Facts:

The case involved an appeal regarding the interpretation of provisions under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, focusing on Section 4(1)(a) proviso (iii) and Section 4(4)(c) between the amendment Acts of 1973 and 2000.

Issues:

Whether the transaction between the assessee company and its holding company constituted an arrangement to sell goods at a price below the normal price to evade or avoid tax, thus invoking proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a). Additionally, the interpretation of the definition of "related person" under Section 4(4)(c) was crucial to the case.

Held:

The Court clarified the requirements for proviso (iii) to Section 4(1)(a) to be applicable, emphasizing that three conditions must be cumulatively met. These conditions include the arrangement by the assessee to sell goods at a lower price, the commonality of such arrangements in wholesale trade, and the sale being either to or through a related person.

Regarding the definition of "related person," the Court highlighted the legislative intent to extend the definition to include various entities associated with the assessee, such as holding companies, subsidiary companies, relatives, distributors, and sub-distributors, to uncover the economic realities of transactions.

The Court elucidated that if price is the sole consideration for a sale, even when the buyer is a related person, Section 4(1)(a) applies. However, if there's evidence of price manipulation due to extra-commercial considerations, proviso (iii) may apply.

It was emphasized that Section 4 aims to value transactions at arm's length, with price being the sole consideration. Transactions with related persons undergo scrutiny to ensure they reflect market realities.

Proviso (iii) was deemed applicable only to tainted transactions, where there's an irrebuttable presumption of price manipulation.

Regarding the interpretation of "related person" in Section 4(4)(c), the Court explained the application of both de facto and de jure tests, extending the definition to include relatives and companies based on control.

The Court concluded that while the assessee and its holding company were related persons, there was no evidence of an arrangement to depress prices, and only a small portion of goods were sold to the holding company. Therefore, proviso (iii) didn't apply, and Section 4(1)(a) governed the valuation of goods.

Facts:

The case involved a challenge to a scheme for the sale of coal through electronic auction (e-auction) by a Coal Company (CCL), a public sector undertaking. This scheme had been declared ultra vires in a previous case. Subsequently, directions were issued for the refund of excess amounts charged to coal consumers.

Issues:

Whether the decision of the Supreme Court in a previous case regarding the scheme for coal sale through e-auction is binding on all courts in the country.

Whether the coal company is obligated to refund excess amounts charged to coal consumers in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision.

Whether the coal company's attempts to defeat legitimate claims of citizens determined in previous litigations are justifiable.

Held:

The Supreme Court emphasized the binding nature of its decisions on all courts within the territory of India. The decision rendered in a previous case regarding the coal sale scheme through e-auction was held to be binding on all courts in the country.

The benefit of the Supreme Court's decision in the previous case extends to all coal consumers, regardless of their participation in the case. Therefore, there is no justification to deny the benefit of the decision to the instant coal consumers based on parity with previous cases.

The coal company's attempts to defeat legitimate claims of citizens by raising untenable pleas were criticized by the Court. The company was directed to verify the claims of coal consumers and refund the excess amounts charged, along with 6% interest.

Facts:

The appellant, Voltas Ltd., was engaged in the business of executing jobs including the fabrication and installation of air-conditioning plants. A works contract was undertaken for the fabrication and installation of a water chilling plant at a customer's factory. The contract involved specific design parameters outlined in the work order.

Issues:

Whether the works contract should be taxed under Entry 2 or Entry 5 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969. Entry 2 pertained to the installation of air-conditioners, while Entry 5 covered the fabrication and installation of plant and machinery.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the works contract fell under Entry 5, which covered fabrication and installation of plant and machinery. Therefore, the contract should be taxed at the lower rate prescribed under that entry.

The Court emphasized the importance of considering the specific terms of the works contract and the nature of the tasks involved. The judgment underscored the principle that tax statutes must be interpreted strictly according to their language and intent, and that all relevant aspects of a transaction must be considered to determine the appropriate tax treatment. The Civil Appeal is allowed.

Facts:

The case involves the interpretation of Section 9A of the CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 1977, in relation to Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC. The dispute arises from a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the court raised by the defendants.

Issues:

Whether Section 9A of the Maharashtra Amendment Act represents a departure from the procedure outlined in Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC?

What is the scope of Section 9A concerning the determination of jurisdictional issues as preliminary issues?

How should the term "jurisdiction" be interpreted in the context of Section 9A?

What is the relationship between limitation and jurisdiction, particularly in cases where the court lacks jurisdiction?

Held:

The Court held that Section 9A of the Maharashtra Amendment Act represents a departure from the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 of the CPC. While Order XIV Rule 2 confers power upon the court to pronounce judgment on all issues, Section 9A mandates the preliminary determination of jurisdictional issues, overriding the provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 (Para 56).

The scope of Section 9A is to decide the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the court as a preliminary issue, notwithstanding the provision contained in Order XIV Rule 2. However, in cases governed by Order XIV Rule 2, the court retains discretion to decide based on law as a preliminary issue (Para 57).

The term "jurisdiction" in Section 9A should be interpreted broadly, not confined to conventional notions of pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction. It encompasses various senses and draws meaning from its context (Paras 40-41).

The court clarified that in cases where the court lacks jurisdiction, it cannot acquire jurisdiction through consent or waiver of the parties. The Limitation Act, 1963, provides that suits filed after the prescribed period of limitation should be dismissed, even if the limitation period wasn't raised as a defense (Paras 43-44).

Decision: The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the interpretation and application of Section 9A of the CPC (Maharashtra Amendment) Act in deciding jurisdictional issues as preliminary issues.

Facts:

The deceased, Karamjit Kaur, was married to the accused, Jagsir Singh, about 21/2 years before her death.

Allegations were made by the prosecution that Karamjit Kaur was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and in-laws in connection with dowry demands.

The prosecution's case was primarily based on the testimonies of the deceased's father and brother.

Issues:

Whether the essential elements required to establish guilt under Section 304B IPC were proven by the prosecution.

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry shortly before her death.

Held:

The essential elements required to establish guilt under Section 304B IPC, emphasizing the need to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry "soon before her death."

Highlight the lack of concrete evidence presented by the prosecution to establish dowry demands and mistreatment. The court criticizes the prosecution for not presenting independent witnesses or evidence from the Panchayat to corroborate the allegations.

Concluded that the conviction of the appellants under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained due to the failure to prove the essential elements of the offense. The court allows the appeal and acquits the appellants of the charges.

Facts:

The case involved the importation of alcohol where allegations of under-invoicing were made against the respondents.

The Department issued a show cause notice proposing duty demand, confiscation of goods, and penalties.

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) partially allowed the appeals filed by the respondents, setting aside some penalties but upholding unauthorized import and confiscation.

The appellant, not the importer but a purchaser of the goods, deposited a substantial amount as per a court order for the release of seized goods.

The appellant sought a refund of the deposited amount after the Tribunal's decision favored the respondents, which was rejected based on the doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Issues:

Whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment applied to the refund of the deposited amount.

Whether the deposited amount was considered duty payment.

Held:

The court allowed the appeal, ruling that the deposited amount was not towards duty and therefore unjust enrichment did not apply.

The court ordered a refund of the entire amount deposited by the appellant, along with interest as directed by the High Court.

The court referred to circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, stating that refunds of pre-deposits should be made promptly, as these deposits are not considered duty payments.

Facts:

The plaintiff, Ganeshram, contested the validity of a will and a sale deed executed by Phoolbasa Bai, claiming ownership of the property.

The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the will and sale deed legal and valid.

The High Court partially upheld the trial court's decision, affirming the validity of the sale deed but questioning the validity of the will.

The High Court found suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, including inconsistencies in the document and lack of mention of the will in Phoolbasa Bai's written statement before her death.

Issues:

Validity of the will executed by Phoolbasa Bai.

Ownership rights over the property in question.

Held:

The court held that the will executed by Phoolbasa Bai was not proved to be valid due to several suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution. The court emphasized that the execution of a will requires more than just a mechanical act of signing; it requires an intelligent understanding of its contents and acceptance thereof. The burden of proof for establishing the validity of a will is high, requiring clear evidence from witnesses. In this case, the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will were not adequately addressed by the defendants. Therefore, the will was held to be invalid.

The court also addressed the issue of the marital relationship between Phoolbasa Bai and Chhatrapati. Despite the absence of direct evidence of marriage, the court found strong evidence supporting their relationship as husband and wife, including their long cohabitation and recognition as a married couple by their community. The court upheld the presumption of marriage based on these factors.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals, affirming the High Court's decision to invalidate the will and confirming the ownership rights based on the legal heirs of Phoolbasa Bai's husband.

Facts:

Ambica Prasad claimed ownership of a property through exchange deeds executed with his brother in 1975. Despite this exchange, the brother continued to collect rent from tenants, including the father of the respondents, Abdul Karim.

Ambica Prasad filed an eviction suit against Abdul Karim, citing non-payment of rent and a genuine need for the property to open a medical clinic. Abdul Karim denied Ambica Prasad's ownership and contested the suit.

Issues:

Whether Ambica Prasad can establish himself as the landlord under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, and thereby seek eviction of Abdul Karim.

Whether the ownership transfer through exchange deeds is valid and entitles Ambica Prasad to seek eviction.

Held:

The Supreme Court clarified that for the purpose of eviction based on personal need or reasonable requirement, Ambica Prasad must establish himself as the owner of the building. This is in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.

The Court emphasized that despite Ambica Prasad's brother acting as a landlord by receiving rent, it did not negate Ambica Prasad's right to file for eviction as the original owner. The Court referred to a previous case, Sirajuddin alias Siraj Vs. State of Karnataka, to support this interpretation.

The Court invoked Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, clarifying that after the transfer of landlord's rights, the transferee (Ambica Prasad) inherits all rights and liabilities of the landlord. The tenant's attornment is not necessary for the validity of the transfer.

Considering these points, the Supreme Court allowed Ambica Prasad's appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and ordering the eviction of Abdul Karim from the property.

Facts:

The prosecution alleged that the accused, forming an unlawful assembly, attacked the deceased and the complainant party with weapons including lathis, farsa, and bombs. The trial court initially acquitted the accused, but the High Court convicted them based on the evidence presented.

Issues:

Whether the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Held:

The prosecution convincingly established the appellant's presence and active participation in the unlawful assembly. The witnesses, including those who were injured in the incident, provided consistent and reliable testimony supporting the prosecution's version (Para 15, 17, 20, 21).

The witnesses' testimonies were closely scrutinized due to their relation to the deceased and their status as interested parties. However, minor discrepancies and omissions did not undermine their credibility, as their presence at the scene of occurrence and their injuries lent credence to their accounts (Para 15, 17, 20, 21).

The trial court's emphasis on minor discrepancies and omissions to record an acquittal was deemed erroneous by the High Court. The High Court rightly reversed the judgment of acquittal, considering the substantial evidence presented by the prosecution (Para 26, 27, 29, 30).