Facts:

The case involves a dispute over a tender for the installation and supply of a centralized liquid medical oxygen system.

The High Court had imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakhs on the petitioner (Sciemed Overseas Inc.) for filing a false or misleading affidavit.

The High Court also found the contract awarded to the petitioner to be improper and of a commercial nature.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was correct in imposing costs on the petitioner for filing a false affidavit.

Whether the contract awarded to the petitioner was improper and of a commercial nature.

Held:

The Supreme Court, in upholding the High Court's decision, emphasized the need to preserve the sanctity of affidavits and discourage the filing of irresponsible statements. The Court found that the false statement made in the affidavit had a significant impact on the proceedings. The petitioner's attempt to justify the misleading affidavit was rejected. The Court cited previous cases, including Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan and Muthu Karuppan, to underscore the importance of curbing the filing of false affidavits.

The petition is dismissed, and the imposition of costs by the High Court is upheld. The petitioner is granted six weeks to deposit the costs with the Jharkhand Legal Services Authority, and compliance is to be reviewed after eight weeks in the High Court.

Referred Cases:

BOC India Limited Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 1 AIR Jhar R. 26 Jhark

Muthu Karuppan Vs. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi, (2011) 5 SCC 496

Suo Moto Proceedings Against R. Karuppan, Advocate, (2001) 5 SCC 289

Facts:

The accused, Ramen Dowarah, and Janmejoy Gogoi were charged with house trespass, rape, and murder. The incident involved allegations of the accused entering the victim's house, committing rape, and setting her ablaze with kerosene oil. The trial court convicted Ramen Dowarah, but the High Court partially allowed the appeal, altering the conviction and reducing the sentence.

Issues:

Whether the sexual intercourse was consensual, the intention of the accused in setting the victim ablaze, and the correct application of legal provisions, specifically Under Sections 302 and 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Held:

In a thorough analysis of the evidence, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court's finding of consensual sexual intercourse. It concluded that the accused intended to kill the victim after committing the crime to silence her. The Court set aside the High Court's decision, restored the trial court's findings, and reinstated the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. The judgment emphasized that the act amounted to murder Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Referred Cases:

Bandarupalli Venkateswarlu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 492

State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384

Facts:

The Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking the imposition of "chemical castration" as an additional punishment for individuals who commit sexual offenses against girl children, including infants as young as 28 days old.

Issues:

Whether the court has the authority to suggest a specific punishment, such as "chemical castration," for child abusers.

Whether the existing legal provisions, including Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, are sufficient to address the heinous crimes committed against girl children.

Whether there is a need to define the term "child" in the context of rape, particularly with a distinction for girl children up to the age of 10.

Held:

The court, while recognizing the gravity of the crimes and the need for legislative measures, asserted that it cannot create offenses or legislate punishments, as it falls within the purview of the legislature. The court made a suggestion to the legislature to define the term "child" in the context of rape, with a possible distinction for girl children up to the age of 10, based on the belief that, by that age, a child may not conceive of any carnal desire. The court expressed hope that Parliament would respond to the collective agony and consider the suggestions made. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

Referred Cases:

D.K. Basu Vs. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416

Laxmi Kant Pandey Vs. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 66

Manoj Narula Vs. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1

S. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P., (1996) 4 SCC 596

Sakshi Vs. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518

State of Punjab Vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384

Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241

Facts:

The case involves Umang Dinesh Kuwadia and another (Appellants) versus the State of Maharashtra and another (Respondent). After detailed arguments and a review of the records, both parties have agreed to settle the matter. The settlement is accepted on instructions from Mrs. Ishita Jitendra Dagaonkar, wife of Shri Jitendra Dagaonkar (respondent No.2), who is present in court.

Issues:

The resolution of disputes between the parties and the terms of the settlement.

Held:

After considering the material on record, the Bench decides that a one-time lump sum payment of Rs. 1.25 crores should be made by the appellants to respondent No.2 in full and final settlement of the disputes. This amount is to be paid through a demand draft within a period of four weeks from the date of the decision. Importantly, the benefit of this order is explicitly limited to the advantage of respondent No.2 and does not extend to any other member of the housing society. In light of the settlement, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is quashed. The criminal appeal is disposed of.

Facts:

The case involves a review petition (Review Petition (Civil) No. 891 of 2015) related to a judgment (Civil Appeal No. 209 of 2015) delivered on January 8, 2016.

Issues:

The correctness of the reservation in promotion within Group A posts and the salary scale criterion as addressed in the original judgment.

Held:

The Court observed an error in the original judgment concerning the reservation in promotion. The error, particularly noted in paragraph 3 of the judgment, erroneously stated that reservation is provided in promotion by selection for posts carrying a salary of less than Rs. 5,700 per month. This was deemed a mistake on the face of the record and contradicted other parts of the judgment. The Court, guided by the doctrine of ex debito justitiae and the fundamental principle of justice administration, allowed the review petitions. Paragraphs 33 to 36 of the original judgment were deleted, along with the directions contained therein. Additionally, the directions in paragraph 37 were set aside, and a new paragraph 33 was inserted.

Referred Cases:

A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602

S. Nagaraj Vs. State of Karnataka, (1993) Sup 4 SCC 595

Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde Vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137

State of Rajasthan Vs. Surendra Mohnot, (2014) 14 SCC 77

Facts:

A petition was filed before the Designated Authority (DA) alleging dumping of caustic soda from China and Korea.

Preliminary findings indicated dumping, except for one exporter from Korea (HCC), at less than its normal value.

Notification imposing preliminary anti-dumping duty was issued.

Issues:

Challenge to the determination of DA on anti-dumping duty and the imposition of the duty.

Discrepancies in the application of costing principles between HCC and domestic industry.

Lack of consideration of the concept of "Equal Economic Importance" in the tribunal's decision.

Held:

The tribunal, relying on HCC's case, emphasized the need for a fair comparison between export price and normal value at the same level of trade. The tribunal found discrepancies in the application of costing principles between HCC and other non-cooperative exporters from Korea, directing the DA to adopt an equitable basis for cost apportionment.

Except HCC, other exporters did not cooperate. The complainant succeeded in establishing injury, and the tribunal set aside the order and notification based on the principle determined in HCC's case and the substantial cost of chlorine as a co-product.

The tribunal's approach lacked consideration of "Equal Economic Importance." It mechanically adopted principles without dwelling upon the rise in the price of chlorine and failed to distinguish HCC's case from other exporters.

Decision: The court set aside the tribunal's order, directing a fresh consideration of the case. The tribunal should reevaluate, considering the concept of "Equal Economic Importance" and ensuring a rational and pragmatic basis for decision-making.

Referred Cases:

Decided on : 07-01-2016

Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - Section 3

Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - Rule 11, Rule 14, Rule 16, Rule 17, Rule 5, Rule 5(1), Rule 5(3), Rule 5(4)

Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Section 9A

Customs Tariff Act, 1995 - Section 9A, Section 9A(1), Section 9A(2), Section 9A(6)

Anti-Dumping Duty — Tribunal opined that in case of HCC cost had been correctly determined by the DA taking the chlorine as a co-product and separating its manufacturing cost during the process of manufacture of caustic soda at the stage of separation of chlorine and caustic soda on the basis of the value of production and the same principle should have been adopted by the DA in case of domestic industry. — The tribunal opined that the identical treatment was not given to the domestic manufacturers and HCC. — -Tribunal hold that the non-injurious price was not correctly determined by the DA and, accordingly, set aside the Notification and the final findings of the DA on non-injurious price and injury margin and remanded the matter to the DA for fresh determination of non-injurious price and injury margin by reasonable and equitable distributing the cost of production between the chlorine and caustic soda and issue findings afresh in accordance with law. — Tribunal should have dwelled upon the said facet before it recorded the finding whether it is a co-product or a by-product. It is because the "Equal Economic Importance" has to be considered on a rational and pragmatic basis. It is the duty of the tribunal to see whether the DA had considered the said aspects or proceeded on hypothetical basis. The tribunal has the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence in entirety and arrive at a conclusion and that having not been done and the entire judgment having been based on the application of M/s. Hanwha Chemical Corporation's case and the price rise in the price of Chlorine, we are constrained to dislodge the judgment and order of the tribunal.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Lawyer S. Knit & Co., B. Krishna Prasad, Praveen Kumar, Vishwajit Singh and Suresh A. Shroff and Co., Advocates, for the Appellant;

Cases Referred

Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs. M/s G.M. Exports, (2015) 1 SCALE 169

Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, (2006) 10 SCC 368

S&S Enterprise Vs. Designated Authority, (2005) 3 SCC 337

Facts:

Appellants sought enhanced compensation for their acquired land.

Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 11,000/- per cent initially.

Reference Court did not grant enhancement, despite reliance on A4 and A14 documents.

Issues:

Whether the Appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation for their acquired land.

Validity of the High Court's decision to decline consideration of A4.

Held:

The Appellants are entitled to land value for the acquired land fixed at Rs. 17,250/- per cent.

The acquired land is not wet land but reclaimed dried land.

The court disagreed with the High Court's decision to decline consideration of A4, emphasizing that factual inaccuracies in the owner's description are not grounds for discarding relevant evidence.

Fixation of land value should be based on factual positions revealed from documents, and the witness's conduct in court is not a decisive factor.

Appeals are allowed accordingly.

Facts:

The appellant was allotted a plot in Sector 64, Faridabad, by HUDA.

The appellant deposited 10% earnest money and 15% of the sale consideration.

HUDA issued a demand notice for an additional amount, which the appellant failed to pay, resulting in the denial of possession.

The appellant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

Issues:

Deficiency on the part of HUDA in delivering possession.

Acceptance of a refund amount by the appellant.

Validity of the orders passed by lower forums.

Held:

The District Forum initially allowed the complaint, directing re-allotment of the plot to the appellant.

The State Commission set aside the award, stating the appellant was no longer a consumer after accepting a refund.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing HUDA to permit the appellant to retain the plot on the condition of paying the current HUDA rate (Rs. 10,500/- per sq. mtr.).

Facts:

The appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for a murder that took place on 13.01.2002. The prosecution's case involved the appellants' common intention in committing the crime, with a witness, Sandipan Majumdar-PW6, providing crucial testimony.

Issues:

Whether the evidence presented, especially that of the witness PW6, established the common intention of the appellants in committing the murder.

Held:

The court emphasized that it could rely on the testimony of a single witness if found reliable, and this applied even if uncorroborated. Section 34 IPC, embodying the principle of joint liability, required the establishment of common intention, which could be inferred from the conduct of the accused or attendant circumstances. The court found that there was a prior concert among the appellants, and they acted in furtherance of a common intention. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

Referred Cases:

Bipin Kumar Mondal Vs. State of W.B., (2010) 12 SCC 91

Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 14 SCC 150

Prithipal Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 1 SCC 10

Sunil Kumar Vs. State Government of NCT of Delhi, (2003) 11 SCC 367

Vadivelu Thevar Vs. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614