Right to Remedy – Plaintiff whose plaint is rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be left remediless – Filing of a fresh suit not an appropriate alternative – Appeal is the proper remedy [Para 20]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside – Appeal before High Court held to be maintainable – Restored for decision on merits – No order as to costs.

DNA Testing – Presumption of Legitimacy – Criminal Proceedings – Section 112 Evidence Act – Right to Privacy – Constitution of India – DNA test sought to prove that appellant fathered child during subsistence of marriage between Respondent No.1 and her husband Abdul Latheef – Supreme Court held: statutory presumption under Section 112 protects child’s legitimacy unless non-access is proved – No material evidence of non-access or incapacity of husband produced – Birth and school records name Abdul Latheef as father – Mere allegation of extramarital affair or simultaneous access does not rebut presumption – DNA test cannot be ordered to displace conclusive proof without strong evidence [Paras 24–37]

Right to Privacy – Consent and Bodily Autonomy – DNA Test – Court reiterated that DNA testing infringes right to privacy under Article 21 – Such testing must satisfy test of legality, legitimate aim and proportionality – Respondent No.1’s willingness to undergo test does not override rights of appellant and the now-major child – No legitimate state interest shown – Held: direction for DNA test is disproportionate and unconstitutional [Paras 45–48]

Adverse Inference – Section 114 Evidence Act – Refusal to undergo DNA test – Respondent sought adverse inference against appellant – Court held: such inference can only arise if presumption under Section 112 is first rebutted – Since non-access not proved, no occasion arises to invoke Section 114 – Respondent cannot bypass requirement of displacing statutory presumption [Para 50]

Criminal Procedure – Sections 53 and 53A CrPC – Medical examination of accused – High Court relied on these provisions to justify DNA test – Court held: Sections 53 and 53A applicable only where examination directly relates to proving offence – Cheating and harassment charges do not require paternity proof – Use of DNA test in absence of nexus with alleged offence is unjustified and intrusive [Paras 55–57]

Judicial Discretion – Use of Scientific Tools – Court cautioned against routine or speculative use of DNA testing – Strong prima facie case and ‘eminent need’ must be shown – Held: Scientific advancement must not override legal safeguards – Ethical and psychological implications, especially for now-major child, must be considered – DNA test cannot be directed as a fishing inquiry or to satisfy mere suspicion [Paras 28–31, 51]

Collateral Issue – Paternity not central to criminal charge – FIR does not hinge on paternity of child – Child not party to proceedings – Direction for DNA test held to be irrelevant and disproportionate to charges under IPC and Tamil Nadu Act – Held: Paternity is at best a collateral issue and DNA test unnecessary for adjudication of cheating or harassment allegations [Paras 52–54]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment dated 10.05.2017 in Writ Appeal (MD) No.521 of 2017 set aside – Direction for DNA test quashed – Section 112 of the Evidence Act upheld – No adverse inference to be drawn from appellant’s refusal – Paternity not essential to establish offences alleged – No compelling investigative need shown.

Motor Accident Compensation – Permanent Disability – Minor Victim – Multiplier Method – 14-year-old appellant sustained 77.1% permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident – High Court applied multiplier of 15, monthly income of ₹3,620 with 40% future prospects – Supreme Court affirmed multiplier and income but enhanced compensation under multiple heads – Held: Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- from ₹7,48,883/- [Paras 3.3, 5.1, 5.4]

Assessment of Disability – Future Prospects – Court upheld High Court’s finding accepting 77.1% disability based on unopposed medical board certificate – Future prospects added at 40% in line with Pranay Sethi principles – Loss of future earning capacity assessed by applying disability percentage to enhanced notional income [Paras 3.2, 5.1]

Special Heads of Compensation – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Marriage Prospects – Medical Expenses – Applying Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, Sona (Minor), and other precedents, Supreme Court awarded ₹3,00,000 each towards pain and suffering and loss of marriage prospects – Also granted ₹40,000 for special diet and transport, ₹50,000 for future medical expenses, ₹40,000 for attendant charges – Held: Expenses beyond actual medical bills are permissible considering hospital stay and future treatment [Paras 5.2–5.3]

Tabular Summary of Compensation:

Loss of Future Earnings (with 77.1% disability): ₹7,03,337/-

Pain and Suffering: ₹3,00,000/-

Loss of Amenities: ₹80,000/-

Loss of Marriage Prospects: ₹3,00,000/-

Attendant Charges: ₹40,000/-

Special Diet and Transport: ₹40,000/-

Future Medical Expenses: ₹50,000/-

Total: ₹15,13,337/-

Interest and Directions – Additional Compensation – Supreme Court held appellant entitled to additional compensation of ₹7,64,454/- (i.e., over and above ₹5,75,883/- awarded by High Court) with 8% interest from date of application till realisation – Insurance company directed to deposit amount in appellant’s bank account within 8 weeks and file proof before Tribunal [Para 6–6.1]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹15,13,337/- with 8% interest – Additional ₹7,64,454/- to be paid by insurer within 8 weeks – Proof of payment to be submitted before Tribunal.

Stray Animal Menace – Implementation of ABC Rules, 2023 – Court examines compliance affidavits filed by States/UTs following prior orders – Amicus Curiae report reveals serious lapses in sterilisation, vaccination, and municipal preparedness – States/UTs directed to file additional affidavits detailing remedial steps – Registry to annex summary report as part of judicial record [Paras 5–7]

Highways – Road Safety – Stray Cattle and Animal-Related Accidents – Directions of Rajasthan High Court endorsed and extended nationwide – States/UTs, NHAI and PWDs directed to remove stray animals from highways – Mandate issued for coordinated patrols, shelters, helplines and signage – Personal accountability fixed on officials – Status reports to be filed within 8 weeks [Paras 8–11]

Dog Bites – Institutional Spaces – Alarming rise in attacks at schools, hospitals, stadia, bus depots and railway stations – Detailed incidents from multiple States examined – Causes include poor waste disposal, unguarded premises, and administrative inaction – Court holds such conditions violate Article 21 and demand systemic correction [Paras 12–24]

Preventive Framework – Nationwide Directions – Mandatory fencing, campus security and appointment of Nodal Officers for all public/private institutional spaces – Municipal authorities to remove stray dogs and prohibit their return to same premises – Hospitals directed to stock anti-rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin – Educational institutions to conduct awareness drives – Animal Welfare Board to issue national SOPs – Compliance to be monitored rigorously [Paras 25–32]

Constitutional Law – Right to Life – Held: Failure to secure public institutions from preventable dog attacks violates fundamental right under Article 21 – Reaffirmation of State obligation to ensure safe environments in spaces of education, treatment and transit – Directions aimed at eliminating human-animal conflict through lawful, humane measures [Paras 22–26]

Decision:

Comprehensive nationwide directions issued for prevention of dog-bite incidents and stray animal control in institutional spaces and highways – States/UTs, Union Ministries, NHAI and Animal Welfare Board to file compliance affidavits within 8 weeks – Non-compliance may attract contempt – Next hearing on 13/01/2026 [Paras 25–33]

Criminal Law – Review – Special Investigation Team – Constitution based on Religious Identity – Review petition filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking recall of directions mandating inclusion of Hindu and Muslim officers in the SIT investigating communal riots – Contention that such direction violates institutional secularism and amounts to religious profiling – Rejected – Held: The direction aimed at transparency and fairness in investigation of communal riots and does not impinge on secularism – State machinery must reflect fairness especially in sensitive communal cases [Paras 2-6].

Institutional Secularism – Alleged Violation – Direction to include police officers from both Hindu and Muslim communities in SIT challenged as contrary to constitutional secularism – Supreme Court reiterated that secularism is a lived principle and should manifest in action – In cases involving religious conflict, inclusivity in investigation enhances public confidence – No constitutional infirmity in the impugned direction [Paras 4-6].

Police Misconduct – Failure to Register FIR – Despite clear information of a cognizable offence, police officers failed to act – Court found dereliction of duty by both local police and Superintendent – Justified constitution of a new investigation team with transparent composition [Para 3].

Open Court Hearing – Mentioning Practice Condemned – Application seeking open court hearing of review petition rejected – Court condemned the practice of seeking hearing before both Judges of the Bench separately without disclosure – Termed dubious and unprecedented [Para 1].

Decision: Review petition dismissed – Court found no error in the direction requiring religious diversity in SIT – Reaffirmed importance of transparency and real-world secularism in communal investigation contexts – Application for open court hearing rejected.

Registration Law – Mutation Requirement for Sale Deeds – Subordinate Legislation – Constitutionality – Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 amended by adding sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii), requiring production of mutation (Jamabandi/Holding) certificate as a precondition for registration – Supreme Court held that the impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making powers under Section 69 of the Registration Act – Such rules indirectly require verification of title by registering authorities which is impermissible – Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not titles – Held: Registration cannot be refused merely for absence of Jamabandi/Holding allotment – Registration and mutation are distinct legal concepts and cannot be conflated through subordinate legislation [Paras 4-5, 14-17, 23-25].

Property Law – Registration of Documents – Constitutionality of Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) of Bihar Registration Rules, 2008 – Appellant challenged amended sub-rules requiring mutation proof (Jamabandi/Holding Allotment) as a pre-condition for registration of property documents – Held: The impugned sub-rules are ultra vires the rule-making power under Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908 – Such rules impose an arbitrary and illegal pre-condition for registration which impinges on the right to dispose of property – Appeals allowed and rules struck down [Paras 1, 2.1, 2.2, 5, 25, 29, 38].

Rule-Making Power – Scope under Section 69 of the Registration Act – Section 69 permits framing of rules for regulating registration procedures and maintenance of registers – It does not confer power to prescribe mutation or proof of title as a condition precedent for registration – Registration Act mandates registration of documents, not titles – Held: Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) not relatable to any clause under Section 69, including (a), (aa), (h) or (j) – Rule struck down as ultra vires [Paras 14–17, 23–25].

Registration vs. Title – Legal Framework – Registration of a sale deed does not confer title, only evidences transaction – Title determination lies within domain of civil courts – Mutation does not create title, thus insisting on Jamabandi/Holding certificate for registration misconceives legal position – Held: Sub-rules 19(xvii) and (xviii) disrupt the distinction between registration and ownership [Paras 2.1, 6, 8.1, 8.2, 32].

Mutation Process in Bihar – Practical Difficulties – State argued that impugned rules intended to align registration with ground realities of landholding – Court found that Bihar’s mutation system under 2011 Acts is incomplete – Most jamabandis are outdated or in names of deceased ancestors – Process of survey and digital settlement far from complete – Held: Imposing mutation requirement imposes unreasonable restriction on sale and purchase of property [Paras 7, 26–29].

Right to Property – Constitutional Dimension – Freedom to acquire and dispose of immovable property is a protected right – Arbitrary rule restricting registration amounts to deprivation of property – Held: Procedural hurdles cannot be used to frustrate ownership rights or impair transactional efficiency [Paras 2, 29, 30, 32].

Comparative Review of Existing and Impugned Sub-Rules – Rule 19(i) to (xvi) relate to document execution, property identification, fees, and identity – Do not concern proof of title – Impugned Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) introduce new requirement for mutation proof – Court held: These are qualitatively distinct and impermissible under registration framework [Paras 10–13].

Future Reforms – Conclusive Titling and Technology Integration – Court acknowledged need to modernize property registration system – Suggested adoption of Blockchain for secure, transparent land records – Directed Law Commission to study integration of conclusive titling with existing laws through technology and reforms [Paras 34–37].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Judgment of Patna High Court set aside – Notification dated 10.10.2019 introducing Rule 19(xvii) and (xviii) quashed – Parties to bear own costs [Para 38–39].

Tender Law – Rejection of Highest Bid – Interpretation of “Previous Financial Year” – The appellant’s bid for a sand quarry lease was rejected for not submitting the Income Tax Return for FY 2021-2022 as mandated under Rule 27(4)(iv) of the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession Rules – Supreme Court held that at the time of bid submission (July 2022), the statutory deadline for filing return for FY 2021-2022 had not expired – Return for FY 2020-2021 was validly submitted – Rejection based on misinterpretation of “previous financial year” was arbitrary and defeated public interest – Held: Interpretation of “previous financial year” must be harmonious with Income Tax Act timelines [Paras 14-15]

Judicial Review – Tender Process – Public Interest – Court reaffirmed that while tenders are not open to routine judicial scrutiny, interference is warranted in cases of irrationality or misconstruction that diminishes competition and public revenue – Erroneous exclusion of highest bidder on misinterpretation of Rule vitiates the tender process – High Court failed to address this aspect – Judgment set aside [Paras 9-11, 14]

Remedies – Fresh Auction Ordered – In view of lapse of significant lease period (3 years 3 months out of 5), fresh auction directed under 2016 Rules – All parties allowed to bid afresh – Refund with interest directed to the successful bidder whose bid was previously accepted but lease not executed due to litigation – Public interest in maximising revenue reaffirmed [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Fresh auction ordered – Refund with interest at 6% per annum to previous successful bidder – Liberty to all parties to participate afresh.

Arbitration – Public Policy – Patent Illegality – Arbitral Award Set Aside – Arbitrator awarded reimbursement for second regular meals and welcome drinks to caterers despite express contract and circulars stating otherwise – Supreme Court held that this amounted to rewriting the contract – Held: Arbitrator failed to consider binding policy decisions of Railway Board which governed the MLA and exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 28(3) of the Act – Award found to be patently illegal and in conflict with public policy of India – Set aside under Section 34(2A) and 34(2)(b)(ii) [Paras 62–72].

Contract – Government Policy – Supremacy of Railway Board Circulars – No Unilateral Deviation Permissible – Circulars dated 23.10.2013 and 06.08.2014 formed basis of contract and fixed rates for meals and services – Clause 21.1 of Master Licence Agreement gave precedence to Railway policy over other contractual provisions – Held: No deviation permissible from binding Railway Board circulars – Arbitrator’s contrary interpretation was unjustified [Paras 56–60, 68–69].

Arbitration – Scope of Interference under Sections 34 and 37 – Limits of Judicial Review Reaffirmed – Court reiterated limited grounds of interference under Section 34(2A) – Held: Courts cannot reappreciate evidence or correct errors of law unless award shocks conscience or contravenes fundamental policy – Arbitrator’s findings that ignored binding government policy warranted judicial interference [Paras 63–67].

Interest – Arbitrator’s Award on Lump Sum Interest Set Aside – Arbitrator Awarded Interest from 01.01.2018 on Entire Claim Though Claims Arose Periodically – Division Bench rightly held that interest award was erroneous – Supreme Court: In light of full setting aside of award, interest claim becomes infructuous [Paras 43, 72].

Catering Contracts – Welcome Drink Charges – Reimbursement Denied – Bid documents and Clause 8.1 of MLA permitted menu changes – Circulars contemplated welcome drink as part of service without separate charges – Held: No entitlement to separate payment – Arbitrator’s award unjustified [Paras 60–61, 71].

Decision: Appeals of IRCTC allowed – Arbitral award dated 27.04.2022 (corrected on 26.07.2022) and Delhi High Court’s judgments dated 13.08.2024 and 10.02.2025 set aside – Cross appeals filed by caterers dismissed – Parties to bear own costs.