Customs Duty – Redemption of Confiscated Goods – Whether customs duty is payable when confiscated goods are redeemed after payment of fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act – Held, duty liability arises upon exercise of option to pay fine for redemption – Duty must be assessed under Section 28 – Interest on delayed payment under Section 28AB applicable – [Paras 8.1-8.9, 10.1].

Interpretation of Jagdish Cancer Case – Liability to pay customs duty in confiscation proceedings arises under Section 125(2) and not Section 28 – However, Section 28 procedure applies for assessment and determination of duty – Interest under Section 28AB follows – Jagdish Cancer case does not preclude assessment under Section 28 for duty liability arising under Section 125(2) – [Paras 9.1-9.6].

Confiscation and Penalty – Distinction between duty obligation and penalty/fine for confiscation – Confiscation proceedings aim to transition from illegality to compliance – Payment of fine legitimizes the importation – [Paras 5.1, 8.4-8.5].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Appellant liable to pay customs duty and interest on delayed payment under Section 28AB – Costs not imposed – [Paras 11].

Public Trust Doctrine – Environmental Protection – Application of public trust doctrine to protect natural resources – State's duty to preserve environment for public use and enjoyment – Decision for environmental release of GM mustard hybrid DMH-11 quashed due to procedural lapses and lack of scientific certainty on impacts [Paras 42.10-42.22].

Right to Safe and Healthy Environment – Violation – Decision for GM mustard release found to violate Article 21 – Lack of comprehensive risk assessment and failure to adhere to the precautionary principle – Directions issued for future decision-making processes [Paras 43.1-44.3].

Precautionary Principle – Importance in Environmental Decisions – Emphasis on the need for anticipatory action to prevent environmental harm – Detailed examination of risk assessments and scientific studies required before environmental release of GM crops – Decision for GM mustard release quashed for not adhering to precautionary principle [Paras 45.1-47.6].

Environmental Governance – Role of Parliamentary Committees – Importance of scrutiny by legislative bodies – Recommendations of Parliamentary Standing Committees on Agriculture and on Science and Technology, Environment and Forest to be followed in GM crop regulation [Paras 48.1-48.10].

Conclusion – Writ petitions allowed – Environmental release of GM mustard hybrid DMH-11 quashed – Directions for a comprehensive national policy on GM crops and reforms in GEAC composition issued – Need for transparency, accountability, and public participation emphasized [Para 50-51].

Insolvency and Bankruptcy – Simultaneous Proceedings – Financial creditor filed applications under Section 7 of IBC against both the corporate debtor and corporate guarantor – Adjudicating authority admitted the application against the corporate debtor despite the approval of a resolution plan for the guarantor – Supreme Court held that the financial creditor can proceed against both simultaneously – Separate proceedings permissible under Section 60(2) and (3) of the IBC – [Paras 19-29].

Subrogation Rights – Section 140 of Contract Act – Payment by the appellant to financial creditor under the resolution plan for the corporate guarantor does not extinguish the principal borrower's liability – Subrogation rights extend only to the amount paid – Financial creditor retains right to recover balance from the principal borrower – Section 140 interpreted to provide subrogation rights proportionate to the payment made – [Paras 24-26].

Corporate Guarantor’s Liability – Approval of a resolution plan for the corporate guarantor does not discharge the principal borrower’s liability – Liability of surety and principal debtor is co-extensive under Section 128 of Contract Act – Holding company and subsidiary are distinct legal entities – Resolution plan of holding company cannot include subsidiary’s assets – [Paras 16-18, 20-21].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – NCLAT’s view upheld – Financial creditor entitled to proceed against corporate debtor despite resolution plan for corporate guarantor – No costs imposed.

Deficiency in Service – Delay in Possession – NCDRC's order partially allowing the complaint – Found delay in handing over possession of flats – Compensation awarded at 6% per annum interest on deposits from due date of possession to date of offer of possession – NCDRC's method for determining due date based on payment of 11th instalment and grace period held erroneous – Supreme Court modified the due date to six months from March 2014 as per Clause 6.1 of the Construction Agreement [Paras 1-27].

Review Jurisdiction – Scope and Limits – High Court exceeded review jurisdiction by re-evaluating merits of original decision under the guise of addressing contempt – Emphasized the finality of litigation and disciplined approach to review petitions [Paras 11-20].

Forfeiture of Right to File Written Statement – Legal Consequences – Opposite party’s failure to file written statement did not bar participation in proceedings or cross-examination of witnesses – NCDRC erred in considering facts introduced through written submissions in contravention of Supreme Court's order [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Modified NCDRC's method for determining due date for possession – Interest on delayed possession set from September 2014 till actual possession – Refund of car parking charge and legal fee claims declined – Direction to provide Green Jogging Track and Convenience Store upheld [Paras 25-27].

Bail – Pre-arrest Bail – Conditional Bail – High Court granted pre-arrest bail to the appellants with the condition to deposit 25% of ₹20,00,000. Supreme Court emphasizes that courts should not act as recovery agents for complainants’ dues when granting bail [Paras 2-5].

Conditional Bail – Jurisprudence – Supreme Court observes that the condition to deposit money was imposed based on appellants’ submission, which is against established jurisprudence. The High Court should independently assess bail applications on their merits [Para 5].

Precedents – Conditional Bail – References to prior judgments where courts held that bail conditions should not involve financial recovery for complainants: Ramesh Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), St. George Dsouza vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. [Para 3].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Directed High Court to re-examine the bail application afresh, excluding the monetary condition [Paras 6-8].

Sentencing under Section 307 IPC – Limitation on Term – Convicts sentenced to 14 years rigorous imprisonment challenged the sentence – Argument that Section 307 IPC limits imprisonment to ten years unless hurt caused warrants life imprisonment – Court examined statutory interpretation of Section 307 IPC – Held that imprisonment exceeding ten years without awarding life imprisonment is impermissible – Sentence reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine maintained [Paras 1-10].

Concurrent Conviction – Upheld – The appellants' conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC supported by overwhelming evidence – Sentence modification restricted to statutory limits without altering conviction [Paras 2-3, 6].

Mens Rea and Actus Reus – Clarified the offence under Section 307 IPC constitutes attempt to murder by intention or knowledge causing hurt – Emphasized that actual hurt or bodily injury enhances the penalty to life imprisonment or up to ten years but not beyond [Paras 4-7].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Conviction upheld – Sentence modified from 14 years to 10 years rigorous imprisonment – Fine and default clause upheld [Paras 8-10].

Review Jurisdiction – Grounds for Review – High Court allowed review petitions reversing the decision of the original Division Bench – Review jurisdiction not properly exercised – Discovery of new evidence not sufficient to warrant review as it was not material to the contempt issue – Order set aside [Paras 10-26].

Contempt of Court – Limitation – Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act mandates one-year limitation for initiating contempt proceedings – Court emphasizes strict adherence to limitation period – "Continuing wrong" principle clarified – High Court's decision reversed for accepting a time-barred contempt petition [Paras 28-57].

Exercise of Review Jurisdiction – High Court invoked Order XLVII Rule 1 based on discovery of new evidence – Review order found to exceed the jurisdiction – Court emphasized limits of review jurisdiction – Review jurisdiction must not substitute appellate jurisdiction [Paras 10-27].

Evidence – Additional Documents – New evidence must be materially important to the decision – Documents discovered post-judgment not considered as impacting the original decision materially – High Court’s reliance on new evidence deemed inappropriate [Paras 14-20].

Contempt Proceedings – Inherent Power – Court discussed the inherent power of High Courts under Articles 129 and 215 – Such power must align with Contempt of Courts Act – Limitation period is mandatory and cannot be overlooked based on inherent power alone [Paras 28-34].

Continuing Wrong – Concept Clarified – Continuing wrong must involve a fresh breach each day – Mere non-compliance over time does not constitute continuing wrong – Court outlined clear criteria for invoking the principle of continuing wrong in contempt cases [Paras 35-57].

Procedure for Contempt – Necessity for Due Process – Emphasis on due process and adherence to statutory requirements in contempt proceedings – Court stressed on procedural fairness and necessity of clear grounds before initiating contempt actions [Paras 28-57].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Division Bench’s judgment and order dated 16th August, 2018 restored – Petition for contempt dismissed as time-barred [Para 57].

Stamp Duty – Concession Agreements under BOT Scheme – Dispute on whether the Concession Agreement amounts to a “lease” – Madhya Pradesh High Court held the agreements to be leases and imposed stamp duty accordingly – Supreme Court examined the statutory definitions and the clauses of the agreement – Confirmed that the agreements are leases under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 2(16) of the Indian Stamp Act – Reiterated that toll collection agreements fall within the definition of “lease” for stamp duty purposes [Paras 1-33].

Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation – Appellants argued the principle of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation based on prior executive decisions exempting such agreements from stamp duty – Supreme Court held that legislative power is not subject to promissory estoppel – Previous executive clarifications cannot override statutory amendments – Cited established legal principles that government policies can be changed in the public interest, and such changes are not constrained by previous executive decisions [Paras 20-27].

Concession Agreement Interpretation – Concession Agreement examined for transfer of interest – Court affirmed that possession and toll collection rights were transferred to the appellants for a specified period in return for consideration, fulfilling the requirements of a lease [Paras 28-33].

Re-assessment of Stamp Duty – Court directed re-assessment of the amount spent by the lessee for determining stamp duty – Directed the Revenue Officer/Collector (Stamps) to re-calculate stamp duty based on the actual amount spent by the lessee, excluding the lessor’s expenditure – Any excess amount already paid to be refunded, and any deficit to be deposited within a specified timeframe [Paras 31-35].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – High Court judgment upheld in principle – Directed re-assessment of stamp duty based on actual expenditure by the lessee – Excess payments to be refunded, and deficit amounts to be paid within stipulated period [Para 35].

Property Law – Validity of Sale Deed – Execution and registration of sale deed in 1985, presented for registration the same year but registered in 2011 – Defendant did not specifically deny execution or receipt of consideration – High Court erred in invalidating the sale deed on grounds of delay and minor’s involvement – Presumption of correctness of registered documents upheld [Paras 28-40]. 

Minor’s Capacity to Contract – Minor represented by natural guardian in sale deed – Sale deed valid for minor’s share – Natural guardian’s role in representing minors during transactions recognized [Paras 33.10-33.12]. 

Registration Process – Delay – Delay in registration due to deficiency in stamp duty – Document registered after 26 years – Registration process presumed correct in absence of contrary evidence – Rights of vendee upheld despite delay [Paras 33.8-33.9]. 

Doctrine of Bona Fide Purchaser – Not applicable where vendor had already transferred rights via prior sale deed – Subsequent purchaser cannot claim protection if prior transfer was valid – Respondent’s deceitful conduct invalidates claim [Paras 34-35]. 

Evidentiary Value of Registered Documents – Registered sale deed presumed valid unless proven otherwise – Vendor’s failure to deny execution or receipt of consideration undermines claims against the deed – Burden of proof improperly shifted to plaintiff by lower courts [Paras 30-32]. 

Exemplary Costs – Suit decreed with exemplary costs due to respondent’s malice and dishonest conduct – Costs quantified at Rs. 10,00,000 to be paid to appellants [Para 41]. 

Decision: 

Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Judgment of first Appellate Court decreeing the suit restored – Sale deed dated 03.12.2010 in favor of respondent no.1 cancelled – Exemplary costs of Rs. 10,00,000 imposed on respondents [Paras 40-41].