Criminal Conspiracy – Evidence Requirement – To prove conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, an agreement between parties for an unlawful act must be established – Difficult to prove by direct evidence, but must show meeting of minds – Conviction based on bits of evidence or confessional statements of co-accused without corroboration not safe – Prosecution failed to prove conspiracy against appellant – Appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 12-14].

Confessional Statements – Admissibility – Confessions made to police officers inadmissible under Evidence Act – Statements of co-accused without corroborative evidence insufficient for conviction – Indra Dalal v. State Of Haryana (2015) 11 SCC 31 applied [Paras 12-14].

Review of Evidence – High Court's Role – Confirmation of conviction requires analysis and sound reasons – High Court failed to consider evidence properly – Uppa alias Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka (2013) 14 SCC 729 applied [Paras 13-14].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant acquitted of all charges – Appellant to be released unless required in connection with any other case [Para 15].

Civil Suit – Declaration of Ownership – Registration of Sale Deed – Registration subject to adjudication by competent civil court – Cancellation deed cannot be registered unilaterally – Subject matter of pending suit – High Court's reliance on Satya Pal Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) 10 SCC 767 correct – Suit to determine rights – Appeal disposed of with directions for expeditious disposal of pending suit [Paras 14-17].

Registration of Document – Rights Adjudication – Registration does not affect parties' rights adjudication by civil court – Appellants entered appearance in pending suit – Civil court to decide validity of cancellation deed – Thota Ganga Laxmi & Anr. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2010) 15 SCC 207 distinguished [Paras 14-16].

Status Quo – Pending Suit – Parties directed to maintain status quo regarding possession until disposal of suit – Suit to be disposed of within one year [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Rights of parties to be governed by judgment in pending suit – Status quo to be maintained – Suit to be decided on merits within one year – No order as to costs [Para 17].

Consumer Protection – Pre-deposit Condition – Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Pre-deposit of 50% mandatory for appeal before National Commission – Intended to avoid frivolous appeals – Pre-deposit condition distinct from conditions for stay – National Commission can conditionally stay State Commission orders with deposit of entire or higher amounts – Such orders must be reasoned and not mechanical – Appeals partly allowed, matters remanded to National Commission for fresh consideration of stay applications [Paras 10-16].

Stay of Orders – Discretionary Power – National Commission's discretion to conditionally stay orders – Speaking order required for conditional stay – Stay akin to money decree under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC – Detailed reasoning necessary for stay on deposit of entire amount or higher than 50% [Paras 13-15].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – National Commission to reconsider stay applications with reasoned orders – Status quo to be maintained until new orders – National Commission to decide within eight weeks [Paras 16-17].

Civil Procedure – Additional Evidence in Appeal – Section 107 and Order 41 Rule 27 CPC – Appellate Court's discretion to admit additional evidence – High Court erred in dismissing appeal without deciding application for additional evidence – Appellate Court should consider application and evidence when deciding appeal – Dismissal of appeal without considering application for additional evidence can lead to miscarriage of justice – Appeal allowed, case remitted to High Court for fresh disposal [Paras 8-11].

Production of Additional Evidence – Requirements – Application should include list of documents and copies served on other party – High Court must decide on application before final judgment – Appellate Court as last fact-finding court must ensure all relevant evidence is considered [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in light of observations – No order as to costs [Paras 11-12].

Constitutional Law – Proportionality Analysis – Clause 2(iii) of MTT Guidelines prohibiting MTTs for PPE products – Prohibition aimed at ensuring sufficient domestic stock during COVID-19 pandemic – Measure enacted in legitimate state interest of public health and safety – Court applied four-pronged proportionality test to determine validity – Found suitable, necessary, and balanced with individual rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 – Measure upheld [Paras 29-49].

Regulatory Authority – RBI’s Role – Regulation of foreign exchange and international trade – RBI’s linking of MTTs with import/export permissibility under Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) reasonable – Ensures consistency in policy and prevents diversion of crucial PPE stocks during global crisis – Judicial deference to expert regulatory body emphasized [Paras 35-49].

Public Health and Safety – Right to Life – State duty to ensure adequate healthcare supplies during pandemic – Prohibition on MTTs aligns with ensuring domestic availability and preventing international stockpiling – Balance between public interest and individual business freedoms maintained [Paras 29-37].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s decision upheld – Clause 2(iii) of the 2020 MTT Guidelines valid and constitutionally justified [Para 49].

Civil Procedure – Impleadment in Execution Proceedings – Order XXI, Rule 97 and Rule 101 CPC – All questions including right, title, or interest in property arising in execution proceedings to be determined by the Executing Court – Separate suit not required – BDA's applications for impleadment and obstruction dismissed by Executing Court and High Court set aside – Appeals allowed, BDA to be impleaded and objections adjudicated by Executing Court [Paras 5-7].

Acquisition and Possession – Obstruction to Execution – BDA claimed title to acquired land – Executing Court must adjudicate on obstruction based on BDA’s claimed right and interest – High Court and Executing Court orders unsustainable – BDA's impleadment and obstruction applications to be reconsidered [Paras 5-7].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court's judgment and Executing Court's order set aside – BDA to be impleaded in execution proceedings – Executing Court to adjudicate BDA’s objections within six months [Para 7].

Insurance Law – Mediclaim Policy – Repudiation – Insured sought mediclaim policy for travel abroad – Insured disclosed diabetes mellitus but not hyperlipidaemia – Suffered heart attack abroad and claimed under policy – Insurance company repudiated citing non-disclosure of hyperlipidaemia – NCDRC upheld repudiation – Supreme Court held policy repudiation illegal – Insured entitled to indemnification for medical expenses abroad – Appeal allowed, NCDRC order set aside [Paras 1-71].

Duty of Disclosure – Principle of Uberrimae Fidei – Insured must disclose all material facts known to them – Insurance contracts require utmost good faith – Non-disclosure must be material and known to insured – Repudiation for non-disclosure requires proof that non-disclosed fact was known and material [Paras 29-41].

Contra Proferentem Rule – Interpretation Against Drafter – Ambiguities in insurance contracts interpreted against insurer – Insurer must clearly express exclusions – Ambiguous terms resolved in favor of insured [Paras 44-45].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Respondent directed to indemnify appellant for medical expenses with interest – Costs awarded to appellant [Paras 69-71].

Income Tax – Recalling of Earlier Order – Section 254(2) of Income Tax Act – Powers under Section 254(2) limited to rectifying mistakes apparent from record – ITAT’s jurisdiction does not extend to re-hearing appeals on merits – High Court’s affirmation of ITAT’s recalling order erroneous – Detailed submissions on merits by parties does not confer jurisdiction on ITAT to recall orders – Appeals allowed, ITAT’s and High Court’s orders set aside [Paras 1-7].

Jurisdictional Limits – Mistake Apparent from Record – ITAT can only rectify errors apparent from record – Full re-hearing on merits exceeds ITAT’s Section 254(2) powers – Assessee’s remedy for erroneous merits decision lies in appeal, not recall [Paras 3-6].

High Court’s Review – Incorrect Affirmation – High Court’s grounds for dismissal invalid – ITAT overstepped Section 254(2) jurisdiction – Detailed merit-based re-hearing improper [Paras 6-7].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment and ITAT’s order recalling earlier order set aside – Original ITAT orders restored – Assessee may appeal High Court’s original orders within six weeks [Paras 7-9].

Tax Law – Pre-deposit Requirement – Appellant deposited amounts under protest before the assessment order – Contended that these should be adjusted against the pre-deposit required under Section 26(6A) of the MVAT Act for filing an appeal – Supreme Court held that the plain language of the statute requires a deposit of 10% of the disputed tax liability in addition to any amounts paid under protest – Consequently, appellant was required to pay 10% of the tax disputed at the time of filing the appeal [Paras 1-14].

Interpretation of Tax Statutes – Strict Construction – The court emphasized the need for strict and literal interpretation of taxing statutes – Highlighted that if the legislature intended for protest payments to be set off, it would have explicitly provided so – Reaffirmed that a taxing statute should be construed strictly without inferring intentions or considering substance over form [Paras 11-12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Appellant's appeal to the tax authority restored subject to verification of compliance with the 10% pre-deposit requirement as interpreted [Para 13].