Facts:

Plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for recovery of a sum.

Summons initially sent to defendants' place of business, later sought substituted service by publication.

Summons published in newspapers but lacked specific details like day, date, year, and time for defendants' appearance.

Defendants did not appear, leading to the passing of an ex-parte decree.

Defendants filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree, citing improper summons service.

Issues:

Whether the summons served on the defendants complied with statutory requirements.

Whether the lack of specific details in the summons invalidated the ex-parte decree.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the summons did not comply with statutory requirements, as they lacked specific details for the defendants' appearance. This non-compliance invalidated the ex-parte decree, and the defendants were entitled to have it set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC.

The Court emphasized the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and set aside the judgments of the lower courts. The civil suit was restored to its original file, and the parties were directed to appear before the concerned court for further proceedings.

Any deposits made by the appellant would be subject to the final result of the suit.

Facts:

Swaraj Abhiyan and other petitioners filed writ petitions seeking investigation into the purchase of a helicopter by the State of Chhattisgarh.

Allegations included irregularities in the procurement process and possible links to offshore accounts of the Chief Minister's son.

Issues:

Whether there were irregularities in the procurement process of the helicopter.

Whether there were grounds to suspect kickbacks or undue benefits to the Chief Minister's son.

Whether the writ petitions had a sufficient element of public interest.

Held:

The court examines the documents and finds no evidence to substantiate the allegations of irregularities or kickbacks in the procurement process. It notes that the state government's decision was based on recommendations and comparisons of helicopter models, and there was no indication of undue benefits to any individual.

Emphasizes that a petition under Article 32 should have a clear element of public interest and cannot be entertained solely based on alleged procedural irregularities. The court dismisses the writ petitions, highlighting the importance of genuine public interest in such cases.

Facts:

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) denied exemption under excise notifications for jute bags manufactured and supplied for packing food grains, based on the assertion that affixing buyer-specific information amounted to using a brand name.

Issues:

Whether the markings on jute bags constitute a brand name, thus disqualifying them from excise duty exemption.

Held:

The Court, after examining the definition of "brand name" and considering precedents, held that the compulsory markings on jute bags, mandated by the Jute Commissioner and government requisition orders, did not serve the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the product and any person. Thus, they did not qualify as a brand name as defined under the law. The Court referred to the judgment in CCE v. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics (2015) 11 SCC 761, where it was held that a brand name must establish a connection between the product and the manufacturer. Similarly, in CCE v. Sanghi Threads (2015) 14 SCC 701, it was emphasized that a mark used for identification within a group did not constitute a brand name.

The Court distinguished the present case from Kohinoor Elastics P Ltd. v. CCE (2005) 7 SCC 528, where the brand name was affixed to indicate a connection between the product and the customer, unlike the compulsory markings here. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the CESTAT's judgment.

Facts:

In 1999, the Rourkela Steel Plant (RSP) introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

In 2002, SAIL introduced the "Sail Scheme for Leasing of Houses to Employees," excluding ex-employees.

Ex-employees, who were allotted quarters under the VRS, sought long-term leases, which were denied by SAIL.

The matter was taken to court, where the High Court directed SAIL to consider allotting quarters on a long-term sub-lease basis to the ex-employees.

SAIL appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision.

Issues:

Whether ex-employees under the VRS scheme have a right to long-term leases for the quarters.

Whether subsequent developments and changed circumstances affect the applicability of the 2002 lease scheme.

Held:

The Court held that the changed circumstances, including significant infrastructural developments and future expansion plans of RSP, rendered the 2002 lease scheme inapplicable to ex-employees.

The Court noted that no legal right vested in ex-employees under the 2002 scheme and found it unreasonable to compel SAIL to grant long-term leases in light of the current shortage of accommodation and future expansion plans.

Therefore, the Court allowed SAIL's appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. However, the Court directed the ex-employees to remain in occupation of the quarters for 33 months from the date of the judgment, after which they were instructed to vacate the quarters peacefully and hand them over to the competent authority of RSP.

Facts:

The case of MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI (Civil Appeal Nos. 104-109 of 2015) involved the interpretation and application of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issues:

The interpretation of Section 14A and whether the disallowance of expenditure related to exempted income applies to investments made to gain control of investee companies or those made as stock-in-trade.

Held:

The deduction of expenditure under Section 14A is not allowed if it has been incurred in relation to income that is not part of the total income under the Income Tax Act.

The dominant purpose for which an investment into shares is made by an assessee may not be relevant for interpreting Section 14A. Even if the investment is made to gain control of the investee company, if dividend income is earned, the expenditure attributable to earning that dividend income has to be disallowed.

The principle of apportionment of expenses comes into play for interpreting Section 14A, regardless of whether the shares are held to gain control or as stock-in-trade.

When shares are held as stock-in-trade, the main purpose is to trade and earn profits. Even if dividend income is earned incidentally, it is exempt from tax. Thus, the expenditure incurred in acquiring such shares needs to be apportioned.

Before applying the theory of apportionment under Section 14A, the Assessing Officer (AO) needs to record satisfaction that the suo moto disallowance under Section 14A by the assessee was not correct. This is particularly relevant when the assessee has apportioned the expenditure in the return, but the AO disagrees.

Decision: The decision of the court emphasizes that Section 14A applies to dividend income irrespective of the purpose of investment, and the principle of apportionment of expenses is to be applied. The judgment clarifies the obligations of the Assessing Officer and provides guidance on the treatment of expenditure related to exempted income.

Facts:

The Maharashtra Housing Development Authority (MHADA) issued an e-Tender notice for a redevelopment project.

The respondent, Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Private Limited, claimed to have submitted their bid within the specified timeframe but did not receive an acknowledgment.

The High Court directed the National Informatics Centre (NIC) to retrieve and consider the bid documents of the respondent.

Issues:

Whether the bid documents uploaded by the respondent could be retrieved.

If the bid documents could be retrieved, whether the respondent's bid should be considered.

Held:

The Supreme Court found that the bid documents uploaded by the respondent could not be retrieved under any circumstances, as affirmed by the NIC.

The Court accepted the NIC's assertion that the bid was invalid due to the failure of the respondent to complete the bid process by pressing the 'freeze button'. Therefore, the High Court's directions to consider the respondent's bid were incorrect as it effectively provided the respondent with a second opportunity, which was unwarranted.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the directions issued by the High Court.

Facts:

The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Mehsana (State of Gujarat) for offences under Sections 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with the suicide of his wife. However, the High Court acquitted the appellant of the offence under Section 498A while maintaining the conviction under Section 201. The incident occurred on 26.12.1990, and the appellant's wife committed suicide by hanging. Subsequently, the appellant was charged under various sections, including Sections 304B, 306, 498A, and 201 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 498A and 201 of the IPC but acquitted seven other persons. The appeals were filed in 1995 and heard in 2015, resulting in the appellant's acquittal under Section 498A and maintenance of conviction under Section 201.

Issues:

Whether the conviction under Section 201 of the IPC can be maintained while acquitting the appellant of the main offence under Section 498A.

Held:

The court held that a charge under Section 201 of the IPC can stand independently if the prosecution establishes that an offence has been committed, the accused knew or had reason to believe that such an offence had been committed, and the accused caused the disappearance of evidence with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is insufficient, and there must be evidence to support the accusation.

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. The deceased's family, including her father and brother, attended her last rites without expressing any suspicion of foul play. Additionally, the deceased left a suicide note taking full blame for her actions. Thus, the appellant's conduct, while suspicious, did not amount to intentional omission or actions to hide evidence of the alleged offence. Therefore, the court concluded that the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 201 of the IPC.

The acquittal of the appellant under Section 498A was upheld, and the conviction under Section 201 was set aside.

The court referred to various legal precedents, including Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1952 SC 354, and Suleman Rehiman Mulani and another v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829, to support its decision. These cases emphasized the necessity of establishing clear evidence and meeting the legal criteria for conviction, especially in cases involving serious offences like dowry death and disappearance of evidence.

Facts:

The writ petition (Civil) No. 473 of 2005 was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, highlighting the failure of various State Governments to implement provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act of 2000. These provisions included the establishment of Child Welfare Committees, Juvenile Justice Boards, Special Juvenile Police Units, and Homes for children in need of care and protection.

Issues:

The petition was the lack of proper implementation of the Juvenile Justice Acts by the State Governments, leading to the deprivation of rights and welfare of children in need of care and protection.

Held:The court, after considering the arguments and concerns raised in the petition, issued various suggestions, recommendations, conclusions, and directions to address the issues at hand.

The court issued suggestions and recommendations regarding the National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR and SCPCRs). It emphasized the importance of filling up vacancies in these bodies promptly and urged the governments to give due importance to these bodies for the effective implementation of child welfare laws.

Regarding the State Child Protection Society and District Child Protection Unit, the court urged serious consideration for their constitution to involve all stakeholders in child welfare. It also noted the lack of effective functioning of these bodies in many places and the need for remedial steps.

The court emphasized the importance of proper selection and training of social workers and magistrates involved in Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) and Child Welfare Committees (CWCs). It stressed the need for adequate staff and facilities for effective functioning and highlighted the importance of quality legal aid for juveniles in conflict with the law.

The court emphasized the need for technology in improving the functioning of JJBs and CWCs. It noted the shortage of computers and peripherals in these institutions and urged the governments to address it. (Para 4)

Regarding the role of police, the court stressed the importance of appointing Child Welfare Police Officers and setting up Special Juvenile Police Units. It urged clear identification of duties and responsibilities of these units and officers.

The court highlighted the need for better infrastructure and management of Child Care Institutions. It recommended regular visits by District Legal Services Authorities to ensure proper functioning.

The court criticized the inadequate funding and lack of seriousness from some State Governments regarding the Juvenile Justice Fund.

The court suggested regular evaluations to monitor the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Act and ensure timely improvements.

The court issued a series of specific directions to various authorities and bodies involved in child welfare. It urged Chief Justices of High Courts to establish child-friendly and vulnerable witness courts in each district.

Facts:

On 03.03.2007, the deceased (Palani), aged around 21 years, was riding a motorcycle when he collided with a bus belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The deceased was unmarried and employed as a contract worker in Hyundai Car Company, Sriperumbudur.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's computation of compensation amount adequately accounted for future prospects, and if not, whether the appellants were entitled to further enhancement based on recent Supreme Court precedent.

Held:

The Court found that the High Court had not accounted for future prospects while computing the compensation amount under the head 'loss of dependency'. Referring to the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., the Court concluded that future prospects must be considered in determining compensation.

The Court modified the compensation awarded by the High Court, taking into account future prospects at the rate of 40% of the deceased's established income.

The additional compensation was directed to be deposited by the respondent Transport Corporation within a specified period.