Supreme Court of India

16,355 judgments

Year:

M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad

06 Aug 2015 · Dipak Misra; V. Gopala Gowda
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that exclusion of packing cost from excise duty assessable value requires a binding arrangement obliging return of durable packing material, which was not established by Tata Chemicals Ltd. for gunny bags used in soda ash packing.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant Central Excise Act 1944 Section 4(4)(d)(i) assessable value durable packing

M/S JAYASWAL NECO LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

06 Aug 2015 · A.K. Sikri; N.V. Ramana

The Supreme Court held that utilization of Cenvat Credit is a valid mode of payment of excise duty even during suspension of installment payment facility under Rule 173G(1)(e), and interest on such payment is not payable.

tax appeal_allowed Significant excise duty Cenvat Credit Rule 173G payment in installments

Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal v. Bank of India

05 Aug 2015 · Jagdish Singh Khehar; Adarsh Kumar Goel

The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act has the power to condone delay in filing appeals by incorporating the proviso to Section 20(3) of the RDB Act, overruling contrary High Court decisions.

civil appeal_allowed Significant SARFAESI Act Appellate Tribunal condonation of delay Section 18(1)

Indian Rare Earths Ltd. v. Unique Builders Ltd.

05 Aug 2015 · M. Y. Eqbal; Arun Mishra

The Supreme Court upheld a non-speaking arbitral Award, ruling that absence of reasons alone is insufficient to set aside an Award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Arbitration Act, 1940 non-speaking Award section 30 Arbitration Act jurisdiction of Arbitrator

Snehasish Mukherjee v. Union of India

05 Aug 2015 · Anil R. Dave; Adarsh Kumar Goel

The Supreme Court directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to consider and respond to the petitioner’s pending representations and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

administrative petition_dismissed writ petition Ministry of Home Affairs representations administrative accountability

M/S. SWASTIKA ENTERPRISES & ANR v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS

04 Aug 2015 · A.K. Sikri; Rohinton Fali Nariman
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that an endorsement on the Bill of Entry demanding customs duty constitutes a valid notice of demand under the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, entitling the appellants to its benefits.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 Customs Act, 1962 show-cause notice

M/S. JASWAL NECO LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISAKHAPATNAM

04 Aug 2015 · A. K. Sikri; R. F. Nariman

The Supreme Court held that anti-dumping duty exemption applies prospectively, interest on customs duties requires express bond or statutory provision, and penalty for export obligation failure is unjustified absent contumacious conduct.

tax appeal_allowed Significant anti-dumping duty customs duty interest on customs duty export obligation

M/S JAPAN AIRLINES CO. LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

04 Aug 2015 · A.K. Sikri; Rohinton Fali Nariman

The Supreme Court held that landing and parking charges paid by foreign airlines to AAI are payments for services under Section 194-C and not rent under Section 194-I, thereby allowing TDS deduction at 2% instead of 20%.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Tax Deducted at Source Section 194-C Section 194-I Income Tax Act 1961

Mohan Singh & Ors. v. The Chairman Railway Board & Ors.

03 Aug 2015 · VikramaJit Sen; Prafulla C. Pant

The Supreme Court held that the Moradabad Railway canteen is a statutory canteen under the Factories Act, entitling its staff to regularization subject to constitutional recruitment norms.

labor appeal_allowed Significant Factories Act 1948 Section 46 Statutory canteen Regularization of employees

Parhlad and Anr. v. State of Haryana

03 Aug 2015 · Dipak Misra; Prafulla C. Pant
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence of two appellants for raping a minor below sixteen years, holding that consent is irrelevant and ossification tests cannot override credible ocular evidence on age.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant age determination ossification test consent sexual assault

Ramesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

31 Jul 2015 · T. S. Thakur; R. Banumathi

The Supreme Court held that an employee granted retrospective promotion with ante-dated seniority is entitled to pay and allowances from the seniority date, overruling rigid application of 'no work no pay' where administrative error delayed promotion.

service_law appeal_allowed Significant retrospective promotion ante-dated seniority pay and allowances no work no pay

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

30 Jul 2015 · Dipak Misra; Prafulla C. Pant; Amitava Roy

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking stay of execution, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to delay execution on grounds of non-compliance with the 14-day period after mercy petition rejection when prior opportunity to challenge was available.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant mercy petition Article 72 Constitution of India death warrant 14-day period

Peerappa Hanmantha Harijan v. State of Karnataka

30 Jul 2015 · V. Gopala Gowda; C. Nagappan
Cites 2 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that an allottee company under the KIAD Act is not a beneficiary entitled to participate in land acquisition compensation proceedings, affirming the compensation awarded to original landowners and setting aside the High Court's remand order allowing the company's writ petition.

property appeal_allowed Significant Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 compensation allottee company

Dharam Chand v. Chairman, New Delhi Municipal Council

29 Jul 2015 · M. Y. Eqbal; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court upheld the NDMC's relocation order restricting a hawker's trade near the Supreme Court on security grounds as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution.

constitutional appeal_dismissed Significant Article 19(1)(g) reasonable restrictions security reasons tehbazari rights

Rajendra Shankar Shukla & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

29 Jul 2015 · V. Gopala Gowda; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court held that the Town Development Scheme formulated without consultation of constitutionally mandated local bodies and sanctioned with procedural irregularities is invalid, emphasizing the primacy of local self-governance under the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Town Development Scheme Raipur Development Authority 73rd Amendment 74th Amendment

Shabina Abraham & Ors. v. Collector of Central Excise & Customs

29 Jul 2015 · R.F. Nariman; A.K. Sikri

The Supreme Court held that in the absence of explicit machinery provisions in the Central Excises and Salt Act, assessment proceedings cannot be continued against the legal representatives of a deceased sole proprietor.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 assessment proceedings legal representatives excise duty

M/S POONAM SPARK (P) LTD v. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

29 Jul 2015 · A.K. Sikri; N.V. Ramana

The Supreme Court upheld that assembling imported components into a Water Purification and Filtration System on a base frame amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, attracting excise duty liability.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant manufacture Central Excise Act 1944 Section 2(f) Water Purification and Filtration System

Rajeshwar Baburao Bone v. State of Maharashtra

29 Jul 2015 · M. Y. Eqbal; C. Nagappan

The Supreme Court upheld the invalidation of a Scheduled Tribe certificate obtained by fraud, dismissing the appeal and barring future reservation benefits while protecting benefits already availed.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Scheduled Tribe certificate fraud Scrutiny Committee recall of certificate

Union of India v. M/S N.S. Rathnam & Sons

29 Jul 2015 · A.K. Sikri; N.V. Ramana

The Supreme Court held that excise duty exemption notifications discriminating between importers paying customs duty at different permissible rates violate Article 14 and must be extended to all similarly situated persons with adjustment for duty already paid.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Article 14 Customs Tariff Act, 1975 Central Excise Act exemption notification

Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra

28 Jul 2015 · Anil R. Dave; Kurian Joseph · (2013) 13 SCC 1

The Supreme Court held that failure to follow mandatory procedural rules in deciding a Curative Petition violates Article 21, stayed the death warrant, and directed reconsideration of the petition.

criminal other Significant Curative Petition Article 21 Right to Life Supreme Court Rules 2013