Facts:

On 24-06-2002, SI Satbir Singh received information that the appellant was selling opium.

The appellant was apprehended at a bus stand, and a personal search was conducted in the presence of DSP Shyam Singh Rana.

Opium was found tied around the appellant's stomach in a polythene bag.

Issues:

The appellant challenged the investigation conducted by PW6 SI Satbir Singh, who was also the complainant.

The appellant argued that, based on a precedent (State v. Rajangam), the investigation was improper, leading to entitlement to acquittal.

Held:

The Court rejected the appellant's argument, distinguishing the present case from State v. Rajangam. In this case, the search was conducted in the presence of and under the instructions of a Gazetted Officer (PW4). The principle laid down in Megha Singh and followed in State v. Rajangam did not apply in the present matter. The Court found no reason to differ from the view taken by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.

Referred Cases:

State by Inspector of Police, Narcotic Intelligence Bureau, Madhurai, Tamil Nadu Vs. Rajangam, (2010) 15 SCC 369

Megha Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 709

Facts:

Marriage of the first appellant and Syamala Rani took place in Vizianagaram on 04.05.2007.

Syamala Rani died under suspicious circumstances on 06.09.2008.

Criminal proceedings were initiated against the appellants under Sections 304B, 498A IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

A separate complaint under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed, alleging non-return of dowry amount and articles.

Issues:

Whether the subsequent complaint under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is sustainable when a prior case under FIR No. 1492 of 2008 is already registered against the appellants.

Whether specific allegations exist against the parents and sisters of the appellant-husband regarding the entrustment of dowry articles.

Held:

The Court emphasized that the giving of dowry and traditional presents does not raise a presumption of entrustment under Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

There were no specific allegations against appellants 2 to 6 regarding the entrustment of dowry articles, and the continuation of criminal proceedings against them was not just and proper.

The impugned order was set aside regarding appellants 2 to 6, and the appeal was partly allowed.

Referred Cases:

Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar, (1985) 2 SCC 370

Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692

Facts:

The dispute involves premises at No. 9-3-692 to 694, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad ("suit premises").

Appellants' predecessors purchased the suit premises in 1904; Respondents' predecessors became tenants.

Respondents allegedly stopped paying rent from June 1, 1987.

Issues:

Default in payment of rent and denial of appellants’ title to suit premises.

Validity of the eviction petition under Section 10 of the A.P. Buildings Act.

Held:

The First Appellate Court found the appellants to be the owners of the suit premises.

High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's order and restored the Rent Controller's decision.

Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by not adhering to established principles in revisionary jurisdiction for rent matters.

The findings of the First Appellate Court, including the relationship of landlord-tenant and willful default in rent payment, were held binding on the High Court.

The High Court did not limit its inquiry to jurisdictional errors as required by law.

The sale deed proved ownership by appellants, and respondents failed to prove their defense.

Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the First Appellate Court's decision.

Respondents were granted three months to vacate, subject to depositing arrears of rent and damages.

Referred Cases:

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78

Sheela Vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC 375

Facts:

The Respondent No. 1 appeared in the Odisha Joint Entrance Examination 2012, seeking admission into an engineering course. He was placed in the physically challenged category based on a visual disability and presented a certificate stating a 40% visual disability. The prospectus outlined reservation criteria for physically challenged candidates.

Issues:

The discrepancy in the assessment of the Respondent No. 1's visual disability—20% by the Medical Board constituted as per the prospectus and 40% as per the certificate from the District Head Quarters Hospital.

The High Court intervened, directing the production of a physically handicapped certificate contrary to prospectus guidelines.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interference was unwarranted. It emphasized adherence to prospectus guidelines, especially regarding the Medical Board's evaluation of disabilities. The Board, consisting of senior professors, correctly assessed the Respondent No. 1's visual disability at 20%. The High Court's order was deemed erroneous, and the appeals were allowed. The order passed by the High Court was set aside, with no costs imposed.

Facts:

The High Court considered questions referred to it regarding the Assessee's claim for deduction under Section 35(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issues included the disallowance of service charges paid to M/s. Universal Trading Company, the disallowance of loss in the film business, and the disallowance of a donation made to Aparna Ashram.

Issues:

The Assessee's failure to provide proof of services rendered by UTC, the allowance of loss in the film business, and the eligibility for the deduction of a donation to Aparna Ashram.

Held:

Disallowance of Service Charges: The Assessing Officer disallowed the service charges claim, citing the Assessee's failure to provide evidence of services by UTC during the relevant assessment year. The CIT (Appeals) and the ITAT held contrasting views. The High Court justified its decision based on the Assessee's failure to provide proof.

Disallowance of Loss in Film Business: The ITAT allowed the deduction for the loss in the film business, relying on a decision related to a sister concern. The High Court found this reliance untenable and interfered with the decision.

Disallowance of Donation to Aparna Ashram: The High Court upheld the disallowance of the donation, emphasizing the Assessee's failure to produce a certificate showing compliance with registration conditions under Section 35(2A) of the Income Tax Act.

Referred Cases:

Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City Vs. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., 68 ITR 200

K. Ravindranathan Nair Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 247 ITR 178

Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal, 82 ITR 547

Rameshwar Prasad Bagla Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P., 87 ITR 421

Facts:

The Appellant, Rahman Industries Pvt. Ltd., contested an award under the Timely Payment of Wages Act, 1978, leading to the High Court declaring the Labour Court's order as without jurisdiction. The High Court quashed the impugned orders but directed the government to refer the dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court.

Issues:

The peremptory direction of the High Court, seemingly depriving the government of its discretion to determine the referability of the industrial dispute.

Held:

The Supreme Court acknowledged the government's jurisdiction to assess the existence of a dispute before referring it for adjudication. It held that the High Court's mandatory direction to refer the dispute was against the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court set aside the direction but emphasized that the government must still examine the existence of a dispute. The decision was that the government should assess within three months and, if satisfied, refer the matter for adjudication before the Labour Court. The appeal is allowed.

Referred Cases:

Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited Vs. General Employees Association, (2007) 5 SCC 273

Sarva Shramik Sangh Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, (2009) 11 SCC 609

Steel Authority of India Vs. Union of India, (2006) 12 SCC 233

Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh Vs. State of Bihar, (1989) 3 SCC 271

Facts:

The appeal concerns the eviction of the Respondent from a shop owned by the Appellant under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings Act, 1972.

Issues:

The primary issue revolves around the bona fide need of the Appellant for starting a business for his physically disabled son.

The Respondent contested the eviction petition, leading to a prolonged legal battle.

Held:

The High Court, while rightly allowing the eviction petition, erred in granting an unjustified two-year period for the Respondent to vacate.( Paragraph 16)

The Court emphasized that without justifiable cause or statutory provision, the High Court should not have exercised its discretion to grant a two-year period.( Paragraph 17)

Considering the 20-year litigation period, the Court acknowledged that the Appellant suffered more hardship. The Act aimed at providing expeditious relief, and the prolonged case had denied the Appellant the benefit.( Paragraph 18)

The Court modified the order, granting the Respondent time until "31st August 2016" to vacate the shop, subject to conditions, including the payment of arrears and damages.( Paragraph 20)

Facts:

Misuse of Duty Entitled Pass Books (DEPBs) and DEEC Scheme leading to fabricated shipping bills and fictitious exports.

Respondent, a Customs House Agent, allegedly allowed unauthorized persons to use its license for monetary consideration.

Issues:

Whether the tribunal's exercise of discretion in directing the restoration of the license after a three-year suspension was appropriate.

Whether the serious violations and financial loss to the revenue justified the cancellation of the CHA license.

Held:

The court considered the statutory provisions, including Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, and noted that the tribunal has the jurisdiction to modify the order (Para 10).

Emphasized the serious nature of the violations, reflecting a chain of acts causing financial loss to the revenue (Para 14).

Referred to a previous decision (Noble Agency v. Commissioner of Customs) emphasizing the importance of CHAs and the need to seriously view any contravention of their obligations (Para 15).

Allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the tribunal, and restoring the Commissioner's decision to cancel the license (Para 16).

Referred Cases:

Nanda International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, (2004) 176 ELT 524 Tri.-Chennai

Noble Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, (2002) 142 E.L.T. 84 Tri.-Mumbai

Facts:

Show cause notice issued to Hindustan National Glass and Industries Limited for not adding additional consideration received from customers, resulting in alleged depression of assessable value.

Commissioner's order demanded duty and imposed penalties.

Respondent appealed to Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Tribunal had differing opinions among its Members, leading to a remand.

Issues:

Whether the revenue proved that advances obtained led to a depression of prices.

Applicability of Metal Box India Ltd. and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. decisions.

Establishing a link between advances and sale prices.

Held:

The court remitted the matter to the tribunal for fresh examination, emphasizing the need to establish a link between advances and sale prices. The onus was placed on the revenue to prove this connection. Liberty was granted to the revenue to produce documents. The tribunal was instructed to consider the respondent's submission regarding the excise authorities' knowledge when deciding on the penalty.

The appeal was allowed, the tribunal's order set aside, and the matter remitted for fresh disposal.

Referred Cases:

Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Hero Honda Motors Ltd., (2005) 4 SCC 182

Metal Box India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, (1995) 2 SCC 90