Facts:

The appellant, Electro Optics (P) Ltd., engaged in the sale of electronic goods, faced a dispute on the classification of goods for tax purposes.

Appellant argued for classification under Entry 50, Part B of Schedule I, attracting a 3% tax rate.

Authorities contended that survey instruments, whether electronic or otherwise, fell under Entry 14, Part F of Schedule I, chargeable at 16%.

Issues:

Dispute centered around the correct classification of goods for tax assessment.

The assessing authority imposed a penalty under Section 12 for the alleged failure to submit a correct return.

Held:

The court observed that the dispute arose due to amendments in the Schedule in 1993 and was limited to the immediate two assessment years.

Considering the appellant's good arguable case and the stay on penalty orders during the legal dispute, the court found that the appellant submitted the return based on a bona fide belief in the correctness of their stand.

The court set aside the balance dues of the penalty but specified that the penalty already paid by the appellant would not be refunded and would be retained by the authorities as a cost of the litigation.

Referred Cases:

Commissioner of Sales Tax, Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sanjiv Fabrics, (2010) 9 SCC 630

M/s BPL Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2001) 2 SCC 139

M/s Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, (1969) 2 SCC 627

Facts:

The case involved the murder of Dashrath, the father of the appellant, Gajanan Dashrath Kharate.

Gajanan was accused of frequently demanding money from his father, engaging in altercations, and assaulting him.

On the night of April 7, 2002, Gajanan allegedly demanded money from his father, abused him, and assaulted him, leading to Dashrath's death.

Witnesses, including Nagorao Kharate (PW-1) and Madhukar Kharate (PW-4), provided an account of the events leading to the murder.

Issues:

The delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) was a point of contention.

The prosecution presented blood-stained clothes of the accused, matching the blood group of the deceased.

Held:

The court emphasized that delay in FIR registration is viewed with suspicion, but the prosecution satisfactorily explained the delay.

The recovery of blood-stained clothes and the absence of a plausible explanation from the accused strengthened the prosecution's case.

When a murder occurs inside a house, the initial burden is on the prosecution, but there is a corresponding burden on the accused to provide a plausible explanation.

The appellant's failure to offer a plausible explanation for the crime was considered a strong circumstance indicating guilt.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court, in its decision on Criminal Appeal No. 2057 of 2010, affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment sentence for Gajanan Dashrath Kharate. The court dismissed the appeal, ordered the cancellation of the appellant's bail bonds, and directed the appellant to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.

Referred Cases:

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681

Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106

Nika Ram Vs. State of H.P., (1972) 2 SCC 80

State of Rajasthan Vs. Parthu, (2007) 12 SCC 754

State of T.N. Vs. Rajendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679

State of U.P. Vs. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300

Facts:

The appellant filed a partition suit in 1988 based on her birthright to claim a share in the family property.

The property originally belonged to the appellant's mother and later vested equally between the appellant and her brother.

Dispute arose when the appellant's husband settled the property in her name, leading to a previous suit in 1962 that was dismissed.

The trial court initially held the partition suit barred by res judicata and upheld the defense of adverse possession.

Issues:

Applicability of res judicata to the partition suit.

Defense of adverse possession claimed by the respondent.

Whether ouster is a valid defense in a suit for partition.

Held:

The judgment addressed the issue of res judicata, emphasizing that the 1962 suit and the 1988 suit had different causes of action. Res judicata was held not to be applicable.

The Dealt with the defense of ouster, stating that it is a weak defense in a partition suit unless there is consistent and open denial of title, long and uninterrupted possession, and exercise of the right of exclusive ownership.

The Court suggested a settlement, and the parties agreed to a partition with the appellant entitled to 35% and the respondent to 65%. If partition by metes and bounds was not possible, the property was to be sold, and the proceeds shared accordingly. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Referred Cases:

Cores Vs. Appuhamy, (1912) AC 230

Secretary of State for India Vs. Debendra Lal Khan, (1933) LR 61 IA 78, 82

Jaswant Singh Vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, (1985) 3 SCC 648

Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair Vs. Narayanan Nair, (2004) 3 SCC 277

P.Lakshmi Reddy Vs. L.Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314

Radhamoni Debi Vs. Collector of Khulna, (1900) LR 27 IA 136, 140

Sulochanna Amma Vs. Narayanan Nair, (1994) 2 SCC 14

Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin Vs. Syed Shah Ahmed Mohiuddin Kamisul Quadri, (1971) 1 SCC 597

Vidya Devi Vs. Prem Prakash, (1995) 4 SCC 496

Facts:

The case involves a history of litigation between Nashik Municipal Corporation (Appellant) and R.M. Bhandari and others (Respondents) spanning about two decades.

The dispute originated from a municipal corporation tender for construction work, where the respondents were the successful bidders.

The appellant withdrew the work from the respondents due to lack of progress, incurring additional expenses, and filed a suit for recovery.

The trial court decreed in favor of the appellant, but the respondents filed an appeal, along with an application for stay of the decree.

Issues:

The extension of time for depositing a cost amount imposed by the High Court as a condition for restoring an execution petition.

The respondents had withdrawn their first appeal, and the appellant sought to restore the execution petition.

Held:

The court emphasized the discretion granted by Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code, allowing the court to enlarge the time for performing any act.

The court highlighted the principle of equity, citing legal precedents such as Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder v. Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder (1982) 1 SCC 159.

Section 151 of the Code, conferring inherent power on the court, was also invoked.

The court considered the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay in depositing the cost and concluded that the time ought to be extended.

The order of the High Court, dismissing the application seeking an extension of time, was set aside.

The appellant was directed to deposit the cost within four weeks, and the execution petition was restored.

The respondents were granted liberty to restore their first appeal by making the necessary application before the first appellate court. The appeal is allowed.

Referred Cases:

Chinnamarkathian alias Muthu Gounder Vs. Ayyavoo alias Periana Gounder, (1982) 1 SCC 159

D.V. Paul Vs. Manisha Lalwani, (2010) 8 SCC 546

Ganesh Prasad Sah Kesari Vs. Lakshmi Narayan Gupta, (1985) 3 SCC 53

Jogdhayan Vs. Babu Ram, (1983) 1 SCC 26

Johri Singh Vs. Sukh Pal Singh, (1989) 4 SCC 403

Mhatarba Laxman Dongare Dead Vs. Central Bank of India, (2005) 2 ALL. M.R. 742

Salem Advocates Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344

Facts:

The Nashik Workers Union filed a complaint under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, against Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) seeking reinstatement of trainees with continuity of services and back wages. The Division Bench of the High Court held that the appropriate government for the purpose of the 1947 Act is the Central Government in relation to HAL, rendering the complaints filed by the Union against the company not maintainable.

Issues:

The determination of the appropriate government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for making a reference in the dispute between the Nashik Workers Union and HAL.

Held:

HAL 2 did not appropriately consider the earlier decision in HAL 1, where it was clearly held that, considering the dictionary clause of the ID Act, it is the State Government that has the authority to make the reference in the case of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The analysis in HAL 2, citing the decision in SAIL's case, is deemed to run counter to HAL 1 and is not considered a binding precedent.

The High Court did not delve into the merits of the case and dismissed the appeal on procedural grounds. Given that HAL 2 did not correctly apply the ratio in SAIL's case and HAL 1 still holds as the correct law, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh adjudication on merits.

Decision: The appeals are allowed, and the matter is remitted to the High Court for a fresh adjudication on merits, considering the correct determination of the appropriate government in relation to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited.

Referred Cases:

Air India Statutory Corpn. Vs. United Labour Union, (1997) 9 SCC 377

Food Corpn. of India Vs. Transport & Dock Workers Union, (1999) 7 SCC 59

Food Corpn. of India Workers' Union Vs. Food Corpn. of India, (1985) 2 SCC 294

Graham Vs. Public Works Commissioners, (1901) 2 KB 781 : 70 LJ KB 860 : 17 TLR 540

Heavy Engineering Mazdoor Union Vs. The State of Bihar, (1969) 1 SCC 765

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Hindustan Aeronautical Canteen Kamgar Sangh, (2007) 15 SCC 51

Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. Workmen, (1975) 4 SCC 679

London County Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association Vs. Nichols, (1948) 2 All ER 432

Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corpn. Vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, (1980) 3 SCC 459

Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489

Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh Vs. Model Mills, (1984) Sup SCC 443

State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Visakhapatnam, AIR 1963 SC 1811

Steel Authority of India Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1

Tamlin Vs. Hannaford, (1950) 1 KB 18, 25, 26

Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union Vs. Tata Memorial Centre, (2010) 8 SCC 480

Facts:

The case involves the appeal of Sadhu Saran Singh against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others.

Charges under various sections of the IPC, including 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, and 504.

Trial court convicted all accused; three were sentenced to life imprisonment, and two received the death penalty.

High Court acquitted all accused.

Issues:

The appeal questions the reasoning behind the High Court's acquittal.

Whether the appellate court has the power to review evidence in appeals against acquittal.

Held:

The appellate court can review and relook at the entire evidence.

Proper reasoning in judgments is crucial, and if the decision is based on erroneous views against settled law, the appellate court must interfere.

Non-examination of an injured witness is not fatal to the prosecution's case in the specific circumstances.

Lack of independent witnesses does not derail the prosecution's case if the evidence of eyewitnesses is trustworthy.

The High Court's reasons for acquitting the accused are deemed flimsy and untenable.

The consistency of evidence provided by eyewitnesses is emphasized.

Medical evidence presented by the High Court is criticized for inappropriate use.

Place of occurrence, motive, and alibi considerations are discussed.

Death sentences awarded by the trial court are modified to life imprisonment for all accused respondents under Section 302/149 IPC.

Referred Cases:

Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415

Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476

Rajan Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 1 SCC 191

Sambasivan Vs. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412

FACTS:

Respondent-Deep Jyoti Company, an 'A' class contractor, was awarded a construction contract by the Government of Rajasthan.

Circular dated 06.10.2008 mandated contractors to obtain a short-term permit and pay the cost of rawanna book before starting work, with royalty deducted from bills.

High Court quashed the circular, stating it was unreasonable to compel contractors to pay royalty in advance and seek a refund later.

State Government appealed, arguing the circular aimed to ensure royalty payment for legally mined minerals in government construction work.

ISSUES:

Validity of the circular dated 06.10.2008 requiring contractors to obtain a short-term permit and pay royalty in advance.

Whether the circular is a reasonable condition for government contracts.

HELD:

The circular's condition to obtain a short-term permit was for contractors registered as 'A' class contractors with the government. It aimed to ensure royalty payment for minerals used in government construction work. The court emphasized the reasonableness of the condition for awarding government contracts.( Para 9)

The court rejected the contention that the circular imposed compulsion, clarifying that it aimed to prevent the use of illegally mined minerals in construction work. The court highlighted the laudable objective of preventing illegal mining and revenue loss.( Para 10)

The court stated that the circular's purpose was to check illegal mining and ensure that only royalty-paid minerals were used. It emphasized that the condition was not unreasonable or arbitrary, as contractors would be refunded the royalty if evidence of payment was produced.( Para 11)

The court dismissed the argument that the circular amounted to a levy of royalty, stating that it provided a procedure for royalty collection and payment by contractors. The court criticized the High Court for not considering the object of the circular and erred in quashing it.( Para 12)

The impugned orders of the High Court were set aside, and the appeals were allowed. The writ petitions filed by the respondents were dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.( Para 13)

Facts:

Partap, son of Anand Singh PW5, died in an incident on 4.7.2003.

Anand Singh lodged the FIR on 5.7.2003, stating that Partap was beaten by the accused appellants.

Accused claimed false implication, asserting that Partap had tried to outrage the modesty of a woman.

The FIR mentioned a beating due to an alleged evil eye on the family of the accused.

Issues:

Whether the accused were falsely implicated.

Validity of the delay in lodging the FIR.

Credibility of the complainant's (Anand Singh PW5) version.

Impact of related incidents, such as the setting ablaze of the accused's house.

Held:

The court, after thorough consideration, held that:

The complainant's version was reliable, with no inherent improbabilities.

Medical evidence corroborated eyewitness accounts of injuries caused by sharp-edged weapons and lathi blows.

The delay in lodging the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the complainant's temporary illness.

The setting ablaze of the accused's house was considered a repercussion of the murder.

The accused received a fair trial, and there were no irregularities prejudicing the trial.

The appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding the conviction of the accused.

Referred Cases:

Bahal Singh Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2032

The State of U.P. Vs. Jaggo alias Jagdish, AIR 1971 SC 1586

Facts:

The case involves a dispute related to the repealing provisions of Section 9 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, impacting Section 23 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act, 1125. The jurisdiction and powers of the High Court, encompassing civil, criminal, and other matters, are central to the dispute.

Issues:

The effect of the repealing provisions on Section 23, the nature of Section 23 compared to Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the uniform application of rules to different types of appeals before the High Court.

Held:

The court holds that Section 23 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act remains unaffected by the repealing provision of Section 9 of the Kerala High Court Act, emphasizing its special nature compared to Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 51)

The court analyzes the scope and jurisdiction of the Travancore-Cochin Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, highlighting the distinct purposes and subjects covered by each. (Paras 8, 14)

The court interprets Section 4(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, emphasizing the "specific provision to the contrary" requirement and clarifying that it must be contained within the Code itself. (Para 17)

The court considers the legislative scheme, including Section 98(3), and holds that the specific provision must be within the Code of Civil Procedure itself. (Paras 18, 20, 21)

The court rejects the respondent's argument regarding a specific exclusion, relying on precedent and stating that the High Court Act is a special law for the concerned High Court. (Paras 34, 35)

The court emphasizes the particular perspective regarding differences of opinion in appeals before the High Court of Kerala, asserting the applicability of a uniform rule provided by Section 23. (Para 37)

The court discusses anomalies that would arise if the respondent's argument is accepted and highlights the importance of a uniform rule for all types of appeals. (Paras 48, 50)

Kurian Joseph, J

Alarified the lack of uniformity and clarity in determining judge strength in cases of a difference of opinion, affecting the intended purpose of multiple judges hearing a matter.( Paragraph 7 )

Addressed the absence of provisions in the CPC and Cr.PC, emphasizing the reliance on High Court Acts and expressing concerns about treating appeals as decisions of a Single Judge.( Paragraph 10)

Stressed the need for comprehensive legislation to handle situations where a bench is equally divided, advocating for larger bench strength to resolve differences of opinion effectively.( Paragraph 11)

Decision: The court concludes that Section 23 of the Travancore-Cochin High Court Act alone is to be applied in cases of differences of opinion between two judges of the Kerala High Court in any appeal, irrespective of its nature - civil, criminal, or otherwise. Appeal disposed of accordingly.

Referred Cases:

A.B. Abdulkadir Vs. State of Kerala, (1962) Suppl. 2 SCR 741

Anwari Basavaraj Patil Vs. Siddaramaiah, (1993) 1 SCC 636

Becharam Vs. Purna Chandra, AIR 1925 Cal 845 FB

Bhaidas Shivdas Vs. Bai Gulab, 23 Bom LR 623 : 48 Ind App 181 : AIR 1921 PC 6

Bhuta Vs. Lakadu Dhansing, AIR 1919 Bom 1 FB

Biram Sardar Vs. Emperor, AIR 1941 Bom 146 : AIR 1939 PC 47 : 1939 IA 66 : 40 Cri LJ 364

Bokaro and Bangur Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 Pat 154

Debi Prasad Vs. Gaudham Rai, AIR 1933 Pat 67

Dhanaraju Vs. Motilal, AIR 1929 Mad 641 FB

Gopal Sardar Vs. Karuna Sardar, (2004) 4 SCC 252

Gurbinder Singh Vs. Lal Singh, AIR 1959 P&H 123

Hukumdev Narain Yadav Vs. Lalit Narain Mishra, (1974) 2 SCC 133

Immidisetti Dhanaraju Vs. Motilal Daga, AIR 1929 MAD 641

Jelejar Hormosji Gotla Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1965 AP 288

Krishan Prasad Gupta Vs. Controller, Printing & Stationery, (1996) 1 SCC 69

Kulwant Kaur Vs. Gurdial Singh Mann dead by LRS, (2001) 4 SCC 262

Lachman Singh Vs. Ram Lagan Singh, (1904) ILR 26 All 10

Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. D.J. Bahadur, (1981) 1 SCC 315

Maru Ram Vs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 107

Mati Lal Saha Vs. Chandra Kanta Sarkar, AIR 1947 Cal 1

Mt. Sardar Bibi Vs. Haq Nawaz Khan, AIR 1934 Lah 371

Muhammad Ishaq Khan Vs. Muhammad Rustam Ali Khan, ILR 40 All 292 : AIR 1918 All 412

Nundeepat Mahta Vs. Urquhart, (1870) 4 Beng LR 181

P.S. Sathappan Vs. Andhra Bank Ltd., (2004) 11 SCC 672

P.V. Hemalatha Vs. Kattamkandi Puthiya Maliackal Saheeda, (2002) 5 SCC 548

Prafulla Kamini Vs. Bhabani Nath, AIR 1926 Cal 121

Rajnarain Vs. Saligram, (1948) ILR 27 Pat 332

Roop Lal Vs. Lakshmi Doss, (1906) ILR 29 Mad 1

Shushila Kesarbhai Vs. Bai Lilavati, AIR 1975 Guj 39 FB

Suraj Mal Vs. Horniman, 20 Bom LR 185 : AIR 1917 Bom 62 SB

Suresh Chandra Vs. Shiti Kanta, AIR 1924 Cal 855

Tej Kaur Vs. Kirpal Singh, (1995) 5 SCC 119

Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor, etc., (1961) 3 SCR 855

Thomas Challoner Vs. Henry WF Bolikow, (1878) 3 AC 933

Veeraraghava Reddy Vs. Subba Reddy, ILR 43 Mad 37 : AIR 1920 Mad 391

Venkatasubbiah Vs. Venkatasubbamma, AIR 1925 Mad 1032

Vinita Khanolkar case, (1998) 1 SCC 500

Sharda Devi case, (2002) 3 SCC 705

Shah Babulal Khimji case, (1981) 4 SCC 8

Final Result : Disposed off