Supreme Court - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules: Containerizing Generators is “Manufacture” for Excise Duty

10Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Containerizing Generators is “Manufacture” for Excise Duty

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that an activity amounts to 'manufacture' under the Central Excise Act, 1944, only if it satisfies a two-fold test: it must bring about a transformation resulting in a distinct product with a new identity, character, or use, and this new product must be commercially marketable. The court emphasized that both prongs of this test must be cumulatively satisfied. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Quippo Energy Ltd., was engaged in the business of leasing "Power Packs," which were containerized gas generating sets (Gensets). It imported fully assembled Gensets, which were assessed by Customs as electric generating sets. To facilitate leasing and transportation between customer sites, the appellant placed these imported Gensets into steel containers. S...

International Child Custody Battle Leads to Supreme Court Quashing Dowry Harassment FIR

9Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

International Child Custody Battle Leads to Supreme Court Quashing Dowry Harassment FIR

The Supreme Court quashed an FIR under Section 498-A IPC, invoking its powers under Article 136 and endorsing the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It ruled that a criminal complaint, if found to be a malicious and retaliatory measure to settle scores, constitutes an abuse of the legal process. The Court applied the principles from the landmark precedent of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to halt proceedings that were initiated with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Nitin Ahluwalia, an Australian citizen, and the respondent, Tina Khanna, an Austrian citizen, were married in India in November 2010 and began their matrimonial life in Australia. In June 2013, the respondent unilaterally left the matrimonial home and took their ...

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Seized Property, Says “Expediency” Under CrPC Has Limits

9Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Law on Seized Property, Says “Expediency” Under CrPC Has Limits

The Supreme Court held that the release of case property (cash) under Section 451 CrPC was premature. The ownership of seized money, being the proceeds of alleged crime with multiple claimants, cannot be determined conclusively at an interim stage but must be adjudicated after a full trial upon consideration of all evidence. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR (CR No. 11206078220159 of 2022) alleging that the appellant-accused, through his proprietary firm Jay Gopal Trading Company, committed cheating and criminal breach of trust against a complainant and other merchants in transactions involving castor seeds. During the investigation, the police seized cash amounting to Rs. 50,00,000. Respondent No. 2, another merchant claiming the seized cash was for goods he sold to the...

Supreme Court Rejects “Cryptic” Acquittal, Orders Fresh Hearing in 2002 Murder Case

7Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rejects “Cryptic” Acquittal, Orders Fresh Hearing in 2002 Murder Case

The Supreme Court set aside a High Court judgment of acquittal for being cryptic and lacking reasoning. It reiterated that a first appellate court must independently evaluate evidence and provide a reasoned order, demonstrating application of mind. The case was remanded for a fresh hearing on merits, without expressing any opinion on the case's substance. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Sessions Court judgment dated 04.06.2009 in Sessions Trial No. 50 of 2003, which convicted the accused persons for offenses stemming from an incident in 2002. The Sessions Court sentenced accused Nos. 1 and 2, Anil and Imran, to life imprisonment, while accused Nos. 3 and 4, Wasif and Pappu, were sentenced to one year of imprisonment along with a fine. The convicted accused appealed this dec...

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence and Hostile Witnesses

7Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence and Hostile Witnesses

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt based on circumstantial evidence. Key eyewitnesses turned hostile and their testimonies did not establish kidnapping or the 'last seen' theory. The Court emphasized that the foundational principles for convicting on circumstantial evidence were not satisfied, rendering the conviction unsustainable. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns the kidnapping and murder of Bhoominadhan, an auto-rickshaw driver from Nellore. The prosecution's case was that on the evening of 26th March 2016, the appellant-accused, Thammineni Bhaskar (A-1), along with his associates, forcibly dragged the deceased from his auto-rickshaw near a banyan tree in Talpagiri Colony and kidnapped him. The incident was allegedly witness...

Co-accused’s Acquittal Leads to Supreme Court Setting Aside Another’s Conviction

7Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Co-accused’s Acquittal Leads to Supreme Court Setting Aside Another’s Conviction

Based on the principle of parity, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant. The Court held that when a co-accused, prosecuted on identical evidence in a joint trial, is acquitted and the State does not challenge it, sustaining the conviction of the remaining accused would be unjust and inequitable. Facts Of The Case: On January 1, 2002, the State Task Force officials near Dayamani Restaurant, Kathipudi, noticed two women, the appellant Vaddi Ratnam (Accused No.2) and Nerella Vijaya Lakshmi (Accused No.1). Upon seeing the officials, the co-accused handed a yellow handbag to the appellant, after which both attempted to flee but were apprehended. A search of the bag revealed six packets containing a total of 5.5 kilograms of opium. The accused confessed to being involved in the opium trade...

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court

7Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

State Cannot Penalize Employee for Its Own Error, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 to grant relief, ruling that an appellant, though initially ineligible, cannot be penalized for the state authorities' error in selecting and appointing him. The court reinstated the appellant with continuity of service but denied back wages, clarifying the decision was based on the case's peculiar facts and would not set a precedent. Facts Of The Case: The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission advertised for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), reserving 25% of vacancies for teachers from Government Elementary Schools with five years of experience. The appellant, a teacher at a fully government-aided minority school, applied under this quota. His application was processed by the Commission, which found hi...

Buyer Protected: Supreme Court Validates Sale of HUF Property Made in Good Faith

6Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Buyer Protected: Supreme Court Validates Sale of HUF Property Made in Good Faith

This Supreme Court judgment reaffirms the extensive authority of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) Karta to alienate coparcenary property for legal necessity. The Supreme Court clarified that expenses from a daughter's marriage, even if incurred years prior, can create a financial necessity justifying a subsequent sale. The alienee discharges their burden by establishing a nexus to such necessity, and is not required to prove how the sale consideration was distributed amongst coparceners, as that lies within their special knowledge. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a dispute over a piece of ancestral land belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), with the father as its Karta. The plaintiff, one of the sons, sued his father and brothers after the Karta sold the suit land to the appell...

Deception in Court Backfires: Supreme Court Awards Custody to Father in Habeas Corpus Case

6Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Deception in Court Backfires: Supreme Court Awards Custody to Father in Habeas Corpus Case

This Supreme Court judgment underscores that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, overriding parental legal rights. It affirms the use of habeas corpus for child custody, directing interim custody to the natural guardian while prioritizing a stable environment and ordering the initiation of proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a matrimonial dispute between Sandeep Kumar (father) and Latika Arora (mother) concerning their two children. In May 2021, the mother travelled to the UK with their daughter, 'Miss N', but left their son, 'Master K', in India with her parents without the father's knowledge or consent. The father, unaware of his son's whereabouts, initiated proceedings in the UK High ...

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat

6Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Unused ‘Bachat’ Land Doesn’t Belong to Panchayat

The Supreme Court upheld that lands contributed by proprietors during consolidation proceedings, but not specifically reserved or utilized for common purposes (known as bachat land), do not vest in the Gram Panchayat or the State. Relying on the doctrine of stare decisis and Constitution Bench precedents, the Court affirmed that such land continues to belong to the original proprietors, dismissing the State's appeal. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a challenge by landowners (respondents) to an amendment made by the State of Haryana in 1992 to the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961. This amendment, via Haryana Act No. 9 of 1992, expanded the definition of "shamilat deh" (village common land) to include lands reserved for common purposes under the consolidation ...