Supreme Court

Shivappa Reddy Vs. S. Srinivasan

(Abhay S. Oka, Augustine George Masih, JJ.)

2025 V AD (S.C.) 64

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sec. 482 , 200, 239—Saving of inherent powers of High Court- Examination of complainant- When accused shall be discharged—Section 138 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 —Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account—Sections 32, 62 and 63, 72 — Indian Partnership Act 1932 - Retirement of a Partner- Noting of Changes in Names and Addresses of Partners- Recording of Changes in and Dissolution of a Firm— Mode of giving public notice—Impugned order set aside—Appeal Allowed.
Held: (Paras- 2,7,8,9,10,12,13,14)
Result: Appeal allowed.Cases Referred:

Rajeev Gupta & Ors. Vs. Prashant Garg & Ors.

(Dipankar Datta, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.)<br />

2025 V AD (S.C.) 156

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Sec. 100, 96 — Second appeal— Appeal from original decree- Order 6 Rule 17, CPC,1908— Amendments of pleadings- Section 68 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872— Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested-Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882— Transfer by ostensible owner-The impugned second appellate judgment and decree of the High Court and the first appellate judgment and decree of the first appellate court are both set aside- Appeal allowed.
Held: (Paras- 6,11,12,15,19,20, 25,39,45, 67,70)
Result: Appeal allowed.

Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd. (M/s. ) Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II

(Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.)

2025 V AD (S.C.) 116

Central Excise Act, 1944— Sec. 35L(b) —Appeal to Supreme Court— Appellant is a manufacturer of excisable goods falling under Chapters 27, 28, 29, 32, 38 and 39 — Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985—Rule 173B, 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 —Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules — Taking of samples for excise purposes— Provisional assessment to duty—The proper officer has to apply his mind and if he considers it necessary, he may conduct further inquiry to ascertain the correctness of classification-Appeals filed by the appellant are liable to be allowed.Held; (Paras- 7,9,10,12,15,19, 20,26,34,38)
Result: Appeals allowed.

Gopal Dikshit Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.

(B.V. Nagarathna, Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.)<br />

2025 V AD (S.C.) 76

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sec.. 23 —Appeal-—Appellant herein is the owner of the premises situated at Mathura Road, entire building was insured with House Holder Insurance Policy -The damage to the insured premises was not caused by any inherent structural defect or seepage-No reason to accept the second survey report and the same is set aside-Matter remand back to the NCDRC for the limited purpose of determining the appropriate quantum of compensation payable in accordance with the policy terms and applicable law-Appeal disposed.
Held: (Paras- 9,10,12,13,16,18,1 9,20,24,28,29,30,31,32)
Result: Appeal disposed.

Ravinder Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.

(B. R. Gavai CJI, K. V. Viswanathan, J.)<br />

2025 V AD (S.C.) 69

Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sec. 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 34, 263, 114 —Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust—Criminal Conspiracy- Punishment for Forgery- Forgery of valuable security, will, etc — Forgery for purpose of cheating - Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record- Erasure of mark denoting that stamp has been used- Abettor present when offence is committed—Criminal Conspiracy—Act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention-Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1935 -Section 161, 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 —Examination of witnesses by police-Report of Police Officer on competition of investigation—Case will proceed in those States in accordance with law and the question of clubbing does not arise- Petition allowed..
Held: (Paras- 6,10,12,14,16,19,20,21,22)
Result: Petition allowed.

Copyright © 2022 Apex Decisions Software, All rights Reserved. Designed By Techdost