Unfair Trade Practice – Section 2(1)(r)(3)(a) – National Commission's finding that prize money for the HSHS contest was paid from increased SMS charges and that this fact was not disclosed – Supreme Court held that there was no cogent evidence to support the conclusion that the prize money was funded by SMS revenue – The conclusion was based on conjecture and uncorroborated newspaper reports – Appellants had no revenue-sharing agreement and complied with TRAI regulations regarding SMS charges for value-added services [Paras 9-14].

Jurisdiction – National Commission's Jurisdiction – Brief contention that the complaint should have been referred to the TDSAT under the TRAI Act – Not adjudicated as it was not seriously pressed by the parties – Question of law regarding maintainability of complaints by consumer organizations against telecom service providers before consumer fora remains open [Para 16].

Punitive Damages – Award of punitive damages by National Commission – Set aside due to lack of specific prayer for such damages in the complaint and absence of proof of actual loss to consumers [Paras 15-16].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of the National Commission set aside – No unfair trade practice was found to be committed by the appellants [Para 17].

Customs Duty – Exemption and Withdrawal – Appellant imported chemical under an advance licence scheme allowing duty-free import – Exemption withdrawn by Notification No. 183/1993, later clarified by Notification No. 105/1994 allowing exemption for imports under advance licences issued before the amendment – Appellant's consignment cleared without duty initially, but later subjected to duty via a show-cause notice – Supreme Court held that the denial of exemption despite the clarificatory notification was unsustainable, as the consignment met the terms of the exemption [Paras 3-8].

State's Responsibility – Notification Awareness – State's duty to be aware of and apply its own notifications – Court emphasized that the State cannot rely on lack of awareness or failure to produce documents to deny relief – The State must act fairly and assist the court in the dispensation of justice [Paras 9-10].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Appellant entitled to duty exemption as per the clarificatory notification [Para 11].

Contempt of Court – Notifications for Consequential Seniority – Contempt petitions filed challenging the issuance of notifications providing for consequential seniority in promotions to SC/ST members without quantifiable data – Supreme Court held no contempt as notifications were issued exercising powers vested in authorities – Substantive challenges to notifications and committee report to be resolved by High Court [Paras 1-19].

Quantifiable Data Requirement – Supreme Court reaffirmed the need for quantifiable data on backwardness and representation inadequacy before granting consequential seniority in promotions to SC/ST members – High Court to assess validity of notifications in light of committee findings and relevant judgments [Paras 14-19].

Judicial Review – Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction – Contempt petitions dismissed – Issuance of notifications not found willful or contumacious – Substantive challenges to be addressed in appropriate jurisdiction [Paras 18-19].

Decision: Contempt petitions dismissed – High Court requested to expedite the disposal of related writ petitions challenging the issuance of notifications and committee recommendations [Para 19].

Legal Representatives – Determination of Legal Representatives – Appellant claimed to be the legal representative based on a Will – Executing Court found appellant as the competent legal representative to execute the decree – High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, erred by acting as the first court of appeal and interfering with the Executing Court's findings on execution of the Will – Supreme Court restored the Executing Court’s order [Paras 1-15].

Jurisdiction of Executing Court – The Executing Court’s jurisdiction under Order 22 Rule 5 is summary in nature and is limited to representation for the purpose of the specific proceedings – Findings of the Executing Court do not operate as res judicata for other claims or rights to the property [Paras 7-13].

High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction – High Court can only interfere with orders of subordinate courts if there is a jurisdictional error – Different views on the same facts do not justify revisional interference – High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reassessing evidence and substituting its view for that of the Executing Court [Para 15].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Executing Court's order restored [Para 15].

Corporate Insolvency – Enhancement of Fund Inflow – Appellant contested NCLAT’s directive to increase the upfront payment to match liquidation value – Supreme Court held that NCLAT should not have interfered with the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) which approved the resolution plan – Upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order approving the plan with the initial fund inflow [Paras 1-28].

Withdrawal from Resolution Process – Applicability of Section 12-A – Court clarified that Section 12-A, which allows withdrawal from CIRP, does not apply to successful Resolution Applicants – MSL cannot withdraw after having raised funds upon mortgaging the assets of the corporate debtor [Paras 29-30].

Possession of Assets – Directions to Resolution Professional – Allegations of failure to hand over assets to MSL – Supreme Court directed the Resolution Professional to take possession of the assets and hand them over to MSL within four weeks with assistance from police and administrative authorities [Paras 30-32].

Decision: Appeal allowed – NCLAT order set aside – Adjudicating Authority's order affirmed – MSL to remit an additional sum to operational creditors – Directions for possession of assets issued [Paras 31-34].

Sales Tax – Applicability on Bonded Warehouses – Appellants argued that sales of imported goods stored in bonded warehouses and sold to foreign-bound ships should not be subject to sales tax as they are in the course of import – Supreme Court held that such sales, occurring after goods are unloaded and kept in bonded warehouses on West Bengal's landmass, are not in the course of import or export and are therefore subject to sales tax under the West Bengal Sales Tax Act [Paras 1-26].

Crossing Customs Frontiers – Definition and Interpretation – Court clarified that goods kept in bonded warehouses are considered to have crossed the customs frontiers of India, thus not exempt from sales tax – Emphasized strict interpretation of taxation statutes, noting that bonded warehouses do not fall within "customs station" as defined under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and the Customs Act, 1962 [Paras 14-15, 21-25].

Case Analysis – Court rejected appellants' reliance on Indian Tourist Development Corporation case, distinguishing it based on the specific facts involving duty-free shops at airports, which are within customs station areas – Appellants' argument that goods were sold in the course of import was dismissed, affirming that the sales were complete upon appropriation within bonded warehouses [Paras 16-17, 19-20].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Sales of goods stored in bonded warehouses in West Bengal and sold to foreign-bound ships are subject to state sales tax [Para 27].

Land Settlement – Pre-Partition Tenants – Appellants claimed themselves as pre-partition tenants on land in Village Poppalguda, Ranga Reddy District – Supreme Court remitted the matter to the High Court to decide the writ petitions in accordance with law, as the High Court had earlier allowed writ petitions filed by the State without considering the claims of pre-partition tenants – Other appellants given liberty to seek redressal in appropriate forums [Paras 1-8].

Central Government Land Transfer – Court referred to its earlier judgment in Ramesh Parsram Malani & Ors. vs. The State of Telangana & Ors., which held that transfer of land to the State Government does not take it out of the compensation pool, but should be used for the settlement of displaced persons first before other purposes [Para 4].

Decision – Order of the High Court dated February 12, 2016, set aside – Matter remitted to the High Court for reconsideration – Appellants allowed to seek redressal in appropriate legal forums [Para 8].

Armed Forces – Misconduct – Summary trial dismissed the respondent from service for striking a superior officer – Armed Forces Tribunal modified the dismissal to 75 days detention and deprivation of First Good Conduct Badge – Supreme Court held that Tribunal has jurisdiction to substitute and mitigate punishment, finding the original dismissal order disproportionate – Appeal dismissed, reinstating the respondent without back wages but with consequential benefits [Paras 1-14].

Evidence and Procedure – Examination of Witnesses – Superior officer who was struck by the respondent was neither cited as a witness nor examined during the investigation – Tribunal noted lack of evidence from three witnesses regarding the alleged incident – Tribunal found the respondent's reaction was provoked by abusive language used by the superior officer, leading to substitution of the punishment [Paras 3-5, 9-12].

Jurisdiction – Powers of Armed Forces Tribunal – Tribunal empowered under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act to substitute findings and mitigate punishment if found excessive, illegal, or unjust – Supreme Court slow to interfere with Tribunal's decision unless found arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious [Paras 10, 13].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Respondent to be reinstated within two months without back wages but with all consequential benefits [Para 14].

Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Appellant contended the act falls under Section 304 Part II of IPC, arguing the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC – Supreme Court found that none of the exceptions in Section 300 IPC were attracted – The act clearly constituted murder under Section 300 IPC, as the appellant throttled his wife without provocation or sudden quarrel, thus attracting the ingredients of murder [Paras 29-30].

Evidence – Section 106 of Evidence Act – Court noted that the appellant failed to explain the injuries on the deceased and set up a false plea of suicide – Injuries on the deceased corroborated the prosecution's case of throttling, negating the defence of accidental or provoked death [Paras 6-9, 20-21].

Intoxication – Section 86 IPC – Appellant's intoxication did not exempt him from liability as the presumption is that he had the knowledge of his acts – The degree of intoxication was not sufficient to negate intent [Paras 25-27].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence upheld [Para 30].