Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder of wife – Deceased died due to asphyxia caused by throttling – Injuries on the body indicative of foul play – Appellant failed to explain injuries and cause of death – Prosecution established a chain of circumstances pointing to guilt of the appellant – Conviction upheld by Supreme Court [Paras 1-11, 12-19].

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act – Applicability – Burden of proof – When a death occurs within the privacy of the home and the accused is the only person with the deceased, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances leading to death – Appellant's failure to offer a satisfactory explanation strengthens the prosecution case – Court affirmed the principle that false or no explanation can be an additional link in the chain of circumstances [Paras 12-13, 18-19].

Concurrent Findings – Judicial Review – Supreme Court reiterated the principle that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a manifest illegality or error resulting in grave injustice – High Court and Trial Court had concurrent findings establishing guilt of the appellant – No ground for interference found [Paras 11, 19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment upheld – No interference with concurrent findings of lower courts [Para 19].

Central Excise Act – Classification of Goods – Product manufactured by appellant described as Modified Vapour Absorption Chillers (MVAC) – Appellant claimed classification as heat pumps under Heading 84.18 for concessional excise duty – Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise negated the claim – Commissioner (Appeals) upheld appellant’s classification – CESTAT reversed decision, classifying product under Sub-heading 8418.10 as refrigerating equipment – Supreme Court affirmed CESTAT’s decision, holding MVAC primarily functions as chiller, not heat pump, despite incidental hot water production [Paras 1-21].

Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) – Definition and Interpretation – HSN definition of heat pumps: devices drawing heat from suitable sources and converting it into intense heat – MVAC primarily produces chilled water, with hot water production being incidental – Market parlance test supports classification as refrigerating equipment – HSN definition used as guiding principle for tariff classification – Consistency with international standards emphasized [Paras 6-10, 18-21].

Precedents – Relevant Case Law – References to previous cases including Central Excise Delhi vs. Carrier Aircon Ltd., Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise vs. Voltas Ltd., and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Amritsar vs. D.L. Steels – Consideration of market recognition and primary functionality in classification disputes – Principles of functional classification upheld [Paras 5.3-5.6, 12-15, 17-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – MVAC classified under Sub-heading 8418.10 as refrigerating equipment – CESTAT’s decision affirmed – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 21].

Company Law – SEZ Compliance – Appellant-CWC challenged the High Court's order directing compliance with SEZ requirements or relocation – Appellant-CWC, a statutory corporation, sub-leased land within SEZ from respondent-APSEZL for warehousing – High Court's directions required CWC to either obtain SEZ approval or relocate – Supreme Court emphasized the need for a balanced approach considering interests of both parties – Decision quashed High Court's order and remitted matter for reconsideration by Single Judge [Paras 1-55].

Statutory Corporation – Balancing Interests – High Court directed CWC to comply with SEZ norms or relocate without considering CWC's statutory role and financial implications – CWC's obligations to its stakeholders, government policies, and public interest not adequately weighed – Supreme Court highlighted the importance of safeguarding statutory corporation's interests while resolving disputes with private entities [Paras 44-47, 54-55].

Judicial Precedents – Conflicting Stands – Union of India’s ministries took opposing stands on SEZ delineation/denotification – Ministry of Commerce and Industry opposed, while Ministry of Consumer Affairs supported CWC’s request – Supreme Court emphasized need for uniform governmental stance and resolution of inter-departmental conflicts to ensure coherent policy implementation [Paras 50-53].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment and order quashed – Matters remitted to Single Judge for fresh consideration – Interim orders to continue until further directions – Encouraged parties to explore amicable settlement [Paras 55-58].

Insolvency Law – Pre-Existing Dispute – Standard for assessing pre-existing disputes under IBC cannot be equated with preponderance of probability principle used by civil courts – NCLAT erred in concluding no dispute within IBC's meaning – NCLT's admission of insolvency application set aside by Supreme Court [Paras 1-10].

Dispute Definition – Mobilox Precedent – Dispute must be plausible and not spurious, hypothetical, or illusory – Email exchanges between appellant and respondent indicated a genuine dispute over quality of coal supplied – Failure to mention earlier communication in statutory reply does not negate existence of dispute [Paras 6-8, 10-12].

Sales of Goods Act, 1930 – Breach of Warranty – Section 59 allows buyer to claim damages for breach of warranty even after accepting goods – Acceptance of goods does not preclude buyer from raising quality issues and seeking remedies for breach of warranty [Paras 22-28, 30-35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – NCLAT's order quashed – NCLT's order admitting insolvency application set aside – Directed NCLT to reconsider application in light of genuine dispute over quality of goods [Para 40].

Motor Vehicles Act – Enhancement of Compensation – Death of a child aged 12 years in an accident – Tribunal awarded Rs. 150,000 – High Court enhanced to Rs. 200,000 – Supreme Court determined Rs. 500,000 as just compensation – Tribunal/Court can award compensation exceeding claimed amount if justified – Enhanced amount to carry 7% interest from claim petition date till realization [Paras 1-15].

Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Loss – Just Compensation – High Court erred in limiting compensation to claim petition amount – Assessment must consider pecuniary loss, future prospects, and conventional heads – Appellant's son was a brilliant student, justifying higher compensation for future loss of earnings and prospects [Paras 3-13].

Precedents – Calculation of Notional Income – Cases referenced include R.K. Malik, Kishan Gopal, and Kurvan Ansari – Notional income of deceased child considered Rs. 30,000 with future prospects – Multiplier of 15 applied based on Sarla Verma guidelines – Rs. 450,000 for dependency loss plus Rs. 50,000 for conventional heads [Paras 9-12].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Compensation enhanced by Rs. 300,000 – Total compensation Rs. 500,000 – Interest at 7% p.a. from claim petition date till realization – Payment to be made by United India Insurance Company within four weeks [Paras 15-16].

Wealth Tax Act – Valuation of Shares – Respondent-assessee gifted shares under a lock-in period – Shares listed and quoted on stock exchanges but restricted from trading – Tribunal/Court must determine if such shares are "quoted shares" – Supreme Court affirmed shares under lock-in are not "quoted shares" due to lack of regular market transactions [Paras 1-7].

Rule Interpretation – Restrictions on Transfer – Rule 21 of Part H of Schedule III W.T. Act clarifies valuation for shares with transfer restrictions – Shares must be valued considering restrictions – Explanation to Rule 2(9) of Part A Schedule III allows courts/tribunals to determine if shares are "quoted" despite stock exchange certificates [Paras 10-15].

Statutory Valuation Method – Mandatory Nature – Rule 11 of Part C Schedule III prescribes method for unquoted shares – No deviation permitted – Valuation must adhere to statutory formula for unquoted shares – Hybrid or ad hoc methods not allowed [Paras 8-9, 13-15].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Tribunal/Court must apply statutory rules for valuation considering restrictions – Assessee’s appeal dismissed as not pressed – No order as to costs [Para 16].

Securities Law – Multiple Registrations – SEBI requires stock brokers to obtain separate certificates of registration for each stock exchange they operate in – High Court held a single registration sufficient – Supreme Court reversed High Court, upholding SEBI’s requirement for multiple registrations to regulate securities market effectively – Compliance with multiple stock exchanges' specific regulations necessitates separate registrations [Paras 1-52].

Ad Valorem Fees – Calculation – High Court ruled fees payable only once for initial registration – Supreme Court upheld SEBI's circular mandating fees for each certificate of registration – Clarified that fee payment structure aligns with regulatory objectives and oversight requirements for each stock exchange membership [Paras 38-42].

Regulatory Scheme – Purposive Interpretation – Interpretation of Section 12(1) of SEBI Act must align with regulatory intent to maintain market integrity and investor protection – Multiple registrations ensure comprehensive regulation across different stock exchanges – Purpose of the legislation supported by requiring distinct compliance for each trading platform [Paras 43-47].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court's judgments set aside – Upheld SEBI's requirement for separate registrations and corresponding fees – Directed stock brokers to comply with SEBI’s circular dated 28th March 2002 regarding fees [Paras 51-54].

Criminal Law – Abetment of Suicide – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Appellant convicted under Section 306 IPC for the murder of Kamalamma – High Court reversed trial court's acquittal, convicting appellant based on circumstantial evidence including alleged motive, extra-judicial confession, and discovery of the weapon and body – Supreme Court affirmed High Court’s decision, emphasizing suspicion cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-11, 12-19].

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act – Applicability – Burden of proof – When a death occurs within the privacy of the home and the accused is the only person with the deceased, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances leading to death – Appellant's failure to offer a satisfactory explanation strengthens the prosecution case – Court affirmed principle that false or no explanation can be an additional link in the chain of circumstances [Paras 12-13, 18-19].

Concurrent Findings – Judicial Review – Supreme Court reiterated the principle that it would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a manifest illegality or error resulting in grave injustice – High Court and Trial Court had concurrent findings establishing guilt of the appellant – No ground for interference found [Paras 11, 19].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment upheld – No interference with concurrent findings of lower courts [Para 19].

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Late Filing – Counter-claim filed 13 years after written statement – Single Judge allowed counter-claim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings – Division Bench set aside order for lack of opportunity to plaintiffs – Supreme Court restored Single Judge’s order, emphasizing counter-claim filed before issues framed – Late counter-claim permitted in exceptional circumstances before commencement of plaintiff’s evidence – Procedural laws should aid justice, not obstruct it [Paras 1-19].

Principles from Ashok Kumar Kalra Case – Timeliness – Counter-claim generally filed with written statement – Court discretion to allow late counter-claim considering factors like period of delay, reason for delay, and prejudice to opposite party – Not typically allowed after issues framed – Supreme Court found no prejudice or undue delay here, counter-claim necessary for comprehensive adjudication [Paras 13-13.1].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Division Bench order set aside – Single Judge order restored – Suit to proceed from current stage with counter-claim on record – No costs [Paras 18-19].