Customs Law – Demand of Duty – Fraudulent DEPB Licenses – DEPB licenses found to be forged/fake are void ab initio – Fraud vitiates everything – Department justified in invoking the extended period of limitation – Duty liability confirmed by the Department, Tribunal, and High Court upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 1-12].

Extended Limitation – Justification – Fraud as a basis for invoking extended period of limitation – Department acted within legal bounds – Supreme Court emphasizes that fraudulent DEPB licenses cannot grant valid exemption from customs duty – Timely payment of customs duty under protest by appellant noted but does not absolve duty liability [Paras 8-11].

Fraud and Knowledge – Penalty Considerations – Knowledge of fraud or forgery by buyers impacts penalty imposition – Not relevant for determining duty liability – Tribunal’s remand on penalty proceedings noted, directing expedited adjudication [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court’s judgment confirming duty liability upheld – Penalty proceedings on remand to be completed within six months from the date of the judgment [Paras 12].

Service Law – Illegal Termination – Reinstatement and Back Wages – Appellant, a watchman, terminated without notice or procedure under Industrial Disputes Act – Labour Court and Single Judge found termination illegal, ordered reinstatement without back wages – Division Bench replaced reinstatement with lump sum compensation – Supreme Court restores reinstatement with back wages for two years prior to judgment [Paras 1-15].

Judicial Review – Delay in Litigation – Impact on Relief – Management's prolonged litigation unjustifiably delayed appellant’s reinstatement – Denial of back wages during such delay amounts to punishment for judicial delay – Reinstatement ordered with back wages for two years to mitigate unfairness [Paras 10-14].

Employment Law – Adverse Inference – Non-production of Records – Labour Court rightly drew adverse inference against management for failing to produce complete muster rolls – Evidence indicated junior employees were retained while appellant was unfairly terminated [Paras 4-9].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Appellant to be reinstated with back wages from 01.01.2020 to 01.01.2022 – Continuity of service restored – Back wages to be paid within six weeks [Paras 14-15].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – Enhancement – Appeals challenge compensation awarded by the High Court – Supreme Court enhances compensation further by Rs. 100,000 and Rs. 200,000 per acre for different sets of appeals, following precedent cases – Delay in filing appeals leads to denial of statutory benefits including interest from the date of the High Court judgment until the appeals were filed [Paras 1-6].

Delay and Statutory Benefits – Consequence of Delay – Significant delay in preferring first appeals noted – Supreme Court denies statutory benefits, including interest on enhanced compensation, for the period between High Court judgments and the filing of appeals in Supreme Court – Balance compensation to be paid promptly [Paras 5-6].

Precedent Application – Reliance on Prior Cases – High Court relied on previous decisions in Surjit Singh and Kapoor Singh cases – Supreme Court follows its earlier enhancement rulings in these cases, ensuring consistent compensation [Paras 3-5].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced as specified – Statutory benefits including interest denied for specified delay period – Enhanced compensation to be deposited within three months [Paras 6-7].

Motor Accident Claims – Compensation Enhancement – Deceased persons were drivers with valid licenses – Tribunal awarded compensation based on Rs. 7500/- per month income – High Court enhanced to Rs. 8500/- per month – Supreme Court further enhances considering income as Rs. 10000/- per month with 40% future prospects [Paras 2-4].

Loss of Dependency – Income Assessment – Considering drivers' earnings and adding 40% for future prospects – Deducting 1/3rd for personal expenses – Applying relevant multiplier for compensation calculation [Paras 4.1-4.2].

Interest on Compensation – Balance enhanced amount to be deposited within eight weeks – Failure to deposit will attract 7.5% interest throughout [Para 5.1].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Compensation enhanced – Respondents to deposit balance enhanced amount with Tribunal within specified time [Paras 5-5.1].

Maritime Law – Port Dues and Anchorage Charges – Vessel sold in public auction free of encumbrances – Dispute over liability for port dues and anchorage charges accrued prior to sale – Vessel docked at Mumbai Port since March 23, 2020 – Appellant contended charges should be borne by previous owner – Supreme Court held liability from the date of sanction of sale falls on the purchaser [Paras 1-25].

Port Dues – Definition and Liability – Port dues under Section 50-B applicable when vessel enters port without discharging/taking cargo or passengers – Anchorage fees determined based on duration of docking – Supreme Court clarified anchorage charges post-sale fall under purchaser’s responsibility, calculated from sale date [Paras 23-24].

Auction Terms – Free from Encumbrances – Vessel sold “as is where is” basis free of existing liens – Pre-sale liabilities not foisted on purchaser – Anchorage charges accrued from sale sanction date to removal date – Purchaser liable for costs from date of physical possession [Paras 10-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment upheld – Appellant liable for anchorage charges from date of sale sanction [Paras 25].

Execution of Decree – Identifiability of Suit Property – Decree can only be executed if the suit property is easily identifiable – Dispute over exact boundaries of Plot No. 4/4 vs. Plot No. 4/5 – Court mandates precise demarcation by Local Commissioner [Paras 45-47, 51].

Possession and Mesne Profits – Determination and Restoration – Appellant directed to restore any excess land wrongfully claimed, including Plot No. 4/5 or land belonging to Delhi Government – Mesne profits to be computed afresh from 1st March 2006 till possession relinquishment [Paras 54-56].

Legal Standards – Order 7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 CPC – Plaint must include sufficient property description for identification – Decree execution based on exact property identification to avoid wrongful possession claims [Paras 49-50].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Executing Court to decide applications afresh, appointing Revenue Officer as Local Commissioner to demarcate and transfer possession of Plot No. 4/4 – Excess land to be restored to Appellant – Mesne profits computed in accordance with modified decree [Paras 55-56].

Right of Appeal – Statutory Basis – Appeal rights are conferred by statute and are not automatic – Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC can only be entertained on substantial questions of law, not on factual findings of lower courts [Paras 1-2, 36-37].

Substantial Question of Law – Definition and Tests – To be substantial, a question of law must be debatable, of general public importance, or directly affecting parties' rights – Well-settled legal principles applied to facts do not constitute substantial questions of law – Criteria laid out in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons, Santosh Hazari, and other precedents reiterated [Paras 27-32].

Second Appeal – High Court’s Jurisdiction – High Court can interfere only when substantial questions of law are involved – Mere reappreciation of evidence is not warranted – Findings of fact by First Appellate Court should be respected unless material evidence is ignored or wrong legal principles applied [Paras 23-25, 33-35].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in Regular Civil Appeal No. 361 of 1984 restored [Para 38].

Insolvency Law – Withdrawal of Application – Before Committee of Creditors (CoC) Constitution – Section 12A of IBC allows withdrawal of an application admitted under Sections 7, 9, or 10 upon approval by 90% voting shares of the CoC – Prior to CoC constitution, applicant can withdraw the application without CoC approval – NCLT’s inherent powers under Rule 11 of NCLT Rules allow withdrawal to meet ends of justice [Paras 23-24, 28-29].

Settlement of Disputes – Inherent Powers of Tribunal – IBC aims to resolve insolvency efficiently, promoting economic growth – NCLT can permit withdrawal of CIRP applications to facilitate business operations and settlements, preventing undue hardship on corporate debtors [Paras 26-27].

NCLAT Interim Order – Scope of Appeal – Interim order staying CoC constitution but allowing CIRP process continuation – Settlement application under Section 12A pending – Supreme Court finds no substantial question of law warranting interference – NCLT directed to decide settlement application promptly [Paras 31-32].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – NCLT to expeditiously decide settlement application in accordance with observations [Para 32].

Insolvency Law – Financial Debt – The appellant challenged the initiation of CIRP against Doshi Holdings, arguing that no disbursement was made to Doshi Holdings and thus no financial debt existed. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Authority, stating that Doshi Holdings was party to the Loan-cum-Pledge Agreements in a dual capacity as borrower and pledgor. The approval of a resolution plan for one borrower does not discharge a co-borrower from liability [Paras 33-34, 36-37].

Contract Law – Pledge and Guarantee – The court differentiated between contracts of indemnity, guarantee, and pledge, stating that a pledgor per se may not be a financial debtor. However, in this case, Doshi Holdings was found to be a borrower in addition to being a pledgor [Paras 35-36].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The court found no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Authority, affirming the initiation of CIRP against Doshi Holdings [Para 38].