Armed Forces – Misconduct – Summary trial dismissed the respondent from service for striking a superior officer – Armed Forces Tribunal modified the dismissal to 75 days detention and deprivation of First Good Conduct Badge – Supreme Court held that Tribunal has jurisdiction to substitute and mitigate punishment, finding the original dismissal order disproportionate – Appeal dismissed, reinstating the respondent without back wages but with consequential benefits [Paras 1-14].

Evidence and Procedure – Examination of Witnesses – Superior officer who was struck by the respondent was neither cited as a witness nor examined during the investigation – Tribunal noted lack of evidence from three witnesses regarding the alleged incident – Tribunal found the respondent's reaction was provoked by abusive language used by the superior officer, leading to substitution of the punishment [Paras 3-5, 9-12].

Jurisdiction – Powers of Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal empowered under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act to substitute findings and mitigate punishment if found excessive, illegal, or unjust – Supreme Court slow to interfere with Tribunal's decision unless found arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious [Paras 10, 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Respondent to be reinstated within two months without back wages but with all consequential benefits [Para 14].

Land Settlement – Pre-Partition Tenants – Appellants claimed themselves as pre-partition tenants on land in Village Poppalguda, Ranga Reddy District – Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the writ petitions in accordance with law, as the High Court had earlier allowed writ petitions filed by the State without considering the claims of pre-partition tenants – Other appellants given liberty to seek redressal in appropriate forums [Paras 1-8].

Central Government Land Transfer – Court referred to its earlier judgment in Ramesh Parsram Malani & Ors. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors., which held that transfer of land to the State Government does not take it out of the compensation pool, but should be used for the settlement of displaced persons first before other purposes [Para 4].

Decision – Order of the High Court dated February 12, 2016, set aside – Matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration – Appellants allowed to seek redressal in appropriate legal forums [Para 8].

Sales Tax – Applicability on Bonded Warehouses – Appellants argued that sales of imported goods stored in bonded warehouses and sold to foreign-bound ships should not be subject to sales tax as they are in the course of import – Supreme Court held that such sales, occurring after goods are unloaded and kept in bonded warehouses on West Bengal's landmass, are not in the course of import or export and are therefore subject to sales tax under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act [Paras 1-26].

Crossing Customs Frontiers – Definition and Interpretation – Court clarified that goods kept in bonded warehouses are considered to have crossed the customs frontiers of India, thus not exempt from sales tax – Emphasized strict interpretation of taxation statutes, noting that bonded warehouses do not fall within "customs station" as defined under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Customs Act, 1962 [Paras 14-15, 21-25].

Case Analysis – Court rejected appellants' reliance on Indian Tourist Development Corporation case, distinguishing it based on the specific facts involving duty-free shops at airports, which are within customs station areas – Appellants' argument that goods were sold in the course of import was dismissed, affirming that the sales were complete upon appropriation within bonded warehouses [Paras 16-17, 19-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Sales of goods stored in bonded warehouses in West Bengal and sold to foreign-bound ships are subject to state sales tax [Para 27].

Guardianship and Custody – Contact Rights – Courts should ensure that the parent denied custody of the child should have the right to communicate with the child for 5 to 10 minutes daily via video call or other means – This helps maintain and improve the bond between the child and the non-custodial parent, facilitating easier transitions during visits and vacations [Para 22].

Visitation Rights and Contact Rights – The child has a fundamental human right to love, affection, company, and protection from both parents, regardless of parental conflicts – Courts must provide clear guidelines on visitation rights to ensure the child does not lose social, physical, and psychological contact with either parent – Only in extreme circumstances should a parent be denied contact with the child, and reasons must be documented [Paras 20 and 22].

Welfare of the Child – Primary and paramount consideration in custody matters – Court must weigh all circumstances carefully to determine the best interest of the child, considering the need for contact with both parents – Factors such as age of the child, nationality, and previous court orders must be considered – In this case, shared custody arrangements and specific visitation rights were detailed to ensure both parents remain involved in the child's life [Paras 1-37].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Directions provided for custody arrangements, including provisions for daily video calls and biannual visits to India – Custody of the child determined with provisions for both parents’ involvement [Para 37].

Benami Transactions – Nature and Burden of Proof – Appellant contested the claim on the grounds that the money involved was part of a benami transaction, thus barred under Sections 3 and 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Court held that the plaintiff did not seek recovery based on a benami transaction nor claimed any property as benami – The burden of proving a transaction as benami lies on the person asserting it, which the appellant failed to do [Paras 17-18].

Loan Repayment – Evidentiary Support – Plaintiff alleged that the appellant had borrowed Rs. 80,000/- which was not repaid – Appellant contended the amount was returned the next day, a claim unsupported by evidence – High Court found in favor of the plaintiff, noting inconsistencies in the appellant's defense and affirming the existence of the loan with substantial evidence, including unreturned post-dated cheques and acknowledgment of receipt of money [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the High Court upheld – Appellant directed to pay Rs. 80,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 16.02.1990, failing which the interest rate will be 12% p.a. [Para 22].

Juvenile Justice Act – Plea of Juvenility – Gang-rape-murder case – Petitioner claimed juvenility based on School Leaving Certificate – Application under Section 7A of the JJ Act – Supreme Court reiterated that once the plea of juvenility has been rejected by courts up to the Supreme Court, the plea cannot be reagitated by filing a fresh application – Petitioner’s plea had been previously rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, the High Court, and the Supreme Court – SLP dismissed [Paras 1-13].

Legal Precedents – Reference to previous orders – Claim of juvenility must be conclusively determined as per procedure – Petitioner’s age confirmed as above 18 years at the time of the offence in previous court orders – Fresh application barred after conclusive determination by the Supreme Court [Paras 6-11].

Decision: SLP dismissed – Earlier decisions by Metropolitan Magistrate, High Court, and Supreme Court upheld – Petitioner barred from reagitating juvenility claim under Section 7A of the JJ Act [Para 13].

Consumer Protection Act – Agricultural Debt Waiver – The appellants, categorized as 'small farmers', sought a full waiver of their loan under the Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 – District Forum and State Commission ruled in favor of the appellants – NCDRC reversed the decision citing the non-inclusion of the appellants' district in Annexure-I of the Scheme – Supreme Court held that the appellants were entitled to a full waiver as per clause 5 of the Scheme which does not refer to Annexure-I – Appeals allowed, NCDRC order set aside [Paras 1-21].

Agricultural Debt Waiver and Debt Relief Scheme, 2008 – Clause 5 and Clause 6 – Distinction between debt waiver for small and marginal farmers under clause 5 and one-time settlement for other farmers under clause 6 – Explanation of the definitions and applicability of Annexure-I – Appellants' entitlement confirmed under clause 5 for a full waiver as small farmers, without reference to Annexure-I [Paras 10-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC judgment set aside – District Forum's order directing loan waiver restored – Appellants awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 [Para 21].

Employees' Provident Fund – Applicability – Contractual employees of the appellant company sought provident fund benefits – High Court directed that benefits be extended under the EPF Act – Supreme Court modified the direction, holding that benefits should be provided under the Pawan Hans Employees Provident Fund Trust Regulations for uniformity in service conditions – Appeals allowed in part, direction to deposit contributions from the date of eligibility till the date of remittance modified [Paras 1-8].

Definition of 'Employee' – Inclusive definition under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act – Includes any person engaged directly or indirectly in connection with the work of an establishment and paid wages – PF Trust Regulations also cover contractual employees directly paid by the company [Paras 6.3-6.5].

Government Control – Establishment owned or controlled by the Central Government – Appellant company holds 51% shares by Central Government and is managed by Board of Directors – Exemption under Section 16 not applicable as PF Trust Regulations did not cover all employees [Para 6.2].

Decision: Appeals allowed in part – High Court judgment modified – Contractual employees to receive provident fund benefits under the PF Trust Regulations from January 2017 – Contributions and interest to be computed and deposited as directed – Costs of Rs. 5,00,000 awarded to respondent union [Para 8].

Insurance Claim – Repudiation – Interpretation of Insurance Policy – Appellant's showroom collapsed due to excavation work on an adjacent plot – Insurance claim repudiated by insurer based on policy exclusion clause VIII(e) – Supreme Court held that exclusion applies only to excavations carried out by the insured on their property, not third-party excavations – NCDRC's order set aside, and claim allowed [Paras 1-13].

Consumer Protection Act – Section 23 – Jurisdiction – NCDRC reversed concurrent findings of District and State Commissions – Supreme Court emphasized beneficial interpretation for insured in case of ambiguity – Policy exclusions to be construed reasonably, not to include third-party actions unless explicitly stated [Paras 8-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCDRC judgment set aside – District Forum’s order allowing insurance claim restored – No order as to costs [Para 13].