Facts:

A Company Petition was filed, and documents (No. 1 to 54) were submitted by the Respondents. The Appellant alleged theft/misappropriation of these documents. Documents 2 to 28 were alleged to be photocopied and returned, while documents 29 to 54 were not returned.

Issues:

The alleged theft/misappropriation of documents and the validity of the criminal complaint based on these allegations.

Held:

The court found that the allegations in the complaint lacked material particulars and were vague regarding the commission of theft (Para 39, 42, 47).

Specific averments against the respondents were missing, and the statements lacked details on how the accused were responsible for moving the documents out of the appellant's possession (Para 48).

The statements of the employee were considered insufficient, being a bare statement without specific allegations against the accused (Para 54).

The Magistrate's order lacked application of mind, and the issuance of summons was not well-founded, lacking a prima facie case against the accused (Para 57).

The complaint lacked particulars regarding the time and place of theft, and how the documents went out of the complainant's possession (Para 58).

The court emphasized the restricted scope of enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and the serious responsibility of the Magistrate to ensure sufficient grounds before issuing process (Para 61).

The court ruled that the use of documents in pending litigations did not amount to theft and lacked dishonest intention or wrongful gain, resulting in no wrongful loss to the appellant (Para 70).

Considering the facts and the number of litigations, the court deemed the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of the court's process, quashing the criminal complaint (Para 89).

Facts:

The case involves a dispute between a husband (respondent No. 1) and his two wives (appellant and respondent No. 2) arising from a matrimonial suit. The High Court, in its order dated 09.08.2011, disposed of the appeal filed by the first wife against the husband under Order 43 Rule 1 (d) of CPC. The second wife (appellant) was not made a party to the appeal, and the High Court did not consider the consequences of the marriage between the appellant and the husband.

Issues:

The appellant not being made a party to the appeal.

The High Court not considering the consequences of the marriage between the appellant and the husband.

Held:

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the case to the High Court for deciding the miscellaneous appeal afresh on merits. The need for remand arose as the appellant was not made a party, and the High Court's directions were deemed incapable of due performance. The impugned order was considered without jurisdiction and legally unsustainable. The Court requested the High Court to implead the appellant in the appeal and encouraged the parties to settle amicably before deciding the appeal on its merits.

Facts:

The appellants, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, challenged the selection process for the limited departmental examination for the promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) in the Police Department of Uttar Pradesh. The examination was conducted by the UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, and the appellants alleged that the selection process was undertaken without applying the Reservation Policy.

Issues:

Whether the selection process was conducted in accordance with the Reservation Policy.

Whether the criteria for securing 50% marks should be reckoned subject-wise or paper-wise.

Held:

The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the merit-based selection process and upheld the requirement of a minimum of 50% marks in each subject.( Para 13)

The Court rejected the reliance on a previous order, stating that it did not decide the current controversy and could not serve as a precedent.( Para 14)

The Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellants did not fulfill the criteria of obtaining 50% marks in each subject.( Para 15)

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over the ownership of properties, with the plaintiffs claiming a 3/4th share in the suit properties. The properties were purchased by the father-in-law in the name of his wife (defendant no.1), leading to allegations of benami transactions.

Issues:

Whether the lower courts erred in shifting the burden to the defendants to prove that the sale transactions were not benami.

Whether the payment of part sale consideration alone is sufficient to determine a transaction as benami.

Whether the surrounding circumstances, relationships, motives, and subsequent conduct were adequately considered in determining the intention behind the transactions.

The impact of the Benami Amendment Act, 2016 on the case.

Held:

The trial court and the High Court erred in shifting the burden to the defendants without the plaintiffs proving, by cogent evidence, the intention of the father-in-law to purchase the properties in the name of his wife (defendant no.1). The reasoning and findings of the lower courts were not in line with the established circumstances by the Supreme Court.( Para 8.4, 9)

The payment of part sale consideration cannot be the sole criterion for deeming a transaction benami. The intention behind the contribution of purchase money must be assessed based on various factors, including the relationship between the parties.( Para 9.1)

The stamp duty at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed alone cannot establish a transaction as benami. Insufficient consideration of other documentary evidence by the lower courts.( Para 9.2)

The Release Deed executed by defendant no.1, on payment of Rs.10,000, was misinterpreted as evidence of joint family properties. Defendant no.1 clarified that it was to avoid future litigation, not an acknowledgment of joint family properties.( Para 9.3)

Defendant no.1's Will and subsequent revocation indicated her consistent belief that the properties were self-acquired, purchased from Stridhana and the sale of jewelry.( Para 9.4)

Plaintiffs claimed that the properties were purchased from funds received by selling ancestral properties, but the timing of transactions contradicts this. The properties were acquired before the sale of ancestral properties.( Para 10, 11)

The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988, and its 2016 amendment were discussed. The court rejected the argument that the amendment affects the presumption of transactions in the name of the wife or children being for their benefit.( Para 12)

Once established that the Sale Deeds were not benami transactions, plaintiffs have no share in the suit properties (except specified ones). The judgments granting 3/4th share to the plaintiffs were quashed and set aside.( Para 12.1, 13)

Facts:

The incident occurred at 9:00 AM on 16.05.1980.

Police officials arrived within half an hour of the occurrence.

Fardbeyan of the informant (PW11) recorded on the spot.

Inquest report and seizure report provided at 10:00 AM and 10:15 AM.

FIR sent to the court on 17.05.1980.

Issues:

Reliability of eyewitness accounts.

Inconsistencies in the inquest report and post mortem report.

Alleged lack of motive for the accused.

Held:

The court cited Kartik Malhar vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614, stating that close relatives are natural witnesses and not necessarily interested.( Para No. 10)

The court dismissed the argument that the absence of the appellant No.2 (Ram Pravesh Dubey) in PW5's statement undermined the case, highlighting that eyewitness accounts of PW11 and PW13 were sufficient.( Para No. 13)

The court addressed the motive, noting that the appellant Shio Shankar Dubey's anger due to the deceased's nephew contesting an election against him was a plausible motive.( Para No. 18)

The court emphasized the rapid police response and the immediacy of recording the fardbeyan and preparing the inquest report, concluding that there was no opportunity for false implication.( Para No. 20)

The court affirmed the prosecution's case, considering the eyewitness account, prompt police actions, and corroborating medical evidence. The conviction and sentencing of the appellants were upheld.( Para No. 21)

Facts:

The appeal arises from the decisions of the CERC, addressing the capitalization of Foreign Exchange Rate Variation (FERV). The methodology for calculating FERV was affirmed, but the apportionment of FERV between debt and equity was contested.

Issues:

Whether FERV should be apportioned between debt and equity and the legality of such apportionment, considering the regulations in place.

Held:

The Court held that the question of apportionment of FERV between debt and equity is not a substantial question of law. Regulation 1.13(a) of CERC Regulations, 2001, cited for apportionment, did not provide for it, and no legal precedent supported the argument. Additionally, the Court noted that once FERV is calculated, it can be recovered directly by the utilities from beneficiaries without filing a petition before the CERC, as per Regulations 1.3 and 1.7. The Court dismissed the appeals for lack of a substantial question of law.

Facts:

The appellant was accused of pouring acid on the victim, causing extensive injuries.

The victim suffered acid burns from head to thigh on the left side, leading to more than 50 days of hospitalization.

The victim asserted his inability to carry out daily routines during hospitalization, and the treating doctor mentioned the possibility of disfigurement.

Issues:

Whether the injuries inflicted qualified as grievous hurt under Section 320 IPC.

Whether the punishment awarded was adequate, considering the gravity of the offense.

Held:

The court emphasized that the extensive acid burn injuries and the victim's long hospitalization suggested severe bodily pain for more than 20 days, meeting the criteria under Section 320 IPC.( Para 10.1)

The court highlighted the gruesome nature of acid attacks and the legislative response through Act No. 13 of 2013, providing higher punishments.( Para 11)

Considering the circumstances, including the age of the accused and the historical context of the offense, the court refrained from enhancing the punishment and upheld the original sentence.( Para 12)

The appeal was dismissed.( Para 13)

Facts:

The Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority (appellant) appealed against a judgment by the High Court related to construction activities in notified CRZ areas. The appellant authority is empowered to handle environmental issues in CRZ, and construction activities in these areas require consultation and concurrence with the appellant authority.

Issues:

Whether construction activities in notified CRZ areas comply with CRZ notifications and regulations.

The role of local self-governments and competent authorities in obtaining building permits for CRZ areas.

Held:

The Court, after hearing the appeals and considering expert opinions, found that the construction activities in CRZ-III were in violation of relevant statutory provisions and CRZ notifications. The Committee established to evaluate the matter concluded that the area fell within CRZ-III, where construction is strictly restricted. The Court held that the constructions were impermissible and unauthorized within the prohibited area. It ordered the removal of all structures within one month.

The appeals are, accordingly allowed with aforesaid direction. Interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Facts:

The case involves M/S Steel Authority of India Ltd. challenging the demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944, on the retrospective escalation of excise duty based on an escalation clause.

Issues:

Whether interest is payable under Section 11AB on the retrospective differential excise duty.

When price is revised upward with retrospective effect, and the excise duty is paid immediately on a future date, is interest payable under Section 11AB from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which the duty ought to have been paid.

Held:

The scheme of the Central Excise Act and Rules constitutes a separate code. Section 11A deals with recovery, and Section 11AB is attracted in case of non-levy, non-payment, short-levy, or short-payment under Section 11A. The liability for interest arises when duty, determined or paid under Section 11A, becomes recoverable. The interest clock starts ticking from the date as provided in Rule 8 read with Section 11AB.( Para 35-36)

Section 11A must be read with Section 11AB, and interest under Section 11AB is applicable when duty is not levied or paid, or is short-levied, short-paid, or erroneously refunded. The liability for interest arises from the first day of the month succeeding the month in which duty ought to have been paid.( Para 43, 45-47)

Goods become exigible to duty on removal, and assessment is done by the assessee through self-assessment. Provisional assessment triggers interest liability from the first day of the month succeeding the month for which the amount is determined, as per Rule 7(4).( Para 49-51)

Short-levy can overlap with non-payment, and short-payment may occur despite full levy. Short-levy involves incorrect application of components like rate of duty, valuation, and quantity. In a case of retrospective escalation of price, Section 11A read with Section 11AB applies.( Para 58)

If short-levy is understood as a case where assessment is not full, taking into account correct parameters, it could be classified as a case of short-levy. In a case of retrospective escalation, differential duty becomes payable, triggering Section 11A read with Section 11AB.( Para 59)

Even if the statutory authority labels it as a case of short-levy, Section 11A read with Section 11AB is attracted, and interest calculation starts from the date provided in Rule 8.( Para 60)

The second explanation of Section 11A(2)(b) contemplates voluntary payment by the assessee without a notice under Section 11A. Interest under Section 11A(2)(b) applies to any of the four amounts: non-levy, non-payment, short-levy, or short-payment.( Para 62)

The appeals will stand dismissed.