Partition Suit – Burden of Proof – Matrimonial Relations – Appellant filed a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming to be the son of respondent from his marriage with Padminibai. Trial Court and First Appellate Court decreed the suit, but High Court reversed these decisions, finding inconsistencies in the evidence. Supreme Court upheld High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the heavy burden of proof on the appellant to establish the matrimonial relationship and his legitimacy, which he failed to discharge satisfactorily [Paras 1-7].

Re-Appreciation of Evidence – Scope in Second Appeal – Appellant contested the High Court’s re-evaluation of evidence in second appeal, arguing that such re-appreciation was beyond its jurisdiction. Supreme Court found that the High Court was justified in reassessing the evidence due to significant discrepancies in the appellant’s case, particularly concerning the alleged marriage and legitimacy claims [Paras 4-6].

Delay in Filing Suit – Impact on Credibility – Suit was filed approximately 16-17 years after the appellant attained majority, without any prior claim or dispute raised. This delay, combined with the lack of substantial evidence regarding the matrimonial relationship and appellant’s birth from that wedlock, weakened the appellant’s case [Para 5].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Appellant failed to establish the claimed matrimonial relationship and his legitimate claim to the property. The court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the dismissal of the suit, with no order as to costs [Para 7].

Criminal Procedure – Summoning of Additional Accused – Section 319 CrPC – Respondent summoned by Trial Court to face trial for corruption charges based on witness deposition – High Court quashed the order due to lack of prior sanction under Section 19 of the P.C Act – Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing mandatory requirement of prior sanction for public servants [Paras 1-11].

Sanction for Prosecution – Section 19 P.C Act – Requirement of Prior Sanction – Court held that prior sanction is a sine qua non for taking cognizance of offences under the P.C Act – Even under Section 319 CrPC, prosecution must first obtain sanction before summoning a public servant – Trial Court erred in not insisting on prior sanction [Paras 7-11].

Legal Precedents – Application of Dilawar Singh v. Parvinder Singh (2005) 12 SCC 709 – Supreme Court cited precedents affirming that Section 19 of P.C Act overrides Section 319 CrPC – Cognizance of offence against public servant invalid without requisite sanction [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of High Court upheld – Trial Court's order summoning respondent set aside due to lack of prior sanction under Section 19 of P.C Act.

Service Law – Reservation for Disabled Candidates – The respondent, a 100% visually impaired candidate, appeared in the CSE-2008 but was denied an appointment – Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court directed the Union of India to fill backlog vacancies as per the PWD Act, 1995 – Supreme Court upholds CAT and High Court decisions, directs the Union of India to reconsider the backlog vacancies and accommodate the respondent and other similarly placed candidates [Paras 1-5].

Compliance with PWD Act – The Supreme Court observed that the Union of India failed to implement the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, resulting in unfilled backlog vacancies – It was noted that IRS (IT) and IRS (C&E) services were not exempted from the reservation for the visually impaired as per Section 33 of the PWD Act – Court directed the Union of India to redo the exercise of ascertaining backlog vacancies for visually impaired candidates [Paras 6-11].

Section 36 of the PWD Act – The Court emphasized the need for interchange of vacancies among different categories of disabilities as per Section 36 of the PWD Act to ensure that eligible candidates are accommodated – This was particularly important given the gross default by the Union of India in implementing the PWD Act provisions [Paras 10-15].

Decision – Appeal disposed of with directions – Union of India to consider respondent no.1 and other eligible visually impaired candidates for appointment against backlog vacancies within three months – Appointments to be prospective, with no arrears of salary or seniority benefits – Directions issued as a one-time measure under Article 142 of the Constitution of India [Paras 15-15(e)].

Central Excise – Determination of Valuation – Issue concerning the applicability of Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act for the goods sold by the respondent – Tribunal’s decision set aside by the Supreme Court – Section 4A applies when there is a statutory requirement to declare retail sale price on the package – HDPE bags sold by the respondent to distributors containing poly packs were held not intended for retail sale, thus exempt from Section 4A application [Paras 1-19].

Packaging Rules – Retail vs. Wholesale Packages – Analysis of whether the respondent’s packaging constitutes group packages for retail sale or wholesale packages – HDPE bags containing 100 poly packs sold to distributors held as wholesale packages not intended for retail sale – Exemption under Rule 34(b) applied due to the nature and weight of the packages [Paras 11-17].

Details of Allegations – Show Cause Notices – Allegations that the respondent-assessee was packing 33 pouches of 6 gms each of chewing tobacco and one pouch of 15 gms of chewing tobacco in a larger poly pack – Poly packs labeled with MRP considered group packages intended for retail sale – Contention by revenue that such packaging requires duty payment under Section 4A of the Excise Act – Respondent’s defense that HDPE bags containing poly packs were not meant for retail sale, and hence Section 4A was inapplicable [Paras 1-4, 7-9].

Tribunal’s Findings – Tribunal relied on the decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Vapi v. Kraftech Products Inc. to conclude that Section 4A was not applicable – Tribunal's conclusion supported by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that HDPE bags were wholesale packages and not intended for retail sale [Paras 4, 18-19].

Commissioner’s Order – Initial Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner confirming demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty on the poly packs – Commissioner’s findings that poly packs were intended for retail sale based on declarations made on the packages – HDPE bags were considered wholesale packages, not subject to retail sale price declaration requirements under Rule 29 [Paras 3-4, 14-16].

Legal Provisions – Interpretation of Section 4A of the Excise Act in conjunction with the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules – Definition and differentiation of group packages and wholesale packages under Rules 2(g) and 2(x) – Retail sale defined under Rule 2(q) – Application of Rule 34(b) exemption for packages containing commodities sold by weight with net weight not exceeding 10 gms [Paras 9-11].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Tribunal’s judgment upheld – Section 4A(1) of the Excise Act not applicable to the goods subject matter of the show cause notices – HDPE bags treated as wholesale packages exempt from declaring retail price [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law - Conviction for Murder and Unlawful Assembly - Appellants challenged the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 r/w 149, and 307 r/w 149 IPC - Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences - Appellants' participation as part of the unlawful assembly with common object to commit murder established - No active role needed for conviction under Section 149 IPC [Paras 1-33].

Unlawful Assembly - Common Object - Presence of appellants at the crime scene with other accused persons sufficient for conviction under Section 149 IPC - Evidence of eye-witnesses substantiating appellants' presence and common intention - Conviction upheld despite no specific roles assigned to appellants [Paras 17-30].

Life Imprisonment - Minimum Sentence for Murder - Appellants' plea for reduction of sentence due to long incarceration rejected - Minimum sentence for murder is life imprisonment - Appellants may apply for remission or premature release as per State policy [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeals dismissed - Conviction and sentence upheld - Appellants may seek remission or premature release in accordance with State policy [Para 33].

Arbitration Law - Limitation for Setting Aside Award - Appellant State challenged arbitral award dated June 30, 2022 - Petition under Section 34 filed on October 31, 2022 after Pooja vacation - High Court dismissed the petition for being time-barred - Supreme Court affirmed High Court's decision - Held, limitation period expired on September 30, 2022 - No benefit under Section 4 of Limitation Act since prescribed period expired before court vacation - Petition under Section 34 not filed within extended period allowed by proviso to Section 34(3) [Paras 1-11].

Period of Limitation - Calculation under Arbitration and Conciliation Act - Limitation period for challenging arbitral award is three months - Computation of period excludes the date of receipt of award - Application filed beyond the three-month period plus maximum allowable extension of 30 days is time-barred [Paras 5-8].

Section 4 of Limitation Act - Applicability to Arbitration Cases - Explained that 'prescribed period' does not include the 30-day extension under Section 34(3) proviso - Section 4 not applicable where the original period of limitation expired before the court's closure [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeal dismissed - High Court's dismissal of the petition under Section 34 for being time-barred upheld - No merit in appellants' argument for extension under Limitation Act provisions [Para 11].

Criminal Law – Discharge Application – Appellant sought discharge from charges of rape and criminal intimidation – Lower courts dismissed the application, framing charges based on prima facie evidence – Supreme Court re-evaluates the sufficiency of evidence, including contradictions in prosecutrix’s statements and lack of material evidence [Paras 1-19].

Consent – Misconception of Fact – Supreme Court examines the concept of consent under Section 90 IPC – Finds that prosecutrix’s consent was not vitiated by misconception or coercion – Relationship was consensual, allegations of blackmail and threats not substantiated by evidence [Paras 20-24].

Evidence – Lack of Corroboration – Court notes the absence of critical evidence such as photographs, mobile phone, and financial transactions – Finds that the prosecutrix’s claims are unsupported by tangible proof, weakening the prosecution’s case [Paras 17, 24].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Orders of the High Court and Sessions Judge set aside – Criminal proceedings quashed – Supreme Court emphasizes that continuing the trial would be an abuse of judicial process due to lack of credible evidence and consensual nature of the relationship [Paras 25-28].

Criminal Law – Murder Conviction – Appellant convicted for murder as part of an unlawful assembly – Sessions Court and High Court upheld the conviction – Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with concurrent findings – Appellant and co-accused attacked victim with deadly weapons resulting in death – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-27].

Witness Credibility – Discrepancies in eyewitness testimonies – Court found minor inconsistencies immaterial – PW1 and PW2 corroborated each other on key facts – Hostile witness (PW4) did not impact prosecution case significantly – Appellant failed to discredit key witnesses [Paras 10-20].

Section 300 IPC – Applicability – Nature and location of injury – Single stab wound sufficient to cause death – Factors like weapon type, attack premeditation, and absence of provocation considered – Conduct of appellant met criteria under Section 300 IPC clauses (1) and (3) [Paras 21-26].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence affirmed – Bail order vacated – Appellant directed to surrender to serve remaining sentence [Paras 27-28].

Res Judicata – Application in Civil Suits – Appellant's suit for declaration of title over specific land parcels was initially decreed by the trial court – First Appellate Court and High Court reversed the decree, applying the principle of res judicata based on an earlier title suit – Supreme Court examined whether the previous suit directly and substantially adjudicated on the issues relevant to the current suit – Held that the earlier suit did not adjudicate on the specific rights of the appellant over the disputed land [Paras 1-22].

Conditions for Res Judicata Among Co-Defendants – Supreme Court outlined three essential conditions for applying res judicata between co-defendants: (i) conflict of interest between co-defendants; (ii) necessity to decide the conflict for granting relief to the plaintiff; (iii) final decision on the conflict – Found no such conflict adjudicated in the earlier suit [Paras 13-25].

Adjudication of Property Rights – Court affirmed the appellant's established title and possession over the disputed land based on documentary evidence and historical possession – The claim of adverse possession by the Cantonment Board over the entire land was not substantiated [Paras 26-34].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgment and order of High Court and First Appellate Court set aside – Trial court's decree restored, confirming the appellant’s title over the suit land – No order as to costs [Paras 35-36].