Issue for Consideration Whether the CESTAT erred in passing the impugned order setting aside the penalty imposed upon the respondents-assessees. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – ss.138C(4), 108 – Evidence Compliance of s.138C(4) – Admissibility of micro films, facsimile copies of documents and computer print outs as documents and as evidence – Admissibility of electronic records – Case of the Revenue that the respondents (engaged in the business of importing branded food
Issue for Consideration High Court affirmed the order passed by the CMM directing registration of the FIR against the petitioner for offences punishable u/ss.186 and 341, Penal Code, 1860. Whether the CMM erred in involving the police in a complaint lodged by a Civil Judge for u/ss.186 and 341 of the I.P.C; whether the CMM erred in asking the police to investigate the complaint u/s.156(3) of the Cr.P.C instead of taking cognizance upon the complaint and issuing process to the petitioner; scope of s.195, CrPC. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Issue for Consideration The respondent was removed from services. The order of punishment was set aside by the Single Bench of the High Court and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with back wages. By the impugned judgment intra-court appeal filed by the Bank was dismissed against the the High Court. Headnotes† Service Law – Removal from Service – Respondent joined the Bank as a messenger – Complaints were received against the respondent for taking bribe for coordination in sanction of loans – Inquiry Officer submitted his report by holding the
Issue for Consideration Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s.302, IPC for the murder of her infant son ought to be set aside. Headnotes† Evidence – Extra-judicial confessions – Conviction based upon – When not justified – Appellant was convicted of her infant son based on alleged extra-judicial confessions made to her husband (PW-1), Ward Member (PW-3), Pradhan (PW-4) and PW-5, and sentenced to life imprisonment – Conviction and sentence affirmed by High Court – Interference with: Held: Extra-judicial confessions are weak
1444 : 2025 INSC 1020 Vikram Bakshi and Others v. R.P. Khosla and Another (Criminal Appeal No. 3646 of 2025) 20 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether a review or recall of an order passed in a criminal proceeding initiated under section 340 petition filed u/s.340 against the appellants for prosecution of offences of perjury and directed that the said application be listed for hearing: Held: As envisaged under the CrPC, criminal courts are barred from altering or review their own judgments except for the exceptions explicitly provided
Issue for Consideration Whether the judgment passed by the High Court places a reverse burden of proof upon the appellant and is thus, legally unsustainable; whether the conviction u/s.411, IPC for dishonestly receiving stolen property can be sustained in view of the fact that both the accused punishable u/s.379 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.411, 379 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114 – Conviction u/s.411, when not sustainable – Appellant and co- accused were acquitted of the charges u/ss.302, 201 and 379 IPC however, were convicted u/s.411 IPC
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the landowners seeking further enhancement of compensation on account of damages suffered by erection of transmission lines and towers, whereas the Contractor challenging the amount and whether there should be some remedy of appeal against order passed by the District Judge. Headnotes† Telegraph Act, 1885 – s.16(3), (4) – Disputes as to compensation – Assessment of compensation for the Tower Base Area (land beneath four legs of the tower) and the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards to whether D.W.5-son could have entered the witness box and deposed on behalf of his mother-defendant No.1. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – ss.118, 120 – Who may testify – Competent witnesses in all Appeal preferred to High Court u/s.100 CPC for pending title suit – Substantial question of law involved whether DW-5 (son) could have entered the witness box and deposed on behalf of his mother/Original Defendant No.1 – High Court eschewed from consideration entire oral evidence of
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not filed the arbitration petition u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 within the period of limitation Act, 1996 – ss.33, 34(3) – Computation of period of limitation – High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had not filed the arbitration petition u/s.34 within the period of limitation prescribed therein – Appellant contended that the
Issue for Consideration (i) Whether denial of the report of preliminary inquiry prepared by the officer entrusted by Vijaya Bank (which merged with the respondent in the year 2019) to conduct such inquiry, who happened to be the sole management witness, was sufficient to vitiate the regular (ii) whether the failure/omission of the Inquiry Officer to generally question the appellant on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence, as per Regulation 6(17) of the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, vitiated the inquiry;
Issue for Consideration Whether the findings of the Division Bench with respect to illegality in the appointment of appellants warrant interference; if the appointment is held to be legal, whether they are entitled to Headnotes† Service Law – Cancellation of appointments, en masse – When not justified – Doctrine of severability – Test of individual scrutiny – Appellants’ appointments to Class III posts were set aside by High Court primarily on the ground that
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether an inadvertent error in the shipping bills, which was permitted to be corrected u/s.149 of the Customs Act, 1962 can defeat appellant-exporter’s claim under the MEIS-Merchandise Exports from India Scheme. Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – – Inadvertent error in the shipping bills, which was permitted to be corrected u/s.149, if can defeat appellant-exporter’s claim under the MEIS-Merchandise Exports from India Scheme: Held: Once exports are genuine and fall within the notified category, inadvertent mistakes of
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was correct in directing the return of plaint to the appellant for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Headnotes† Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 – s.143 – Code of Civil Procedure, Return of Plaint – A tenancy agreement was entered into between the appellant-landlord and predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3-tenants – Land was taken for the purpose of setting up of petrol pump – Predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos.1 to 3 failed to pay
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in failing to adjudicate the appellants’ principal challenge to the State’s refusals to sanction posts and treating the matter as a mere plea for regularization, and, if so, given the appellants’ long and undisputed service, Court. Headnotes† Service Law – Regularization – State’s arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the perennial nature of duties and long service – Entitlement to regularization – Appellants (Class-IV employees-peons and Class-III-driver) were engaged
1308 : 2025 INSC 1002 Nabha Power Limited v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others (Civil Appeal No. 8694 of 2017) 19 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and Augustine George Masih,* J.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether deemed export benefits under Para 8.3 of Foreign Trade under the Power Purchase Agreement dated 18.01.2010; whether the Press Release of Cabinet Decision pertaining to change of threshold of so-deemed export benefits would constitute a “Change in Law” under the PPA; and if so, whether the appellants entitled to restitutionary relief in
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the Respondent No.2 holding that any further detention would be detrimental to his defence in the trial and inconsistent with the norms of fairness in criminal jurisprudence. Headnotes† Bail – Grant of – No.2-accused u/ss.147, 148, 302, 304 and 34, IPC alleging that along with his two sons he committed the murder of appellant’s father – Eventually, bail granted by High Court – Propriety: Held: High Court relied upon a decision of another co-ordinate Bench in the case of
Issue for Consideration The Family Court awarded Rs.15,00,000/- as permanent alimony, which was upheld by the High Court. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Decree of divorce – Permanent alimony – The Family Court granted a decree of divorce and awarded Rs.15,00,000/- The High Court upheld the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty and held that the Rs.15,00,000/- awarded as alimony by the Family Court was appropriate – Correctness: Held: Decree of divorce affirmed – Determination of alimony requires consideration of multiple factors – It
966 : 2025 INSC 990 Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2177-2185 of 2024) 18 August 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI and K. Vinod Chandran,* J.] Issue for Consideration Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or rebuke made, an suicide. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 and s.107 – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – s.108 and s.45 – A seven-time Member of Parliament committed suicide on 22.02.2021, leaving behind a suicide note which named persons, both in the administration and the
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the judgment passed by the High Court, setting aside the decree of divorce granted by the family court. Headnotes† Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.13(1)(ia), (ib) – Dissolution of marriage – Ground of cruelty on the grounds of cruelty and adultery – Family Court granted decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty – High Court set aside the decree of divorce – Challenge to: Held: No possibility of reconciliation between the parties – They have been living separately for
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or any other law in force permits issuance of a second provisional attachment order u/s.83(1) of the Act after the initial provisional attachment order by reason of efflux of a year from the date of its issuance, in terms of sub-section (2) thereof. Headnotes† Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – s.83 – Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – r.159(5) – Provisional attachment to protect revenue in