Excise Duty – SSI Exemption – Assessee manufactured and sold cookies from branded retail outlets – Assessee claimed SSI exemption for cookies sold loosely without brand name on cookies themselves – Commissioner allowed exemption, Tribunal affirmed – Supreme Court reversed, holding cookies sold from branded outlets are branded goods, irrespective of physical brand name on cookies – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-21].

Brand Name – Physical Manifestation – Supreme Court held that brand name does not need to be physically stamped on goods – Relevant factors include packaging, store environment, and branding at point of sale – Concept of brand name extends to connection indicated in course of trade [Paras 12-15].

Exclusive Retail Outlets – Goods sold from exclusive branded outlets presumed branded – Rebuttable presumption if goods are branded by another manufacturer – Supreme Court emphasized importance of outlet's branding environment [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Tribunal's order set aside – Assessee's cookies sold from branded "Cookie Man" outlets considered branded goods – No costs [Para 21].

Income Tax – Doctrine of Mutuality – Bangalore Club claimed exemption from income tax on interest earned from fixed deposits with member banks – Assessing Officer rejected claim, treating interest as taxable income – CIT (A) and Tribunal reversed, applying mutuality principle – High Court reversed Tribunal's decision – Supreme Court upheld High Court, holding mutuality principle not applicable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-34].

Doctrine of Mutuality – Three Conditions – Supreme Court reiterated three conditions for mutuality: (1) Complete identity between contributors and participators; (2) Actions must further the mandate of the association; (3) No profit from contributions – Funds placed in fixed deposits with member banks used for commercial purposes, violating mutuality conditions [Paras 7-24].

Commerciality – Interest Income – Supreme Court emphasized that commercial element in earning interest on surplus funds placed with banks negated mutuality – Funds exposed to banking operations with third parties breached mutuality principle [Paras 26-28].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Interest earned on fixed deposits with member banks taxable – Costs imposed on Appellant [Para 34].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant accused of filing false and vexatious criminal writ petition – High Court dismissed application for quashing – Supreme Court quashed proceedings, holding that inherent power of court should prevent abuse of process – Doctrine of issue estoppel applied as same issue had been adjudicated by High Court in earlier criminal contempt case – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-25].

False and Vexatious Complaints – Legal Standard – Supreme Court clarified that 'false' in legal context implies intentional deceit or fraud – Mere inability to prove does not render a claim false – Genuine legal disputes should not be treated as malicious or vexatious without clear evidence of wrongful intent [Paras 11-17].

Issue Estoppel – Preclusion of Re-litigation – Principle prevents re-litigation of issues previously adjudicated between same parties – Supreme Court emphasized that a matter decided by a competent court cannot be re-opened on same facts under different proceedings [Paras 18-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment and Revisional Court order set aside – Complaint under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 quashed – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 25].

Administrative Law – Appointment of Upa Lokayukta – Appellant appointed as Upa Lokayukta by Governor on advice of Chief Minister without consultation with Chief Justice – High Court quashed appointment – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision – Emphasized mandatory consultation with Chief Justice under Section 3(2)(a) and (b) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act – Consultation integral to appointment process, ensuring checks and balances [Paras 1-30].

Primacy of Consultation – Role of Chief Justice – Consultation with Chief Justice of High Court necessary for independence and impartiality of Lokayukta institution – Supreme Court clarified 'consultation' implies meaningful discussion and considering Chief Justice's views – Mere formality insufficient – Ensures judicial input in appointments impacting public administration and governance [Paras 15-25].

Doctrine of Separation of Powers – Checks and Balances – Appointment of Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta involves executive and judicial inputs – Supreme Court underscored importance of maintaining separation of powers and checks and balances in appointment process – Ensures integrity and independence of Lokayukta institution [Paras 26-30].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Appointment of Justice Chandrashekaraiah as Upa Lokayukta quashed – State directed to initiate fresh appointment process with mandatory consultation with Chief Justice – No order as to costs [Para 31].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Appellant, an NRI, accused Respondents of cheating in property sale transaction – Magistrate took cognizance based on FIR and protest petition – High Court quashed cognizance for Respondent No. 2 (wife of main accused) citing no privity of contract or entrustment – Supreme Court restored Magistrate's order, highlighting prima facie case of fraud and deceit from inception of negotiation – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-32].

Fraud and Cheating – Ingredients – Supreme Court reiterated need for dishonest intention at time of inducement to constitute cheating – Assessed entire conduct of Respondents, including use of Power of Attorney and sale to third party, to establish prima facie case – Emphasized that civil disputes involving criminal ingredients warrant criminal proceedings [Paras 16-23, 27-32].

Issue of Privity – Role of Respondent No. 2 – Supreme Court held presence and actions of Respondent No. 2 (wife) crucial to fraudulent scheme – Her involvement through Power of Attorney and receipt of money established prima facie culpability despite absence of direct privity with complainant [Paras 23-31].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Magistrate directed to proceed with trial – Supreme Court clarified observations limited to prima facie assessment, not merits of case – No costs [Para 32].

Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – High Court overturned trial court’s acquittal, convicting appellants under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC – Supreme Court upheld High Court’s decision, finding sufficient evidence of common intention and premeditated assault on the deceased – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-18].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Supreme Court emphasized that common intention can develop on the spot – Preparation and coordinated assault indicated shared intention to kill – Absence of charge under Section 34 IPC did not prejudice appellants, as evidence and defense adequately covered [Paras 13-15].

Standard of Review – Appellate Interference – Supreme Court reiterated that appellate court has full power to review evidence in acquittal appeals – Emphasized that double presumption of innocence does not bar reversal if trial court’s view is not reasonably possible – High Court justified in convicting appellants based on credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative evidence [Paras 10-12, 17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment affirmed – Conviction and sentences under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC upheld – No prejudice found due to absence of specific charge under Section 34 IPC – No costs [Para 18].

Consumer Law – Medical Negligence – Appellant, a doctor, contested consumer forum's acceptance of complaint without expert opinion – National Commission dismissed revision petition, relying on Supreme Court ruling in V. Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital which declared Martin F. D'Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq as per incuriam – Supreme Court upheld National Commission’s decision – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-11].Expert Opinion – Necessity in Medical Negligence – Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab confined need for expert opinion to criminal prosecution for medical negligence under Section 304A IPC – Judgment in Martin F. D'Souza incorrectly extended this requirement to civil cases of medical negligence – V. Kishan Rao correctly overruled Martin F. D'Souza, restoring principles laid down in Jacob Mathew [Paras 7-10].Criminal vs. Civil Negligence – Distinction – Supreme Court emphasized higher degree of negligence required for criminal liability (gross negligence) – Ordinary negligence sufficient for civil liability – Mens rea crucial in criminal cases but not in civil claims [Para 7].Decision: Appeals dismissed – National Commission’s reliance on V. Kishan Rao upheld – No expert opinion required for civil cases of medical negligence – No costs [Para 11].

Auction Sale – Validity – Recovery Officer conducted auction sale under RDDB Act, following Income Tax Rules – High Court quashed sale, citing non-compliance with Rule 57 of Income Tax Rules – Supreme Court upheld High Court, affirming Rule 57 as mandatory – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-34].Application of Income Tax Rules – Section 29 RDDB Act – Supreme Court clarified 'as far as possible' in Section 29 RDDB Act does not grant Recovery Officer discretion to bypass mandatory provisions of Income Tax Rules – Rules 57 and 58 must be followed strictly in auction sales [Paras 15-21].Mandatory Nature – Rule 57 Income Tax Rules – Supreme Court emphasized use of 'shall' in Rule 57 indicates mandatory compliance – Non-payment of deposit renders sale null and void – Analogous provisions in CPC also held mandatory [Paras 22-32].Bona Fide Purchasers – Rights – Conflict in judgments on protection of bona fide purchasers noted – Supreme Court did not resolve conflict, finding auction invalid regardless of bona fide purchaser status – Reference to larger bench deemed unnecessary [Paras 33-34].Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Auction sale declared void for non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Rule 57 of Income Tax Rules – No costs [Para 34].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Compliance with Section 50 – Appellant convicted under NDPS Act for possession of heroin – Issue of non-compliance with Section 50 regarding the right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Supreme Court held non-compliance vitiates proceedings – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-10].Mandatory Procedure – Informing Rights – Supreme Court emphasized mandatory nature of informing accused of their right under Section 50 NDPS Act – Officer must explicitly inform accused of right to be searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer – Failure to do so results in invalid search [Paras 7-8].Ignorance of Law – Legal Maxim – 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' does not apply to mandatory procedural rights under Section 50 NDPS Act – Obligation on officers to inform accused due to potential ignorance of complex legal rights – Non-compliance constitutes procedural breach [Para 9].Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused to be released forthwith unless required in another case – Proceedings initiated against appellant declared invalid due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirement under Section 50 NDPS Act [Para 10].