Taxation – UP VAT Act – Classification of Goods – Embroidered ladies suits considered as "textile made ups" – Respondent's process includes cutting, embroidery, and partial stitching – Product does not remain 'textile' under Entry 21 of Schedule I, nor does it qualify as 'other textile made ups' under Entry 16 of Schedule II – Product falls under residuary Entry 1 of Schedule V taxed at 12.5% – Appeal allowed, lower court's decision set aside [Paras 1-17].

Legal Interpretation – Ejusdem Generis Rule – Interpretation of "other textile made ups" in conjunction with bed sheets and pillow covers – General term takes color from specific items preceding it – Ensures uniform classification and taxation [Para 14].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – High Court's order set aside – Tribunal and first appellate authority's decisions also set aside – Order of Assessing Authority restored – No order as to costs [Paras 17-18].

National Green Tribunal Act – Condonation of Delay – Environmental Clearance – NGT's rejection of application for condonation of delay was erroneous – Communication of order includes dissemination to affected parties, not just publication on the website – Delay explained due to voluminous documents and need for expert legal advice – Appeal allowed, delay condoned, case remanded to NGT for merit hearing [Paras 1-30].

Condonation of Delay – General Clauses Act – Section 10 – Last date for filing appeal falling on a Sunday – Appeal filed on the next working day deemed within time – NGT's narrow interpretation rejected – Sufficient cause shown for delay [Paras 19-21].

Judicial Review – Exercise of Discretion – "Sufficient Cause" – Relative and fact-dependent – Bona fide explanation given – NGT's refusal to condone delay based on narrow reading of the law – Exercise of discretion to be fair and just, especially in environmental matters affecting public interest [Paras 22-29].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – NGT's order set aside – Delay condoned – Case remanded to NGT for decision on merits [Para 30].

Civil Procedure – Consent Decree – Non-Party Rights – Appellants were not parties to consent orders passed in Suit No. 1335/1988 – Consent orders not binding on non-parties – Appellants' rights to be adjudicated independently in pending Suit No. 3162/2005 – Appeal dismissed with observations to protect appellants' rights [Paras 1-21].

Judicial Review – Scope of Appeal – Section 96 CPC – Legal effect of consent orders cannot be examined for non-parties – Appellants’ substantive suit provides remedy – High Court’s dismissal of appeal affirmed – No error in impugned judgment [Paras 18-20].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Held – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Rights of appellants to be protected and adjudicated in Suit No. 3162/2005 without influence from impugned judgment – High Court directed to expedite hearing of the pending suit [Paras 21-22].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent and Misconception of Fact- The relationship between the appellant and the second respondent was consensual and lasted for one and a half years. The appellant's subsequent refusal to marry the respondent does not amount to a false promise at inception, which is necessary to establish a "misconception of fact" under Section 375 IPC. The Supreme Court emphasized that to vitiate consent under a promise to marry, the promise must be false and made in bad faith at the time it was given [Paras 1-11].

Quashing of Charges – Section 482 CrPC- The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC. The allegations in the FIR did not establish that the promise to marry was false at inception. Therefore, no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out, and the charge sheet should be quashed [Paras 11-12].

Decision- Appeal allowed – The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside. The charge sheet dated 25 April 2018 and the order of the trial Court dated 3 October 2018 were quashed [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Recall of Witnesses – Section 311 CrPC- Section 311 CrPC provides the court with wide discretionary power to summon or recall witnesses if their evidence appears essential to the just decision of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the true test is whether the evidence of such person is crucial for resolving the issues in the trial, irrespective of the case's age or duration [Paras 13-15].

Application of Section 311 CrPC – Judicial Discretion- The Supreme Court held that the applications under Section 311 CrPC should be allowed if the evidence sought to be introduced is essential for a just decision. The trial court's and High Court's rejection of the applications for recalling witnesses to mark the Board's approval document was not justified [Paras 14-16].

Decision - Appeals allowed – The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the recall of PWs 1 and 11 for marking the relevant document. The respondent was given the liberty to cross-examine the recalled witnesses. The trial was ordered to be completed by 31 July 2021 [Paras 16-17].

Abuse of Process – Inherent Powers under Section 482 CrPC – Quashing of FIR- The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings if it is found that the proceedings amount to an abuse of process of law or are intended to harass the accused. The Supreme Court highlighted that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to degenerate into a weapon of harassment [Paras 6-7].

Civil Dispute vs. Criminal Prosecution – Distinction and Jurisdiction- The Court observed that the FIR was lodged to pressure the appellants and convert a civil dispute into a criminal case. The Supreme Court found that the FIR, filed with similar allegations as in the application under Section 156(3) CrPC, was an abuse of process, particularly given the pending complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR [Paras 3-4, 7-8].

Decision- Appeal allowed – The Supreme Court quashed the FIR registered as Case Crime No. 790 of 2017 under Sections 420/406 IPC, finding it to be an abuse of process of law. The Court directed that the pending application under Section 156(3) CrPC should proceed on its merits [Paras 9-10].

Tax Exemption – Religious, Charitable, and Educational Purposes – Section 3(1)(b) Kerala Building Tax Act- Buildings used principally for religious, charitable, or educational purposes are exempt from building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975. The Supreme Court held that residential accommodations for nuns and hostels for students attached to educational institutions qualify for exemption as they are integrally connected to the core religious or educational activity [Paras 1-26].

Interpretation of Exemption Provisions – Beneficial Construction - Exemption provisions in fiscal statutes should be construed strictly, but beneficial exemptions, such as those promoting religious, charitable, and educational purposes, should be interpreted liberally to advance the intended legislative purpose. The Court emphasized that the object of the exemption is to support activities that are not commercial in nature and directly related to religious, charitable, or educational purposes [Paras 14-20].

Deference to High Court Interpretations of Local Statutes- The Supreme Court noted that High Court judgments interpreting local statutes, especially tax statutes, should be given deference, particularly when they have stood the test of time and people have arranged their affairs based on the existing legal position [Paras 25-26].

Decision- Appeals by the State of Kerala dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the judgments of the Division Bench and Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, which granted exemptions under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act for buildings used for residential accommodations for nuns and hostels for students. The appeal in Civil Appeal No. 204 of 2012 was allowed, and the Division Bench judgment was set aside [Paras 24-26].

Insolvency Law – Compliance with Resolution Plan – IBC- The appellant failed to deposit Rs. 50 crores as required by the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT and upheld by the NCLAT. Despite multiple extensions, the appellant could not fulfill its obligations under the plan. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to timelines under the IBC to prevent indefinite delays and ensure the statute's objectives are met. The appellant's inability to comply resulted in the forfeiture of the deposited amount and the reversion of management to the liquidator [Paras 1-12].

Time is of the Essence – Resolution Process – IBC- The Supreme Court highlighted that timely compliance is crucial under the IBC. Delays defeat the purpose of the statute, which aims to resolve corporate insolvencies efficiently. The appellant's repeated failures to deposit the required amount within the extended deadlines demonstrated a lack of good faith, justifying the forfeiture of the deposit and continuation of liquidation proceedings [Paras 10-12].

Decision- Appeal dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT, directing the forfeiture of Rs. 20 crores deposited by the appellant due to non-compliance with the Resolution Plan. The management of the Corporate Debtor reverted to the liquidator to proceed with liquidation as per law [Paras 11-12].

Land Acquisition – Compulsory Release and Urgency Provisions – Sections 4 and 5A of the Land Acquisition Act- The State failed to act within the 25-year period prescribed by Section 10B of the West Bengal Requisition Act to release or acquire the requisitioned property. The Supreme Court emphasized that invoking the urgency provisions under Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act post the requisition period was unjustified. The State should have initiated acquisition proceedings well within the stipulated period, preserving the owner's right to object under Section 5A [Paras 1-27].

Delay and Lethargy in Acquisition Proceedings – Judicial Review- The Court criticized the State's lethargy in initiating timely acquisition proceedings, which led to an unjust invocation of urgency provisions. The Division Bench's decision to strike down the notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act was upheld. The State's appeals were dismissed, and directions were given for the vacating of the premises and compensation assessment [Paras 11-20].

Decision- Appeals by the State dismissed – The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's judgment, directing the State to vacate the requisitioned premises and hand over possession to the appellant within three months. The appeals filed by the appellant were allowed to the extent of assessing compensation by an appointed arbitrator [Paras 24-27].