Facts:

The Appellant and six others claimed possession and cultivation of a piece of land.

An application was submitted to the Tehsildar to enter their names into the Record of Rights.

Mutation Entry No. 4601 was made, recording their names in the "other rights" column.

Disputes arose regarding the validity of the Mutation Entry, leading to legal proceedings.

Issues:

Whether the Mutation Entry was valid, considering the procedures followed and the nature of the Appellant's possession.

Whether the possession claimed by the Appellant and others was lawful.

Held:

The court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and emphasized the necessity of lawful possession for an entry in the Record of Rights. It found that the Appellant failed to prove the lawfulness of their possession or establish any legal title to the land.

The court criticized the procedure followed by the Tehsildar, stating that proper scrutiny of the claimant's legal right to possession was not done. Despite the lack of objection from the original owner, the court held that this alone does not validate the possession if it is not lawful.

The Mutation Entry was deemed unjustified as the Appellant and others did not claim any title to the land, and their possession was not proven to be lawful. Consequently, the Mutation Entry No. 4601 was set aside, affirming the decision of the High Court. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts:

Alexix Sonier, an American citizen, was participating in a 'Peace March' in India when he was struck by a bus owned by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.

Sonier sustained severe injuries and required extensive medical treatment, including surgeries.

A claim petition was filed seeking compensation for various expenses and damages incurred due to the accident.

Issues:

Whether the accident was a result of negligence on the part of the bus driver or contributory negligence by Sonier.

The validity of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

The applicability of certain claims made in US dollars when the claim petition was presented only in Indian rupees.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the driver of the bus was negligent and drove the bus rashly, leading to the accident.

The Court upheld the decision to disallow a specific amount claimed for medical expenses in the United States, citing difficulty in verifying reimbursement to the relevant department.

An additional amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was awarded towards the cost of an attendant for Sonier's lifetime, based on previous judgments establishing the necessity of such expenses.

The Court clarified that since Sonier's claim was made only in Indian rupees and not in US dollars, there was no need to apply any exchange rate for conversion.

The overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as modified by the High Court and further amended by the Supreme Court, was deemed appropriate and no further enhancement was allowed.

Facts:

The dispute pertains to Plot Nos. 795, 796, and 903 in village Bahauddinpur, District Azamgarh. The appellants claimed rights over the land based on their possession and entries in revenue records. The respondents sought expunction of the appellants' names from the records. The Consolidation Officer initially ruled in favor of the respondents, but the Settlement Officer, Consolidation later allowed the appeal by the appellants. Subsequently, the Deputy Director of Consolidation reversed this decision, leading to the appellants challenging the orders before the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the Deputy Director's decision was based on a re-appreciation of evidence or an examination of the correctness and validity of entries in the records?

Whether the principle of adverse possession applies to the appellants' claim?

Whether the High Court's decision warrants interference?

Held:

The Court held that From the findings recorded by the Deputy Director, Consolidation, it is clear that those Khasra/Khatauni have been excluded in which there were overwritings or some unwarranted entries. If that be the position, then the order passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation holding that the contesting Respondents acquired the right of Adhiwasi/Seerdars cannot be said to be based on re-appreciation of evidence afresh. It is only a case of examining the correctness and validity of the entries in the Khasra/Khatauni filed by the parties."

Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

Facts:

R.K. Zalpuri, a government employee, was dismissed from service in 1999 on charges of embezzlement and misconduct.

Zalpuri filed a writ petition challenging his dismissal in 2006, alleging procedural irregularities in the dismissal process.

The State Government argued for dismissal of the petition due to significant delay and laches in filing it.

The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favor of Zalpuri, finding procedural flaws in the dismissal process.

The State Government appealed this decision through a Letters Patent Appeal.

Issues:

Whether the delay and laches in filing the writ petition warrant dismissal of the petition.

Whether the High Court erred in not addressing the delay and laches issue raised by the State Government.

Held:

The Court emphasized the significance of considering delay and laches in judicial proceedings, especially in matters involving public interest.

The Court found that the delay in filing the writ petition by Zalpuri was unjustified and had rendered the claim stale.

Considering the doctrine of delay and laches, the Court held that Zalpuri's claim did not justify adjudication due to the significant delay in challenging his dismissal.

The Court allowed the State Government's appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and orders.

Facts:

The case involved a dispute over partition of properties between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

Defendants sought to introduce Exhibits B-21 and B-22 as evidence, claiming they were agreements documenting past transactions.

Plaintiff objected, arguing that the documents were unregistered relinquishment deeds.

Issues:

Whether Exhibits B-21 and B-22 are admissible as evidence in the partition dispute.

Whether these documents could be used for collateral purposes.

Held:

The Court held that Exhibits B-21 and B-22 were compulsorily registerable documents under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. As they were unregistered, they were deemed inadmissible in evidence for the primary purpose of proving the partition between the parties. However, the Court ruled that these documents could be admissible for collateral purposes, such as establishing the nature of possession of various shares, provided that the Defendants paid the necessary stamp duty and penalty and got the documents impounded.

Therefore, the Court partly allowed the appeal, allowing Exhibits B-21 and B-22 to be admitted as evidence for collateral purposes subject to fulfilling the stamp duty requirements.

Facts:

Fitrite Packers purchased duty paid GI paper and printed logos and product names (e.g., Parle) on it as per customer requirements. The printed paper was used for wrapping/packaging specific products.

Issues:

Classification of printed GI paper under different chapter headings.

Whether the printing process constitutes manufacturing.

Held:

The printing process transforms the paper into a distinct product with a specific use, warranting excise duty. The primary purpose of the paper remains unchanged after printing, but it becomes special wrapping paper for specific products, altering its commercial character and use.

Decision: The printing process constitutes manufacturing under excise laws. The appeal is allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and reinstating the Adjudicating Authority's order.

Facts:

The case involves the valuation of excisable goods under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, for the period spanning from September 28, 1996, to March 31, 2003. The central issue pertains to whether excise duty is leviable on freight charges for transporting goods from the factory gate to the buyer's premises, considering the buyer's premises as the place of removal.

Issues:

Whether the buyer's premises can be considered the place of removal for excise duty calculation.

Interpretation of amendments to Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, regarding the determination of the place of removal.

Held:

The amendments to Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, introduced in 1996, clarify that the place of removal refers solely to places from which the manufacturer intends to sell goods .

From September 28, 1996, to July 1, 2000, the place of removal excludes the place of delivery, such as the buyer's premises .

Amendments made effective from July 1, 2000, restrict the place of removal to the factory premises or warehouse, eliminating the buyer's premises as a valid place of removal .

The definition of "transaction value" and Rule 5 of the Central Excise Valuation (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000, affirm that transportation expenses are not included in excise duty calculation, except in specific circumstances.

Facts:

The case concerned the import of Roasted Molybdenum Ore Concentrate for the manufacture of Ferro-Alloys and the eligibility of the concentrate for exemption from additional duty of customs/CVD under Notification No. 412006-CE.

Issues:

Whether Roasted Molybdenum Ore Concentrate imported by the assessee was eligible for complete exemption from payment of additional duty of customs/CVD under the aforementioned notification.

Held:

The court held that the insertion of Note 4 in the legislation in 2011 changed the interpretation of the process of converting ores into concentrates. This note categorically stated that such a process amounted to 'manufacture'.

As a result of Note 4, Molybdenum Ore Concentrate was deemed to be a different product from ores. Consequently, since the exemption notification applied only to 'ores', concentrates fell outside its purview.

The court emphasized the need for a harmonious interpretation of Chapter Note 2 and Note 4. While Chapter Note 2 broadly defined 'ores', Note 4 specified that the conversion process constituted manufacture, leading to the creation of a different product known as Concentrate. Therefore, when Note 4 applied, ores ceased to be ores and became concentrates, making them ineligible for the exemption notification.

Exemption notifications were to be construed strictly, with any doubts resolved in favor of the revenue. Therefore, even if there was doubt, the benefit of exemption would not enure to the assessee but would be given to the revenue.

Facts:

The State of Haryana acquired land in 1973 for the establishment of a sheet glass manufacturing unit by Northern Indian Glass Industries Ltd. (the respondent).

Disputes arose over compensation and land utilization, with the respondent allegedly selling portions of the acquired land without prior permission from the state and failing to establish the proposed factory within the stipulated timeframe.

The state initiated resumption proceedings based on alleged breaches of contractual obligations by the respondent.

Issues:

Whether the state was required to adhere to principles of natural justice before issuing a resumption notice.

Whether the respondent's conduct justified the state's action of resuming the land.

Held:

The court held that adherence to principles of natural justice was necessary, even if not explicitly stipulated in the contract. The respondent's conduct was deemed unfair, indicating fraud and malpractice. The court ruled in favor of the state, allowing the resumption of the land and imposing costs on the respondent.