Facts:

The appellant, M/S. B. Himmatlal Agrawal, was penalized by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for alleged anti-competitive and unfair trade practices. The appellant filed an appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal challenging the CCI's order. The Appellate Tribunal granted a stay on the CCI's order subject to the condition that the appellant deposits 10% of the penalty amount. However, the appellant failed to comply with this condition, leading to the dismissal of their appeal by the Appellate Tribunal.

Issues:

Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appellant's appeal for non-compliance with the deposit condition.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal for failure to comply with the deposit condition was unjustified and illegal. The Court emphasized that the condition of deposit was attached to the order of stay, and non-compliance should have resulted in the vacation of the stay, not the dismissal of the main appeal.

The right to appeal is provided under Section 53B of the Competition Act, 2002, without any condition of pre-deposit. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal itself for failure to deposit the amount was beyond the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal.

The appeal was allowed, and the part of the impugned order dismissing the appellant's appeal was set aside. The appeal was restored and directed to be decided on its merits by the Appellate Tribunal. However, it was clarified that the stay of the CCI's penalty order was vacated due to non-compliance with the deposit condition, and thus, there was no stay of the CCI order in favor of the appellant.

Facts:

Meenakshi Saxena (Appellant) purchased an insurance policy from ECGC Ltd. against loss in export business.

Dispute arose when ECGC Ltd. did not fully pay the insurance claim as per the terms of the policy.

The District Forum ordered ECGC Ltd. to pay 90% of the claimed amount along with interest and litigation expenses.

ECGC Ltd. paid a partial amount during execution proceedings, calculated based on the conversion rate at the time of shipment.

Issues:

Whether the payment made by ECGC Ltd. during execution proceedings satisfied the decree.

Interpretation of the insurance contract clause specifying currency conversion rates.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the payment made by ECGC Ltd. during execution proceedings satisfied the decree. The interpretation of the insurance contract clause specifying currency conversion rates was crucial in determining the compliance of the payment.

The Court emphasized that the executing court's role is to enforce the decree as per its terms. In cases of ambiguity, the court must interpret the decree to give true effect to it but cannot draw a new decree. As the insurance contract explicitly specified the conversion rate based on the date of shipment, ECGC Ltd.'s payment was deemed compliant with the decree.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decision of the NCDRC.

Facts:

Mahabir Industries, engaged in polythene manufacturing, availed deductions under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act for two assessment years.

The company underwent substantial expansion in its factory in Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, qualifying for deductions under Section 80-IC from the assessment year 2006-07 onwards.

The Assessing Officer disallowed deductions claimed for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-2010, citing the limitation of ten assessment years under Section 80-IC(6).

The High Court upheld the AO's decision, holding that deductions could not exceed ten assessment years, counting from the initial assessment year when deductions were first availed under Section 80-IA.

Issues:

Whether deductions claimed by Mahabir Industries under Section 80-IC for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-2010 were rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the High Court?

Whether the provisions of Section 80-IC(6) of the Income Tax Act apply to industrial undertakings established outside the North-Eastern Region?

Held:

The Supreme Court held that deductions under Section 80-IC should not be limited to ten assessment years for industrial undertakings established outside the North-Eastern Region.

The Court interpreted the provision to clarify that the inclusion of periods for deductions availed under Section 80-IA and Section 80-IB was limited to industrial undertakings or enterprises set up in the North-Eastern Region, as specified in Section 80-IC(6).

The Court rejected the Revenue's argument regarding the interpretation of Section 15C of the Income Tax Act, 1922, stating it was irrelevant to the case.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision and allowed Mahabir Industries' appeals, holding that the Assessing Officer was wrong in disallowing deductions under Section 80-IC for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-2010.

Facts:

Lt. Col. Vijaynath Jha, a Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army, sought permanent secondment in the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA), an organization under the Ministry of Defence. The Quality Assurance Selection Board (QASB) of DGQA deemed him unfit for permanent secondment, which was subsequently challenged before the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Issues:

Whether the refusal of permanent secondment by the QASB of DGQA constitutes a "service matter" under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007?

Whether Sections 27 and 33 of the Army Act, 1950 are applicable in this case?

Held:

The action challenged before the Tribunal, i.e., the refusal of permanent secondment by the QASB of DGQA, does not fall under the purview of "service matters" as defined in Section 3(o) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The refusal does not impact the conditions of service of the Commissioned Officer in the Indian Army.

Sections 27 and 33 of the Army Act, 1950 are not applicable in this case. Section 27 provides a remedy for wrongs by commanding officers or superior officers, which is not relevant here. Section 33 deals with the saving of rights and privileges under other laws, which is also not applicable to the facts of this case.

Thus, the appeal was dismissed by the Court.

Facts:

The petitioner, E. Sivakumar, challenged a judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated April 26, 2018, in Writ Petition No. 19335 of 2017.

The High Court had issued a writ of mandamus to transfer the investigation of a criminal case concerning the illegal manufacture and sale of Gutkha and Pan Masala containing Tobacco and/or Nicotine to the CBI.

The petitioner, named as an accused in the FIR, raised objections regarding previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench, lack of opportunity of hearing, absence of special circumstances for transferring the investigation to the CBI, and alleged political motivation behind the writ petition.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI was justified.

Whether the petitioner's objections regarding previous decisions, lack of opportunity of hearing, absence of special circumstances, and alleged political motivation were valid.

Held:

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to transfer the investigation to the CBI, emphasizing the importance of a fair and impartial investigation, especially in cases involving public interest.

The Court dismissed the petitioner's objections, stating that the High Court had adequately considered all aspects of the matter before transferring the investigation.

The argument that previous decisions of the Coordinate Bench were disregarded was rejected, as the High Court had distinguished those decisions and provided reasoning for its decision.

The objection regarding lack of opportunity of hearing was dismissed, as the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, clarifying that transferring the investigation to the CBI did not reflect negatively on the efficiency of the State Vigilance Commission's investigation.

Facts:

The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, highlighted deficiencies in the implementation of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (MGNREGA). The petitioner alleged that the "approved labor budget" fixed by the Central Government violated the essence of the Act. Additionally, it was contended that there was an unreasonable reduction in funds allocated to the States and delays in payment of wages to laborers.

Issues:

The legitimacy of the process of fixing the "approved labor budget" by the Central Government, the responsibility of State Governments regarding objections to fund reductions, the delays in payment of wages, and the entitlement of workers to compensation for delayed payments.

Held:

The Court held that Rule 5 of the National Employment Guarantee Fund Rules, 2006, empowers the Central Government to scrutinize and assess funds to be released to State Governments and Union Territory Administrations for MGNREGA implementation.

The Court emphasized the necessity of meaningful discussions while finalizing the labor budget and dismissed claims of arbitrary budget fixing by the Central Government.

It was decided that objections regarding fund reductions should be raised by the concerned State Governments, and in the absence of such objections, the petitioner cannot challenge the allocations.

Regarding delayed payments, the Court directed the Central Government to address bottlenecks causing delays and emphasized the need for a solution to expedite fund release.

The Court reiterated the statutory mandate of timely wage payment under MGNREGA and directed the Central Government, along with State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, to prepare a time-bound program to ensure timely payment of wages and compensation to workers.

Facts:

The case involves Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 898 of 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007, concerning the Cauvery Water Dispute.

Issues:

The objections raised by the States of Karnataka and Kerala regarding the framing of a scheme for the Cauvery Water Dispute.

Held:

The objections raised by the States of Karnataka and Kerala regarding the framing of a scheme for the Cauvery Water Dispute were dismissed. The Court emphasized that these objections lacked merit and underscored that water, being a subject falling under Entry 17 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, cannot undermine the effectiveness of the Tribunal's Award modified by the Court. The Court stressed the importance of implementing the scheme to ensure the smooth and efficient implementation of the Tribunal's Award.

Facts:

The issue brought before the Supreme Court pertains to the inadequacy of infrastructure within Consumer Fora throughout the nation.

Issues:

The primary issue for consideration in this civil appeal and writ petition is the deficiency in infrastructure within Consumer Fora across the country.

Held:

After hearing all parties involved, including representatives of various states, the Court accepted the Model Rules proposed by the Union of India. Consequently, the Court directed State Governments to frame appropriate rules using their rule-making power under Section 30 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in accordance with the Final Draft Model Rules submitted by the Union of India.

Facts:

The deceased's legal representatives filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, alleging that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident involving a truck owned by the appellant. The insurance company opposed the claim on grounds that the vehicle was driven without a valid permit and other breaches of the insurance policy.

Issues:

Whether the vehicle involved in the accident had a valid permit at the time of the accident.

Whether the insurance company can be held liable for the accident under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the insurance company cannot be held liable due to the absence of a valid permit for the vehicle at the time of the accident. It emphasized that the exceptions carved out in Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 cannot be equated with minor breaches such as absence of a license or carrying more passengers.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the directions for the insurer to pay compensation with the right to recover from the owner and driver.