Facts:

Dulu Devi appealed against an order passed by the Gauhati High Court, seeking continuation of her service as Headmistress in-charge of the Dhemaji Rastrabhasha Hindi Lower Primary School, regularization of her service, and payment of regular salary. She had been serving as a teacher since 1989 and faced issues with salary payment initially.

Issues:

The termination of Dulu Devi's service and the legality of her appointment.

Held:

The Court ruled in favor of Dulu Devi, emphasizing that the mere passing of an order of dismissal or termination would not be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. Since there was no formal communication of termination to Dulu Devi, her service could not be assumed to have been terminated.

Therefore, she was entitled to continue in service and receive all arrears of salary in accordance with the law. This appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The plaintiffs jointly filed a suit seeking rectification of the revenue record to include their names as owners and possessors of a disputed land, alleging it was wrongly recorded as Government property. Despite presenting documentary evidence, the Revenue failed to justify the change in records. The appeal proceeded in the High Court, where one of the appellants passed away. The question of abatement arose due to non-substitution of the deceased appellant.

Issues:

Whether the mutation sought was justified based on the evidence presented?

Whether the appeal would abate due to the death of one of the appellants?

Whether the High Court's jurisdiction and procedure were correctly followed?

Held:

The court found that the plaintiffs provided substantial documentary evidence supporting their claim of ownership. The failure of the Revenue to justify the change in records raised doubts about the validity of the mutation.

The court ruled that the appeal would not entirely abate due to the death of one appellant. The remaining sharers, representing the deceased appellant's estate, could continue the appeal as they substantially represented the ownership of the suit property.

The court clarified that the High Court's procedure followed Clause 36 of the Letters Patent of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Therefore, the High Court's judgment was not vitiated by any non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appeal being C.A. No. 2964 of 2013 filed by the Corporation is also dismissed.

Facts:

Property initially purchased by Jagannath Joshi, but registered in the name of his wife, Moni Debi.

Plaintiff claimed to be the widow of Sitaram Joshi, allegedly adopted by Jagannath and Moni Debi.

Plaintiff claimed ownership of the property upon deaths of Jagannath and Moni Debi.

Defendant claimed to be the adopted son of Gomati Debi (Moni Debi's daughter) and contested plaintiff's claim.

Issues:

Ownership of the property (Jagannath vs. Moni Debi)

Validity of Sitaram's adoption

Validity of defendant's adoption by Gomati Debi and related gift deed.

Held:

Ownership of Property: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision that the property belonged to Moni Debi based on various circumstances and evidence.

Sitaram's Adoption: The evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding Sitaram's adoption was deemed insufficient and unreliable. The Court emphasized the need for clear and unambiguous evidence in cases of adoption, which was lacking here.

Defendant's Adoption by Gomati Debi: Since the plaintiff's claim of ownership failed, the issue of the defendant's adoption became irrelevant. The Court held that even if the defendant's adoption was challenged, the plaintiff was not the proper legal heir to contest it, as there were others with superior claims who did not challenge the adoption. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, dismissing the plaintiff's appeals.

Facts:

The case involved a review petition seeking a limited review of a previous judgment.

Interlocutory applications were filed, including one requesting the court to restrain the respondents from carrying out any development or construction during the pendency of the appeal.

The petitioners contended that their prayer for ad-interim relief was not considered and decided by the court.

Issues:

Whether the court should grant ad-interim relief as requested by the petitioners.

The status of the Notice of Motion pending before the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court declined to pass the ad-interim relief requested by the petitioners since it had already been declined by the High Court .

However, the court granted liberty to the petitioners to move their Notice of Motion pending before the High Court, directing that it would be heard while deciding the preliminary issue as per Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure .

The review petition and interlocutory applications were disposed of accordingly .

Additionally, Interlocutory Application No. 7 of 2014 seeking proceedings under the provisions of Section 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed considering the facts of the case and the order passed.

Facts:

The case involves the entitlement of exporters to claim rebates on excise duty paid on manufactured products and the inputs used in their manufacturing process.

Issues:

Whether exporters are entitled to both types of rebates under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, or only one kind of rebate.

Held:

The High Court's view, which allowed only one kind of rebate, is deemed incorrect and myopic .

Exporters are entitled to both rebates under Rule 18, encompassing excisable goods and the materials used in their manufacture .

Historical perspective and the scheme of the rules support the entitlement to both rebates .

The Central Government's issuance of notifications for claiming rebates on both excisable goods and materials used in their manufacture further supports this interpretation .

The word 'OR' in Rule 18 should be interpreted as 'AND' to align with the legislative intent and avoid absurd outcomes .

Decision: The Court allows the appeals, setting aside the impugned judgments and affirming the entitlement of exporters to both types of rebates under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Facts:

The plaintiffs filed suits for declaration of title and injunction against construction companies on land they claimed to own. The defendants, later impleaded, denied the plaintiffs' title, citing mutation entries indicating the land was held on behalf of villagers. The trial court dismissed the suits based on these entries, but the appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged this decision.

Issues:

Whether the plaintiffs' title to the land was solely based on mutation entries.

Whether the mutation entries indicating the land was held on behalf of villagers were legitimate.

Whether the amendment of the suits to include a declaration of title was barred by limitation.

Held:

The court held that the plaintiffs' title to the land was not solely based on mutation entries. Evidence including specific survey numbers and exhibits established their ownership. The mutation entries were discredited due to doubts raised by a revenue authority's order, which was upheld in appeal proceedings.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the plea of limitation, stating that the amendment of the plaints related back to the date of filing of the suit and had been allowed without challenge from the defendants.

The appeals were dismissed, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments.

Facts:

The case involved a longstanding dispute between the deceased, Channabasappa, and a person named Amoghi. On the day of the incident, Channabasappa and his supporters allegedly assaulted Amoghi, leading to retaliation from Amoghi's side and subsequent violence. The prosecution's case was that the accused, including the appellants, set fire to Channabasappa's house, resulting in the death of ten individuals trapped inside.

Issues:

The guilt of the appellants in the murder and other offenses they were charged with.

Held:

The Division Bench of the High Court reversed the trial court's judgment of acquittal and convicted the appellants along with other accused for various offenses, including murder, under the Indian Penal Code. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, affirmed the High Court's decision.

In particular, the Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented by eyewitnesses and found it sufficiently strong to justify the conviction of the appellants. Despite the defense's contention that one of the appellants, A-11, was not present at the scene of the crime, the court concluded that the eyewitness accounts were consistent and detailed in implicating A-11 in the offense.

The court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellants to serve their sentences. Additionally, the court acknowledged the assistance provided by Mr. Rajesh Mahale, who appeared as an amicus curiae, and directed the registry to pay him a fee of Rs. 10,000 for his valuable assistance.

Facts:

The case involved an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay.

The appeal stemmed from a Notice of Motion filed by Defendant Nos. 4A, 4B, and 5 in Suit No. 3706 of 1995 seeking enforcement of certain court orders.

The original Defendant Nos. 4A, 4B, and 5 sought withdrawal of the Notice of Motion during the appellate stage.

Issues:

Whether withdrawal of the Notice of Motion at the appellate stage could nullify vested rights created under a court decree.

Whether the appellate court's decision to allow withdrawal without considering the effect on vested rights was justified.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that withdrawal of the Notice of Motion, which led to the setting aside of the order passed by the single judge, cannot be allowed as it would nullify the vested rights created in favor of the Appellant. The Court emphasized that allowing withdrawal at the appellate stage, where rights of parties are crystallized, should be rare and only permitted when strong reasons are presented. In this case, the Appellant's vested rights should not be affected by the withdrawal of the Notice of Motion.

Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed it to decide the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with the law.

Facts:

M/S NRC Limited imported Caprolactum for manufacturing Nylon Tyre Cord in May 1986. Customs authorities demanded additional duty on the CIF price as well as on basic and auxiliary custom duty and landing charges, which the appellant contested.

Issues:

Whether the appellant was eligible for relief under the KVSS in light of the disputed duty payments and legal proceedings.

Held:

The Supreme Court determined that the appellant's case fell within the scope of the KVSS, despite arguments against it. The court concluded that the endorsements on the bills of entries constituted demand notices, making the appellant eligible for the scheme.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of the KVSS. It directed the return of the excess amount deposited by the appellant within two months, without interest.