Criminal Law – Identification and Evidence – Supreme Court allows appeal by Suresh (@ Unni @ Vadi Suresh), setting aside previous High Court and trial court convictions under various IPC sections and related statutes, over concerns regarding witness identification reliability and evidence recovery credibility – Appellant acquitted of all charges and directed for immediate release unless required in another case. [Paras 1-19]

Witness Testimony and Identification Parade – Issues raised about the validity of witness identification in court without prior test identification parade, leading to questions on the credibility of the conviction basis – Supreme Court finds substantial doubt over the appellant's identification as an assailant in a 2006 criminal incident due to significant delays in witness testimonies and identification procedures. [Paras 5, 13-14]

Evidence Recovery – Questioned recovery of iron rod purportedly used in the crime, contested due to implausible preservation of blood stains over two years and exposure to environmental factors – Supreme Court deems recovery not credible, influencing decision to overturn conviction. [Para 16]

Motive and Misidentification – Lack of direct motive attributed to the appellant and inconsistencies in name and description across charge-sheets suggest potential misidentification – Contributed to the decision for acquittal. [Paras 15, 17]

Decision: The appeal is allowed - Previous judgments by the High Court and trial court are quashed - Appellant acquitted of all charges and ordered released.

Consumer Law - Insurance Settlement Dispute – Appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd. challenges the order of the NCDRC which partly allowed the respondent's claim post a fire accident - Issue pertains to the method of calculating depreciation, whether it should be at 32% as initially applied by the surveyors or at 60% as later revised by the appellant - NCDRC ruling questioned due to concerns over the healthy practice of insurance claim adjustments - Appeals by the respondent contest the adequacy of the awarded claim based on depreciated value instead of reinstatement value, arguing for a higher base figure for depreciation calculation. [Paras 4-6, 57-67]

Reinstatement Value Clause – Debate over whether the Reinstatement Value Clause was part of the insurance policy - Supreme Court determines that it was indeed part of the policy as not contested in replication by the insured - Implications for claim processing and the calculation basis. [Paras 31-32]

Interpretation of Insurance Terms – Analysis of the Reinstatement Value Clause and its conditions, particularly regarding the obligations of the insured post-loss - Court finds the respondent unable to fulfill the reinstatement obligation, thereby activating the clause that limits payout to depreciated value only. [Paras 34-38]

Depreciation Calculation – Supreme Court finds NCDRC's acceptance of 32% depreciation as influenced by an earlier, incomplete survey report which did not consider subsequent developments and lacked essential information from the insured - NIACL's adjustment to 60% depreciation deemed justifiable based on standard practices and additional expert assessments. [Paras 58-69]

Appeal Decision – Supreme Court allows the appeal of NIACL, sets aside the NCDRC order, and dismisses the respondent's appeals, confirming the depreciation rate of 60% and rejecting arguments for a higher base value for depreciation calculation - The loss amount settled by NIACL at Rs.7.88 crores is upheld. [Para 82]

Civil Procedure – Legal Representation – Dispute regarding succession to the "Gaddi" of Swami Shivdharmanand following his death – Conflict between Swami Triyoganand and Swami Satyanand on who is the rightful legal representative (LR) – High Court directed Trial Court to determine rightful LR under Order 22 Rule 5, which identified Swami Satyanand as the LR – High Court’s substitution decision challenged for procedural improprieties – Supreme Court sets aside High Court’s decision for not considering objections and pending substitution application, remands matter for fresh adjudication on proper procedural adherence. [Paras 2-18]

Legal Representatives – Importance and procedural adherence stressed – Supreme Court emphasizes that determination of legal representatives is crucial for the continuation of legal proceedings and must be determined with due consideration to objections and proper procedural follow-up – Merits of legal representation to be conclusively decided by the High Court with fresh evidence and reasoned judgment, ensuring fair representation of deceased's estate in legal proceedings. [Paras 10, 14-18]

Decision: Order set aside – High Court's orders dated 19.06.2019 and 30.01.2019 are set aside due to procedural errors – Matter remanded back to High Court for fresh proceedings concerning the determination of the legal representative in compliance with Order 22 Rule 5 of CPC and subsequent proper adjudication on substitution – Supreme Court clarifies its directive is only on procedural adherence and not on the merits of the legal representatives’ claims. [Para 18]

Quashing of Proceedings –  Marriage and Dowry Disputes - Complaint under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act alleging harassment for dowry by the appellant's in-laws and husband - FIR registered following non-response to police notices, leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants - High Court quashed proceedings citing procedural irregularities, lack of specific allegations, and jurisdiction issues - Supreme Court finds partial error in High Court's decision, reinstates proceedings against respondents 3, 4, and 8, but upholds quashing for respondents 5 to 7 due to vague allegations - Noted misuse of Section 41A Cr.P.C. and jurisdictional errors in High Court's ruling. [Para 1-19]

Allegations and Procedural Non-Compliance – Analysis – High Court quashes criminal proceedings primarily due to non-compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C., lack of jurisdiction of Jamshedpur court, and generalized allegations in the complaint – Supreme Court finds fault with High Court's approach of conducting a 'mini-trial' and dismissing allegations as omnibus without sufficient examination. [Paras 3-13]

Jurisdiction and Arrest Procedures – Focus on compliance with procedural norms and territorial jurisdiction – High Court’s decision based on improper service of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and erroneous jurisdictional claims – Supreme Court finds partial merit in jurisdiction claims based on location of alleged offenses and complainant's residence. [Paras 6-12, 16-17]

Decision – Partial Quashing of Proceedings – Supreme Court allows appeal in part, setting aside High Court's quashing of proceedings against specific respondents implicated directly in dowry demands and alleged physical abuse, while upholding quashing for respondents with vague or insufficiently detailed allegations against them. [Paras 14-19]

Civil Procedure - Writ Jurisdiction - Construction of Compound Wall - Impleading Necessary Parties - High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to permit construction of a compound wall under police protection - Order based on "Minutes of Order" filed by advocates - Non-joinder of necessary parties (local tribals) who would be affected by the construction - Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order, holding that it is unlawful to pass orders affecting third parties without hearing them - Case remanded to High Court with directions to implead necessary parties and reconsider the matter. [Paras 1-26]

Practice of Minutes of Order - Legality and Procedure - Detailed analysis of the practice of passing orders based on "Minutes of Order" - Court must ensure that orders are lawful and all necessary parties are impleaded - Orders passed in terms of "Minutes of Order" are not consent orders but are orders in invitum - Advocates and Court's duty to ensure legality and proper impleadment before passing such orders. [Paras 16-20]

Review and Remand - Court's Direction on Remand - High Court to re-examine the case, implead necessary parties, and reconsider the legality of the construction of the compound wall - Construction already carried out to be subject to final decision - Directions to restore status quo ante if necessary parties are not impleaded or if construction is found illegal. [Paras 21-23]

Decision - Appeal Partly Allowed - High Court's orders dated 16th March 2022 and 20th July 2023 set aside - Writ Petition restored for reconsideration with specific directions to the High Court regarding impleadment of necessary parties and reconsideration of the construction legality - Appeal partly allowed. [Para 24]

Central Excise – Definition of Manufacture – Civil Appeal concerning the interpretation of Note 3 to Chapter 18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 – Appellant (Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur) argued that the activity of labelling and relabelling by the respondent (Jindal Drugs Ltd.) does not constitute manufacture – Held that the amendment to Note 3 effective from 01.03.2008, replacing "and" with "or", widened the scope to include labelling or relabelling as independent processes amounting to manufacture – CESTAT's decision affirming respondent's eligibility to cenvat credit and rebate upheld – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-18]

Labelling and Re-labelling – Interpretation of Note 3 to Chapter 18 – Analysis – Post amendment, Note 3 deems three independent activities as manufacture: (i) labelling or relabelling, (ii) repacking from bulk packs to retail packs, and (iii) any other treatment to render the product marketable – Held, the respondent’s activity of labelling at the Taloja unit falls within the scope of "manufacture" under Note 3 – No suppression or misrepresentation by respondent – Extended period of limitation not applicable. [Paras 5.6-5.12, 13.1-13.4, 15-16]

Extended Period of Limitation - Suppression of Facts - Whether the respondent suppressed facts to avail cenvat credit and rebate - Held, no suppression or misrepresentation by the respondent - Extended period of limitation not available to the revenue. [Para 5.11]

Decision – Appeal by Revenue Dismissed – The view taken by CESTAT affirmed – The respondent's activity amounts to manufacture as per the amended Note 3 – Cenvat credit and rebate claims by respondent upheld – No penalty imposed on respondent – Civil Appeal Nos. 788-790 of 2022 also dismissed – No order as to costs. [Paras 16-18]

Grant of Interim Bail – Petitioner seeks interim bail due to daughter's marriage ceremonies – High Court upheld conviction under IPC Sections 148, 149, 302, 324 – Despite main ceremony on 28.04.2024 being concluded, local customs necessitate petitioner's presence for subsequent rituals – Respondent-State has no objections to the grant of interim bail – Court allows interim bail for one week with conditions including daily reporting and two sureties, one being a close blood relation - Petitioner to surrender by 8th May 2024.

Leave Granted by Supreme Court and Appeal Allowed - The Supreme Court grants leave to appeal, finding the High Court's denial of bail for the appellant as cryptic and insufficiently reasoned - Orders the remission of the case to the High Court for a fresh evaluation of the bail request - Directs the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court to assign a different judge for reconsideration. [Paras 1-5]

Directions for Rearrangement of Bail Hearing - Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s order, stressing the need for a detailed and reasoned consideration, thereby enhancing procedural justice and fairness in bail proceedings - Ensures that the case will receive a fair reevaluation, impacting the appellant's rights to a fair bail hearing. [Para 4-5]

Marital Deceit and Financial Inducement – Appeal challenging orders quashing summoning for offences under Section 420 and Section 120-B IPC against respondents – Allegations of deceit regarding marital status and financial inducement involving ₹2 lakhs for marriage expenses – Initial order of summoning by Trial Court based on evidence of deceit and dishonest inducement – Orders quashed by Sessions Court and upheld by High Court without substantial reasoning – Supreme Court restores summoning order, emphasizes prima facie case against respondents [Paras 2-16].

Evidence and Legal Proceedings – Complainant presented both documentary and oral evidence establishing a prima facie case at the trial court – Forged divorce decree shown to appellant – High Court and Sessions Court failed to appreciate the sufficiency of evidence at the summoning stage – Supreme Court finds fault in lower courts' approach, highlighting that only prima facie establishment is necessary at the preliminary stage [Paras 3, 4, 7, 11-16].

Legal Misapplication by Lower Courts – Misinterpretation and misapplication of the legal standard for summoning accused in criminal conspiracy and cheating cases discussed – Supreme Court criticizes the approach of not considering cumulative facts and evidence leading up to the summons – Rectification by Supreme Court, restoring the magistrate’s initial summoning order [Paras 12.1, 14-15].

Decision: Supreme Court allows the appeal, sets aside the orders of the High Court and Sessions Court, and restores the order of the Magistrate for summoning the respondents under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC – Trial to proceed based on merits with all evidence considered [Para 16].