Facts:

The appellant, engaged in shipbuilding, entered into contracts with ship owners. The assessing authority classified these transactions as sales, making the appellant liable for sales tax under Section 2(n) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act. The Tribunal, however, categorized these contracts as works contracts as defined in Section 2(t) of the Act. The High Court upheld the classification of these transactions as sales, leading to the present appeal.

Issues:

Whether the shipbuilding contracts should be considered sales or works contracts for the purpose of sales tax liability under the A.P. General Sales Tax Act.

Held:

The distinction between a contract of sale and a works contract is challenging, and no fixed formula exists to determine this classification. The intention of the parties should be ascertained by considering all the terms and conditions of the contract. It is essential to avoid interpreting individual clauses in isolation but to analyze the overall nature of the transaction.

The contracts in question involve the sale of vessels, as property in the vessel passes to the buyer upon delivery, and the contracts are for an ascertained price. Therefore, they fall under the definition of sale in clause (n) of the A.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1957, and are not merely works contracts as defined in clause (t). Hence, these transactions are subject to sales tax.

While a clause in the contract suggests that property in the vessel passes to the buyer with the payment of the first installment, the true intention of the parties should be determined, and this clause should not be taken at face value.

Payments made by the buyer are directed toward the vessel itself, not its components. The vessel is available for sale to another party by the builder if the contract falls through. The importance of the vessel's components, such as the hull, machinery, and engine, outweighs that of labor.

The buyer gains the right to mortgage their interest in the vessel to the extent of payments made but subject to the builder's lien for the unpaid portion of the price.

If the builder defaults on contract obligations, the buyer has the right to take possession of the vessel in its current state and complete the remaining work elsewhere, with any additional costs borne by the builder.

The builder is responsible for obtaining insurance in joint names with the buyer. Any loss or damage to the vessel before delivery is the builder's responsibility, and reimbursement can be sought through an insurance claim.

Facts:

The appellant, a biscuit manufacturer, entered into an agreement with Britannia on December 15, 1986, to manufacture biscuits for Britannia. Britannia supplied ingredients and recipes, and the appellant manufactured and packaged biscuits as per Britannia's instructions. The agreement expressly stated a principal-principal relationship, allowing the appellant to manufacture biscuits under other brands.

A dispute arose when the Assistant Collector proposed assessing the value of the biscuits based on Britannia's wholesale price.

Issues:

Whether the assessable value of the biscuits manufactured by the appellant should be determined based on Britannia's wholesale price.

Held:

After reviewing the case and referring to the judgment in Ujagar Prints Vs. Union of India (UOI), it was established that for assessing the value of goods for excise duty purposes, post-manufacturing expenses should not be considered.

Processing houses, like the appellant, were liable for excise duty not because they owned the goods, but because they caused their manufacture. Therefore, the assessable value should include the value of raw materials, job work, manufacturing profit, and manufacturing expenses, determined at the factory gate when goods leave the factory.

Post-manufacturing profits or expenses, such as those incurred by Britannia, should not be included in the assessable value.

The appeal was allowed, and the excise authorities were directed to determine the excise duty amount in accordance with this principle.

Facts:

The case involves an accident that took place at 11:30 a.m.

There is a dispute between the insurance company (appellant) and the insured owner (respondent) regarding the time of policy issuance.

The insurance company claims the policy was issued at 4:45 p.m. on the same day as the accident, while the insured owner asserts it was issued at 10:00 a.m. on the same morning.

The Tribunal had initially ruled that the policy covered the liability from the previous midnight of the same date.

Issues:

The primary issue is whether an insurance policy issued after the time of an accident on the same day provides coverage for the insurer.

A secondary issue concerns the disputed time of policy issuance, with the insurer claiming 4:45 p.m. and the insured owner claiming 10:00 a.m.

Held:

The Supreme Court did not resolve the dispute over the time of policy issuance but remanded the case to the Tribunal for this determination.

The Court ordered both the insurance company and the insured owner to share half of the decretal amount, which should be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

It was emphasized that once the Tribunal determined liability, the party succeeding in the case would have the right to recover any balance amount from the other party.

Facts:

The Food Inspector filed a complaint against the respondent for selling adulterated Toor Dal.

The sample analysis initially indicated adulteration with Kesari Dal, but a later certificate from the Director of the Central Food Laboratory pointed to synthetic Coal Tar Dye.

The respondent challenged the charge, arguing that a fresh sanction was needed due to the change in analysis results.

Issues:

Whether a fresh consent is required for prosecution when the Director's certificate supersedes the Public Analyst's report.

Held:

The court observed that the institution of prosecution under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act can be validly done with the consent of the appropriate authority.

The certificate from the Director, replacing the Public Analyst's report during the trial, does not necessitate a fresh consent for prosecution.

The court emphasized that the purpose of obtaining consent is to prevent unnecessary or frivolous prosecution, and once validly instituted, the judicial functionary can control further proceedings.

Section 216(5) of the CrPC, dealing with alteration of charges, does not require a fresh sanction if the altered charge is based on facts for which consent was already obtained.

The court concluded that once validly instituted, neither new data nor added reasons in the Director's certificate can annul the original sanction, and the trial must proceed with the existing certificate.

Facts:

The Forest Tribunal, under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, issued an order on 11.8.1982, asserting that the disputed land did not vest in the Government. The State of Kerala's appeal to the High Court against this order was dismissed on 17.12.1982. With no statutory remedy for appeal, revision, or review against the High Court's order, the State filed an SLP before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on merits on 18.7.1983. Subsequently, Section SC was inserted into the 1971 Act, empowering the government to file appeals or review applications in specific cases. In January 1984, the State sought a review of the High Court's order.

Issues:

The maintainability of the review petition after the dismissal of the SLP. The petitioner contended that the High Court's order had merged into the Supreme Court's order, rendering a review petition misconceived.

Held:

The High Court's order of 17.12.1982 did not merge with the Supreme Court's order of 18.7.1983. Therefore, the High Court had the authority to review its earlier decision. The right of review was statutorily conferred on the High Court by sub-Section (2) of Section SC of the Kerala Act.

Article 136 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court sweeping jurisdiction. The exercise of this jurisdiction involves two steps: granting special leave to appeal and hearing the appeal. Dismissing an SLP, even if by a non-speaking order, does not result in the merger of the impugned order into the Supreme Court's order.

An order dismissing an SLP, whether by a non-speaking or speaking order, does not attract the doctrine of merger. A non-speaking order does not substitute itself for the order in issue or declare law under Article 141.

Mere pendency of an application for leave to appeal does not jeopardize the finality of the decree or order under challenge. The finality is at risk only if leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is pending, reopening the issues decided.

The doctrine of merger is not universally applicable and depends on the nature of jurisdiction exercised and the subject matter of challenge. It is a common law doctrine based on principles of propriety.

The right of review is available when an SLP is dismissed. The review can be preferred in the High Court before special leave is granted but not after it is granted. Once special leave is granted, the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is invoked.

FACTS:

The plaintiff, a tenant, filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a property by the first defendant. The first defendant, having entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, later sold the property to defendants 2 to 5. The plaintiff claimed that the subsequent sale was not bona fide, and he sought specific performance of the original contract.

ISSUES:

Whether defendants 2 to 5 are bona fide purchasers without notice of the original contract?

Whether defendants 2 to 5 were required to make an inquiry into the nature of possession or title of the plaintiff at the time of the subsequent sale?

HELD:

The court held that defendants 2 to 5 were not bona fide purchasers in good faith for value without notice of the original contract. The court emphasized the duty of a subsequent purchaser to make an inquiry into the title and interest of the person in actual possession. The actual possession itself is deemed notice of the title, and a subsequent purchaser must inquire into further interests, nature of possession, and title when entering into a sale transaction.

DECISION: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree of the trial court were confirmed. Defendants 1 to 5 were directed to execute and register the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff for the suit property.

REFERRED CASES:

Veeramalai Vanniar (Died) and Others Vs. Thadikara Vanniar and Others, AIR 1968 Mad 383 : (1968) ILR (Mad) 511 : (1968) 81 LW 90 : (1968) 1 MLJ 437

Dr. Govinddas and Another Vs. Shrimati Shantibai and Others, AIR 1972 SC 1520 : (1972) 74 PLR 227 : (1973) 3 SCC 418 : (1972) 4 UJ 543

Facts:

A commercial plot was allotted on a free-hold basis to the respondent's husband.

The allotment required completion of the building according to sanctioned plans.

The husband constructed a building with the ground floor for commercial use and first and second floors for residential purposes.

The respondent applied for a residential plot, declaring no ownership of residential property in the Union Territory.

An allotment was made, but it was later canceled when authorities realized the husband owned a residential flat.

Issues:

The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Regulation 6(1) concerning the eligibility of the respondent for a residential plot, given her husband's ownership of a residential flat on a commercial plot.

Held:

The eligibility hinges on whether the husband owned a residential plot or house in the specified region.

The Court held that the residential flat above the ground floor commercial plot qualified as a residential house under Regulation 6(1).

The respondent's declaration was deemed incorrect, justifying the cancellation of the allotment.

The Court set aside previous orders and upheld the cancellation of allotment.

Despite the bona fide nature of the respondent's statement, the deposit was permitted to be refunded without interest, deviating from the usual regulation on forfeiting the deposit.

The appeal is allowed.

Facts:

Tirupati Mills, incorporated in 1972, faced financial distress and was declared a sick industrial company in 1988.

On 5-7-1997, an agreement was made between Tirupati Woollen Mills Shramik Sangharsha Samity ("Samity") and appellant-Divya for the purchase of assets and re-employment of workers.

Legal proceedings ensued, leading to a series of court orders and appeals.

Offers for the sale of assets were made, with the appellant initially offering Rs. 37 lakhs, later increased to Rs. 85 lakhs, and finally, Rs. 1.3 crores.

Issues:

Include the adequacy of the sale price, the conduct of the auction, and the subsequent offers made by other parties.

Held:

The Court, considering the chequered history of the sale proceedings, held that the appellant initially underbid for the property, indicating an attempt to take advantage of a court sale. The subsequent increase in the bid to Rs. 1.3 crores did not negate this initial undervaluation. Respondents 7 and 8 expressed willingness to purchase the property for Rs. 2 crores after the sale was confirmed but before possession was handed over. The Court, relying on Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of sale, set aside the confirmed sale in favor of the appellant for the benefit of creditors and public interest. Respondents 7 and 8 were directed to compensate the appellant with Rs. 70,000 each. The Court emphasized its duty to ensure an adequate price for the property.