Facts:

The case involved the recovery of fake currency notes and the involvement of several accused individuals in a counterfeit currency racket.

Initial arrests were made based on information provided by one of the accused, leading to the identification of other individuals involved in the racket.

Mehboob Ali and Firoz provided crucial information that led to the identification and arrest of another accused, Anju Ali, who was found in possession of counterfeit currency notes.

Issues:

The admissibility of the statements made by Mehboob Ali and Firoz under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Whether the information provided by the accused led to the discovery of facts unknown to the police and therefore qualified for admissibility under Section 27.

Held:

The Court held that the statements made by Mehboob Ali and Firoz were admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act because they led to the discovery of crucial facts unknown to the police, specifically the involvement of Anju Ali in the counterfeit currency racket.

The Court emphasized that for Section 27 to apply, the information provided by the accused must result in the discovery of a fact. In this case, Mehboob Ali and Firoz's statements directly led to the identification and arrest of Anju Ali, who was found in possession of counterfeit currency notes.

Therefore, the appeals were dismissed, and the convictions of Mehboob Ali, Firoz, and other accused individuals were upheld.

Facts:

The appellant, M/S. MERIDIAN INDUSTRIES LTD., is engaged in the manufacturing of cotton yarn using indigenous cotton and imported wax.

The question arises regarding the eligibility of the appellant to claim the benefit of Notification no. 8197-CE dated 01.03.1997 under the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issues:

Whether the appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of Notification no. 8197-CE dated 01.03.1997 despite the use of imported wax in the manufacturing process of cotton yarn.

Held:

The exemption notifications, including Notification no. 8197-CE dated 01.03.1997, are to be interpreted strictly. Unless the appellant can make out a clear case in their favor, they are not entitled to claim the benefit thereof. If there is doubt or multiple interpretations possible, the interpretation favoring the Department is to be adopted.

The definition of 'consumables' and 'raw material' under the Export and Import Policy 1997-2002 is crucial in determining the eligibility of the appellant. If an item is required for a manufacturing process but does not form part of the end product and is consumed during manufacturing, it is considered a consumable. On the other hand, raw materials include goods required for the manufacturing process.

In the instant case, the wax coating applied by the appellant is found to be essential for lubricating the yarn, facilitating its winding on cones, and its use in knitting hosiery. The wax-coated yarn meets the buyers' requirements for manufacturing knitted fabrics, which is the end product. While cotton yarn can be produced without wax, wax-coated yarn is of superior quality and adds value.

Decision: The Court concludes that the wax used by the appellant in the manufacturing process of cotton yarn is considered a raw material and not a consumable. Therefore, the benefit of Notification no. 8197-CE dated 01.03.1997 is not available to the appellant.

Facts:

The dispute arose between the A.P. Power Coordination Committee and others (appellants) and M/s. Lanco Kondapalli Power Ltd. and others (respondents) regarding capacity charges and reimbursement of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

Issues:

Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act apply to actions instituted before the Commission under s. 86(1)(f) of the Electricity Act?

Whether the claim for reimbursement of MAT is in accordance with the relevant terms and conditions of the PPA?

Held:

The Commission cannot entertain or allow a claim barred by limitation prescribed for an ordinary suit before the civil court. However, specified periods may be excluded based on principles like Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

The APTEL can grant exclusion of a certain period based on principles under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The exclusion of the period from notice for arbitration in 2003 to application under the Arbitration Act in 2009 was justified.

The claim for reimbursement of MAT is covered by Article 3.8 of the PPA, and the appellant is liable to reimburse the advance income tax paid by the respondent, including MAT.

Changes in tax laws are covered by the PPA's provision that references to "Law" include amendments or re-enactments. MAT is a form of income tax levied on power generating companies' income.

Decision: The appeals are dismissed, affirming the rulings on limitation and reimbursement of MAT under the Electricity Act and the PPA.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over a chit transaction leading to settlement talks between the parties. A fight erupted during these talks. Later, when one party was informed that their friend had been harmed by the other party during these talks, an attack ensued, resulting in injuries and death.

Issues:

Whether the appellants, along with others, acted with common intention in committing murder, thereby attracting liability under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Held:

The Court analyzed the evidence presented and the principles outlined in Section 34 of the IPC. It concluded that there was no evidence to support a finding of common intention among the accused to commit murder. Instead, the acts appeared to be random and individual, without a premeditated plan or shared intention.

Therefore, the appellants' conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was modified to a lesser offense under Section 325 of the IPC. The Court also acquitted the appellants of certain other charges related to the attack on prosecution witnesses, as there was no evidence of their involvement in those acts.

Facts:

The case involves a contempt petition alleging deliberate violation by the respondents of a Supreme Court judgment regarding the promotion process for Assistant Engineers in the Government of Pondicherry. The petitioners argued that the respondents had distorted the promotion process, denying eligible and senior candidates an opportunity to compete for promotion.

Issues:

Whether there was a deliberate violation of the Supreme Court's judgment in the promotion process for Assistant Engineers in the Government of Pondicherry.

Whether the method adopted by the government for preparing the list of eligible candidates for promotion was fair and in compliance with the Court's previous directions.

Held:

The Court found that while there were flaws in the method adopted by the government for preparing the list of eligible candidates, there was no deliberate or contumacious breach of the Court's directions. The error seemed to have occurred due to an erroneous perception on the part of the government and the review DPC that their method was legally sound. Therefore, no punitive action was taken against the respondents. The Court directed the respondent-state to redo the promotion exercise in accordance with the Court's previous directions, while expecting them to be more careful and circumspect in the future.

Facts:

The case involves land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1966 for certain survey numbers including Survey Nos. 215 and 222 of Village Kapra under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Portions of the land were denotified by the government in 1972. A public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the High Court, resulting in directions concerning the lands in question. The appellants challenged these directions.

Issues:

Validity of the High Court's directions concerning specific survey numbers.

Ownership of the land and the applicability of relevant provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

Bona fides of the PIL and the parties involved.

Proper procedures followed in the land acquisition process.

Applicability of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

Held:

The Court found several issues that needed examination, including the bona fides of the PIL, ownership of the land, validity of notifications and procedures under the Land Acquisition Act, and the applicability of Section 11-A of the Act. The High Court's directions regarding certain survey numbers were set aside, and the case was remitted back to the High Court for fresh disposal.

The appellants were to be impleaded as parties and given an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court clarified that it had not expressed any final opinion on the issues raised, but provided guidance for the High Court's scrutiny.

Facts:The case revolves around the interpretation of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, specifically concerning the rights of daughters in coparcenary properties.

Issues:

The retrospective operation of the amendment, the applicability of rights to daughters of coparceners, the interpretation of proviso and explanation clauses, and the prospective operation of the amendment.

Held:

The Amendment Act, as per Section 6(1), confers rights on daughters of coparceners from its commencement, without retrospective effect. The plain language of the statute leaves no room for a different interpretation.

The contention that the Amendment should be read retrospectively due to being a piece of social legislation is dismissed. Even social legislation cannot have retrospective effect unless expressly provided by the legislature. In this case, the legislature expressly made the Amendment applicable from its commencement.

The proviso and explanation clauses are to be read harmoniously with the main provisions of the Amendment Act. They do not affect the intention of the main provision but aim to exclude transactions prior to December 20, 2004.

Interpretation of statutes should aim to discover the legislature's intention and advance the statute's object. In this context, the main provision of the Amendment Act is not intended to be affected by the proviso and explanation clauses.

Decision: The rights conferred by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, regarding daughters' rights in coparcenary properties, apply prospectively from the commencement of the amendment and do not affect transactions prior to December 20, 2004.

Facts:

The Orissa Public Service Commission (OPSC) had issued an advertisement for a Competitive Examination (1974-1975) for recruitment, including reserved vacancies for SC/ST candidates. Due to an insufficient number of SC/ST candidates recommended by OPSC, the State Government filled the remaining vacancies on an ad hoc basis, appointing candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and selected by a Selection Committee. Later, the appointments were regularized by government resolutions. Disputes arose regarding the seniority of these appointees vis-a-vis OPSC-selected candidates.

Issues:

Validity of the method of appointment of SC/ST candidates.

Locus standi of OPSC-selected candidates to challenge the appointments of SC/ST candidates.

Determination of seniority between the two groups of candidates.

Held:

The method of appointment of SC/ST candidates via sponsorship by the Employment Exchange and selection by a Selection Committee was held to be valid under Section 9(4) of the Orissa Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (For S.C. & S.T.) Act, 1975. This method provided a legitimate alternative to recruitment through the OPSC competitive examination, considering the inadequate number of SC/ST candidates recommended by OPSC. The regularization of appointments by government resolutions was found to be within the legal framework.

The court upheld the impugned judgment, dismissing the appeals challenging the appointment method and seniority determination. However, no costs were awarded.

Facts:

The case involves a property ownership dispute dating back to 1966.

Legal battles for possession and damages ensued between the parties involved.

Mesne profits were awarded at different rates by various courts during the litigation process.

Issues:

The main issue revolves around the interpretation of a Supreme Court order dated 21.04.2009.

Specifically, whether the applicant's right to claim mesne profits, already awarded by lower courts, was affected by the order.

Held:

The court clarified that the applicant's right to claim mesne profits, as awarded by lower courts, remained intact and was not affected by the order of 21.04.2009. It emphasized that only issues directly related to the subject matter of the case could be given up by a party. Since the claim for the awarded mesne profits was not the subject matter of the dispute before the court, it could not be considered as given up. Therefore, the court allowed the applicant's application for clarification and directed the executing court to proceed with the execution application for recovery of the awarded mesne profits.