Facts:

The case involved the interpretation of Section 3 and Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly focusing on the definition of "transaction value" and its relation to the charging provisions of the Act. The Court considered the amendments brought about by the Amendment Act, 2000, which introduced changes in the levy and valuation of excisable goods. The judgment also referred to previous decisions, including the Acer India Ltd. case and the Bombay Tyre International Ltd. case.

Issues:

Whether the definition of "transaction value" in Section 4(3)(d) is subject to Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944?

Do Sections 3 and 4 of the Act operate in different fields?

Does the concept of "transaction value" depart significantly from the previous concept of "normal price"?

Held:

The Court clarified that the observation made in the Acer India Ltd. case regarding the subservience of Section 4(3)(d) to Section 3 should be understood in a limited context, where the addition of the value of a non-dutiable item was sought to be made to the value of a dutiable item for determining the transaction value of the composite item. This observation does not conflict with the decision in the Bombay Tyre International Ltd. case.

The Court held that while Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are interlinked, they operate in different fields. The measure of the levy under Section 4 is not controlled by the nature of the levy. Both sections would operate in their respective fields as long as a reasonable nexus is discernible between the measure and the nature of the levy. The decision in the Bombay Tyre International Ltd. case provides the correct exposition of the law in this regard.

The Court determined that the concept of "transaction value" under Section 4(3)(d) incorporates additions to the manufacturing cost and profit, similar to what was held permissible in the Bombay Tyre International Ltd. case. The introduction of the concept of Central Value Added Tax (CENVAT) in the amendment to Section 3 reflects a fundamental change in the charging of tax, and this change is reflected in the definition of "transaction value." There is no discernible difference between the statutory concept of "transaction value" and the judicially evolved meaning of "normal price."

Decision: The Court held that the amendments to Section 3 and the definition of "transaction value" in Section 4(3)(d) reflect a shift towards the concept of value-added taxation. Both sections operate independently within their respective fields, with a reasonable nexus between the levy and the measure of duty.

Facts:

The Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the `2004 Rules') were framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article 234 read with Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

Rule 21(b) of the 2004 Rules stipulated that the successful passing of an examination conducted by the Judicial Academy was the sole condition precedent for confirmation of Civil Judges (Junior Division).

The appellants, who were recruited under the 2004 Rules, were denied confirmation despite clearing the Judicial Academy examination, as they did not clear the Hindi examination conducted by the Revenue Department.

The dispute arose regarding the interpretation of the Rules in relation to the mandatory requirement of passing the Hindi examination for confirmation.

Issues:

Whether passing a Hindi examination conducted by the Revenue Department was a mandatory condition for confirmation under the Jharkhand Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004.

Held:

The Court held that the 1963 Bihar Rules, which mandated the Hindi examination, could not be read into the 2004 Rules, as the latter specifically repealed all earlier rules, including the 2001 Rules which made reference to the Bihar Rules.

The 2004 Rules clearly stated that the successful passing of the Judicial Academy examination was the sole condition precedent for confirmation.

Therefore, the Court ruled that passing the Hindi examination conducted by the Revenue Department was not mandatory under the 2004 Rules.

The Court directed the respondents to ensure that the appellants received the benefits owed to them, including coverage under the old pension scheme.

The appeal was allowed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

Facts:

The appellants filed a civil suit seeking various declarations related to certain properties.

The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and decreed the suit in favor of the appellants.

The respondents filed a second appeal before the High Court, which admitted the appeal and framed six substantial questions of law.

Issues:

Whether the High Court adhered to the procedural requirements for deciding second appeals.

Whether the High Court's decision was based on the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed jurisdictional errors in its decision-making process. Firstly, the High Court failed to answer the six substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal. Secondly, the High Court framed additional questions in its judgment, which were not raised at the time of admission or during the hearing.

These procedural irregularities caused prejudice to the parties, especially the appellants, who were deprived of an opportunity to address the court on the additional questions raised in the judgment. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

The High Court was directed to decide the appeal in accordance with the law and without being influenced by any observations made by the Supreme Court. Given the age of the appeal, the Supreme Court instructed the High Court to expedite the decision-making process.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute regarding compensation under the Railways Act, 1989, arising from a railway accident. Various legal questions concerning the quantum of compensation, the definition of "untoward incident," burden of proof regarding passengers, and the rate of interest were raised.

Issues:

The determination of the quantum of compensation concerning the date of accrual, interest, and the higher of calculated amounts.

Clarification regarding the concept of 'self-inflicted injury' under the Railways Act, particularly concerning negligence and liability.

Establishing the burden of proof when a body is found on railway premises to determine the status of the deceased as a bona fide passenger.

Determination of the rate of interest applicable to railway accident compensation claims.

Held:

Regarding the quantum of compensation, the liability accrues from the date of the accident, and the applicable amount as on that date is recoverable. Interest is payable from the date of the accident until payment at a reasonable rate, with the claimant entitled to the higher of calculated amounts.

The concept of 'self-inflicted injury' under the Railways Act requires intent to inflict harm, not mere negligence. Injuries or deaths during boarding or de-boarding a train constitute 'untoward incidents,' entitling victims to compensation.

When a body is found on railway premises, mere presence does not establish the deceased as a bona fide passenger. However, the absence of a ticket does not necessarily negate the claim of being a bona fide passenger. The burden of proof initially lies with the claimant, which can be discharged through relevant affidavits.

The rate of interest applicable to railway accident compensation claims should be reasonable and fair, similar to that in accident claim cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Interest can be awarded from the date of the accident until payment.

Decision: The Court upheld the principles outlined above, providing clarity on compensation, liability, burden of proof, and interest rates in railway accident claims under the Railways Act, 1989.

Facts:

A vacancy arose in the Bhandara-Gondiya parliamentary constituency due to the resignation of the incumbent Member of Parliament.

The petitioner approached the High Court, contending that holding a bye-election before the next general election would be impractical and costly.

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's plea, upholding the interpretation of Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issues:

Whether the provisions of Section 151A of the Act apply to the situation at hand, where a vacancy occurred in a parliamentary constituency.

Whether holding a bye-election before the next general election is justified under the circumstances.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the provisions of Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, apply to the case in question. The Court interpreted the statute to mandate holding a bye-election within six months of a vacancy occurring, subject to certain conditions. In this case, since the remainder of the term exceeded one year, the proviso to Section 151A did not apply, and holding a bye-election was deemed justifiable. The concerns raised about the financial burden and practicality of holding a bye-election were deemed insufficient grounds to override the statutory mandate.

Therefore, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, affirming the decision of the High Court. There was no order regarding costs.

Facts:

Meenal Bhargava (appellant) and Naveen Sharma (respondent) were married and had a child, Pranav.

Disputes arose leading to Meenal leaving for India with Pranav, violating a Canadian court order granting custody to Naveen.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement mediated by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, which included terms for Meenal to return to the USA with Pranav.

Both parties accused each other of breaching the settlement terms.

Naveen filed a contempt petition against Meenal for alleged non-compliance with the settlement terms.

Issues:

Whether Meenal breached the settlement agreement.

Whether the contempt proceedings were justified.

Custody of Pranav.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to adequately determine whether Meenal breached the settlement terms and focused excessively on her refusal to comply rather than addressing the underlying issues.

The Court emphasized the need to prioritize the welfare of Pranav and suggested reinstating the Habeas Corpus Petition to decide custody based on merit. The parties were urged to cooperate and consider a new beginning for the sake of their child's well-being.

Both the aforesaid appeals are allowed.

Facts:

The case arose from a dispute over land and a missing dog between two families.

During a gathering to settle the dispute, a scuffle ensued, resulting in injuries to both parties.

The appellants, Satnam Singh and Gurwinder Singh, were accused of attacking the deceased Harbhajan Singh with an axe, causing fatal injuries.

Both parties sustained injuries during the altercation.

The prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution adequately explained the injuries sustained by the accused.

Whether the act falls under Section 302 IPC or warrants a lesser charge under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

Held:

The court observed that the prosecution did not adequately explain the injuries sustained by the accused, which assumes significance as both parties were injured in the altercation.

It was noted that there was no clear evidence as to who initiated the attack, and both parties were unarmed.

The court found that the incident occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, without premeditation.

The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

Gurwinder Singh, having served over ten years of imprisonment, was ordered to be released, while Satnam Singh was directed to surrender to serve the remaining sentence.

Facts:

The appellants, who were Direct Entry Artificers of the Navy, claimed entitlement to pension benefits. They asserted that after serving an initial engagement period of 10 years as Artificers, they were placed in Fleet Reserve for a further 10 years. They argued that, according to regulations, 50% of the period in Fleet Reserve (5 years) should be counted for pension purposes, thereby totaling 15 years of service. However, the respondents contested this claim, stating that the appellants were not placed in Fleet Reserve for the alleged period of 10 years.

Issues:

Whether the appellants were entitled to count their time in Fleet Reserve towards their pension benefits. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the Principle of Promissory Estoppel applied in this case, considering the absence of any explicit promise or assurance regarding enrollment in Fleet Reserve.

Held:

The court held that enrollment in Fleet Reserve is contingent upon a positive act of enrollment, and completion of 10 years' service as an Artificer does not automatically imply enrollment into Fleet Reserve. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled to count their time in Fleet Reserve towards pension benefits.

The court clarified that for the purpose of calculating pension and gratuity, entire service from the date of enrollment or advancement to the rank of ordinary seaman till the date of discharge must be counted. However, Fleet Reserve service can only be counted if a Sailor is drafted into it.

The court outlined the regulations pertaining to drafting into Fleet Reserve, emphasizing that it is not a right but contingent upon fulfillment of certain criteria and specific recommendations by the Commanding Officer.

Liability to serve in Fleet Reserve arises only upon positive enrollment, and automatic enrollment cannot be presumed. The appellants were not enrolled in Fleet Reserve, and therefore, cannot count the period towards pension benefits.

The court rejected the invocation of Promissory Estoppel, stating that there was no promise or assurance made at the time of initial recruitment regarding enrollment into Fleet Reserve. The decision to enroll individuals into Fleet Reserve rested with the authorities and was not guaranteed.

Absence of assurance regarding enrollment into Fleet Reserve at the time of recruitment precludes the application of Promissory Estoppel. Mere recruitment for active and reserve service does not imply enrollment into Fleet Reserve.

The court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to count Fleet Reserve for pension purposes. However, their cases would be considered for grant of special pension.

The court addressed the argument regarding treating all Artificers alike for pension purposes. It clarified that while all Artificers should be treated equally, the training period of Apprentice Entry Artificers is considered towards pension eligibility, unlike Direct Entry Artificers.

The court rejected the challenge to the precedent set by Anuj Kumar Dey v. Union of India regarding the inclusion of training period for pension calculation. It upheld the precedent and concluded that Apprentice Entry Artificers are eligible for pension after completing their training period.

Facts:

Dr. B.C. Singh and Dr. Stella Lillian Singh jointly purchased a property. Upon Dr. S.L. Singh's demise, Dr. B.C. Singh initiated legal action against J.M. Utarid and his children, asserting their status as licensees of the property and seeking eviction. The defendants claimed a share in the property as kindred of Dr. S.L. Singh, raising issues of succession.

Issues:

• Whether J.M. Utarid and his children were co-owners or mere licensees of the property.

• Determining the entitlement to the share of the property left by Dr. S.L. Singh.

• Interpretation of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 concerning the succession rights of Indian Christians and the applicability of the Act to foreign nationals.

Held:

The Court interpreted Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, establishing the distinction between lineal and collateral consanguinity. It further analyzed Sections 32, 33, 35, 47, and 48 to determine the devolution of property in cases of intestacy. The Court found that Dr. B.C. Singh, as the surviving spouse, was entitled to half of Dr. S.L. Singh's share in the property.

Regarding the remaining share, the Court ruled that when an intestate leaves no lineal descendants, parents, brothers, or sisters, the property shall be divided among the nearest kindred. In this case, Ida Utarid, the sister of Dr. S.L. Singh, was identified as the preferential heir, excluding more distant kindred such as J.M. Utarid.

Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court. No costs were awarded.