Facts:

The case revolves around a claim for refund of duty under the Central Excise Act. The order on the refund application of the respondent had been passed on 06.06.1989, which predates the amendment to Section 118. Despite the refund order, the appellant had not refunded the amount, leading to the filing of a writ petition in the High Court for the initiation of contempt proceedings against the defaulting officers.

Issues:

Whether the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11B applies retroactively to refund orders passed before the amendment to Section 118?

Whether the Assistant Commissioner has jurisdiction to investigate unjust enrichment in cases where the refund order predates the amendment to Section 118?

Held:

The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11B applies only when an application for refund was pending at the time of the amendment to Section 118. If no application was pending, and the refund order had already been passed before the amendment, the proviso doesn't apply.

In the instant case, the refund order was passed before the amendment to Section 118 came into operation. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner is obligated to implement the refund order without investigating unjust enrichment.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, affirming that the doctrine of unjust enrichment doesn't apply retroactively to refund orders passed before the amendment, and the Assistant Commissioner is bound to implement such orders without investigating unjust enrichment.

Facts:

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories imported diagnostic equipment from Bio Systems, Barcelona, Spain, classified as "auto analysers" for automatic blood sample analysis. Customs authorities seized the goods, disputing their classification as "auto analysers" and claiming they were "photometers".

Issues:

Whether the imported equipment qualified as "auto analysers" under customs regulations, considering the functionality and technical specifications.

Held:

The Court reinstated the Commissioner of Customs' decision, affirming that the imported equipment met the criteria of "auto analysers" despite some manual elements in the process. The Court criticized the CESTAT's reasoning and dismissed the revenue's appeal against the penalty imposed.

Facts:

The appellants, who are Master's Degree/Degree holders serving as Section Officers Grade-I in the Public Health Engineering Department, challenged a letter issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur, regarding the initiation of direct recruitment for Assistant Engineers.

Issues:

The proper application of recruitment rules, compliance with government policies regarding recruitment, and the alleged violation of constitutional provisions.

Held:

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, directing that the appellants' case would be considered for promotion against the promotion quota, as they were high in the seniority list. The Court upheld the High Court's decision and did not delve into other issues raised by the appellants.

Facts:

The case involves a dispute over the specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property.

The agreement in question was written on a quarter sheet of paper and produced before a Magistrate in a criminal proceeding.

Issues:

Whether the agreement written on a quarter sheet of paper is enforceable for specific performance.

Whether the plaintiff has sufficiently proven the existence of a concluded agreement for the sale of immovable property.

The appropriate exercise of judicial discretion in granting specific performance.

Held:

The Court acknowledges that a decree for specific performance can be granted based on an oral contract but emphasizes the heavy burden on the plaintiff to prove consensus ad idem between the parties.

Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act preserves judicial discretion in granting specific performance, which should be exercised based on sound judicial principles.

The High Court's reliance on the agreement written on a quarter sheet of paper was deemed incorrect due to issues with its format and execution. Additionally, the failure to consider discrepancies and legal proceedings related to the agreement was criticized.

Evidence from a criminal proceeding cannot serve as conclusive proof in a civil case, and the High Court erred in not considering this.

Decision: The Court overturned the decision of the High Court, ruling that the case did not warrant the discretionary relief of specific performance in favor of the plaintiff-respondent.

Facts:

Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. imported crude oil during a specific period, with allegations that certain consignments had escaped full payment of customs duty.

Issues:

The correct method of valuation for customs duty on the imported crude oil.

Held:

The court disagreed with the Tribunal's ruling, stating that it misinterpreted relevant provisions of the Customs Act and Customs Valuation Rules. It held that the quantity of crude oil actually received into the shore tank in India should be the basis for payment of customs duty. The court set aside the Tribunal's decision and directed the customs authorities to take consequential action accordingly.

Facts:

U.V. Mahadkar was selected as the Head of Department of Agronomy by a Selection Committee, but the decision was challenged by Subhash Anand Chavan and others. The High Court set aside the selection, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

Whether the selection committee appropriately considered both merit and seniority in accordance with relevant statutes and legal precedents.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of merit over seniority in promotion decisions, as mandated by the relevant statutes and legal principles. The Court underscored that seniority should only be a secondary consideration when merit is approximately equal among candidates.

Referring to legal precedents, the Court reiterated that promotion to higher posts should primarily be based on merit, with seniority serving as a secondary criterion.

The Court held that the High Court should not have intervened in the decision made by the selection committee unless there were allegations of malice or arbitrariness. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by U.V. Mahadkar and upheld his selection for the position of Head of Department of Agronomy.

Facts:

The appellant, Abdul Waheed, appealed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court affirming his conviction under various sections of the IPC.

The case stemmed from a civil dispute over the construction of a house on a Panchayat Ghar site, leading to contempt proceedings against Abdul Waheed.

On the eve of a court hearing, a confrontation ensued between Abdul Waheed and his associates, armed with guns and lathis, and the complainant party, resulting in injuries and fatalities.

Issues:

The appeal raised issues regarding discrepancies in the place of occurrence, the assertion that the complainant party were the aggressors, and challenging the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Held:

The Supreme Court rejected the defense's arguments, emphasizing the established motive by the prosecution and the consistency of witness accounts.

The Court affirmed the trial court and High Court's findings, concluding that the use of firearms indicated an intention to cause fatal harm, leading to the appellant's guilt of murder under Section 302 IPC.

Despite the appellant's age and the time elapsed since the incident, the Court stressed the importance of upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system and ordered the appellant's immediate custody to serve the remaining sentence.

Facts:

The appellant, Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth, was charged under Section 506(2) IPC in 2001. Later, in 2014, a charge under Section 376 IPC was added. The prosecutrix did not take any action for almost nine years after the alleged incident. The appellant applied for anticipatory bail after the charge under Section 376 IPC was added.

Issues:

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the appellant considering the time lapse between the alleged incident and the addition of the serious charge, as well as the prosecutrix's inaction.

Held:

The Court held that merely adding a serious charge after a long period of time should not automatically deny the benefit of anticipatory bail (Para 17).

It was further emphasized that the appellant's participation in legal proceedings without attempting to influence witnesses weighed in favor of granting anticipatory bail (Para 24).

The impugned judgment was set aside, and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the appellant was restored (Para 27).

Decision: The Court allowed the appeals and restored the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. The decision was based on the considerations outlined in Paragraphs 17 and 24 of the judgment.

Facts:

The appellants, doctors serving under the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, challenged the decision regarding eligibility criteria for appearing in the West Bengal Post Graduate Medical Admission Test for 2015.

A notification issued on 24.03.2015 stated that in-service candidates who obtained diplomas between 2012-2014 would not be considered for the degree course, favoring pre-2012 diploma holders instead.

The appellants contended that this change was arbitrary and discriminatory, as it was implemented after they were selected and called for giving sponsorship certificates.

The respondents argued that the decision was made to prioritize doctors who completed their diploma courses much earlier than the appellants, given the shortage of doctors in the state and plans to open new super-specialty hospitals.

Issues:

Whether the change in eligibility criteria for the medical admission test was arbitrary and discriminatory.

Whether the appellants' merit should take precedence over seniority in determining eligibility.

Held:

The court dismissed the appeals, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the decision. However, the respondents' counsel assured that the appellants would be given sponsorship for the following year, 2016-17. The court noted that the placement of doctors was at the discretion of the government, and while the appellants were allowed to appear in the examination and secured a place in the select list, there was no justification to prioritize them over their seniors. The court emphasized that seniority was a relevant factor, especially in the context of the shortage of doctors in the state and plans for new super-specialty hospitals.