Supreme Court's Judgments of November 2025 : Part 3

Supreme Court's Judgments of November 2025 : Part 3

Indirect Tax, Central Excise and Inclusions

It has been held in Lipi Boilers Ltd v. CCE [2025] GCtR 1673 (SC) that value of the duty paid bought out items which were delivered directly at the buyer’s site is not liable to be included in the value of the boiler cleared by the assessee from its factory in CKD condition, for the purpose of assessment of excise duty. The decision was passed in the context of Central Excise Act, 1944. 

Property, Real Estate and Effect of Agreements to Sell

In case of K.S. Manjunath v. Moorasavirappa [2025] GCtR 1674 (SC) it is held that "unilateral termination of the agreement to sell by one party is impermissible in law except in cases where the agreement itself is determinable in nature in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. If such unilateral termination of a non-determinable agreement to sell is permitted as a defence, then virtually every suit for specific performance can be frustrated by the defendant by placing an unfair burden on the plaintiff, who despite performing his part of the obligations and having showcased readiness and willingness, would require to also seek a separate declaration that the termination was bad in law. In such cases, the burden cannot be casted upon the plaintiff to challenge the alleged termination of agreement". "If a contract itself gives no right to unilaterally terminate the contract, or such right has been waived, and a party still terminates the contract unilaterally then that termination would amount to a breach by repudiation, and the nonterminating party can directly seek specific performance without first seeking a declaration". 

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Rejection of Plaint

In case of MITC Rolling Mills Pvt Ltd v. Renuka Realtors [2025] GCtR 1675 (SC), it was held that an order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 decides the lis finally and would tantamount to a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of Code, 1908. It was held that "the plaintiff who is aggrieved of the order rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11cannot be left remediless or compelled to institute a fresh suit". A decree passed by a Commercial Court at the level of a District Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction or, as the case may be, the Commercial Division of a High Court would ordinarily be appealable before the High Court under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with the applicable provisions of the Code, 1908.

Permit to Private Operator under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

It has been held in UPSRTC v. Kashmiri Lal Batra [2025] GCtR 1676 (SC) that "an inter-State reciprocal transport agreement can be executed by two States drawing power from Section 88 of the MV Act, 1988 which is part of Chapter V thereof." The consistent view has been that an IS-RT Agreement by its very nature is an agreement between two States but not a law under the relevant MV Act. Approved schemes and notified routes, which are envisaged in Chapter VI, would obviously override Section 88, in view of Section 98 of the MV Act. No permission can be granted at this stage to any private operator having a permit issued by the STA, MP to ply his vehicle on an inter-State route connecting two cities in the neighbouring States, which overlaps any notified intra-State route in the State of UP.

Legality of Decrees against Dead Persons

In case of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghonghade v. The State of Maharashtra [2025] GCtR 1677 (SC) it was noted that as per the provisions of Order XXII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if a party expires between the conclusion of hearing and pronouncement of the judgment, the same does not result in abatement of such proceedings and the judgment on being pronounced, would have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before the death of such party took place. In facts of this case the Judgment in favour of the deceased appellants would be a nullity in the absence of the legal heirs being brought on record and the judgment of the trial Court would be the one that would govern the rights of the parties. Hence, the decree passed by the trial Court would revive for being executed.

                       *****************************

Part 2 of Supreme Court's Judgments of November 2025 are available at the link given below : - 

https://vishallegalghy.blogspot.com/2025/11/supreme-courts-judgments-of-nov-2025.html

Part 1 of Judgments of November 2025 are available here at the link given below. Readers can read entire content free of cost :  

https://vishallegalghy.blogspot.com/2025/11/supreme-courts-important-judgments-of.html