30 August 2025 Legal Updates

VEHICLES PLYING ONLY WITHIN ENCLOSED PREMISES OF FACTORY/PLANT NOT LIABLE TO PAY MOTOR VEHICLE TAX: SUPREME COURT

(a) Case Title:

• M/S. Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 29, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Background Facts

• Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited, a logistics company established in 1985, was awarded a contract in November 2020 to handle and store iron and steel materials at the central dispatch yard within Visakhapatnam Steel Plant, owned by Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL). The company deployed 36 motor vehicles exclusively within this restricted premises from April 1, 2021, and these vehicles stopped using public roads entirely.
• The central dispatch yard is a highly restricted area enclosed by compound walls, with entry controlled by Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel. Public access is prohibited without authorization.

Legal Dispute

The company sought exemption from motor vehicle tax under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963, arguing that their vehicles were not being used on "public places" as required by law. However, the Regional Transport Officer rejected this claim and demanded ₹22,71,700 as motor vehicle tax, which the company paid under protest to avoid vehicle seizure.

Court Proceedings Journey

• Single Judge (High Court): Allowed the company's petition, holding that the restricted RINL premises did not constitute a "public place" and ordered refund of the tax paid.
• Division Bench (High Court): Reversed the Single Judge's decision, relying on Rule 12A which creates a presumption that registered vehicles are "kept for use" unless written intimation of non-use is given.
• Supreme Court: Restored the Single Judge's decision and allowed the appeal.

Key Legal Principles Established

1. Definition of "Public Place"

• The Supreme Court relied on Section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which defines "public place" as "a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access."
• The Court emphasized that if the public has no right of access to a place, it cannot be considered a "public place."

2. Interpretation of Charging Provisions

The Court applied strict interpretation principles for taxation statutes, citing Article 265 of the Constitution. Key principles include:

• Taxing statutes must be construed literally
• There is no room for implication in tax laws
• The charging section is the core of any taxing statute
• Citizens cannot be taxed unless the statutory language unambiguously imposes the tax

3. Compensatory Nature of Motor Vehicle Tax

• The Court recognized that motor vehicle tax is compensatory in nature, meant to recover costs for maintaining public infrastructure like roads and highways. Therefore, if vehicles don't use public infrastructure, the rationale for taxation disappears.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

• Section 3 Analysis: The charging section specifically requires vehicles to be "used or kept for use in a public place." Since the RINL premises were restricted and inaccessible to the public, they don't qualify as a "public place."
• Rule 12A Interpretation: The Court held that Rule 12A (which creates presumption of "kept for use") must be read harmoniously with Section 3. Being subordinate legislation, it cannot expand the scope beyond what Section 3 contemplates. The rule should be read as "kept for use in a public place."

Decision and Impact

The Supreme Court held that vehicles operating exclusively within restricted private premises are not liable for motor vehicle tax under the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1963. The company was entitled to exemption and refund of the tax paid.

COURT CAN SEEK MOBILE LOCATION OF SPOUSE TO ASCERTAIN ADULTERY IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES: DELHI HIGH COURT

(a) Case Title:

• Ms. Tanvi Chaturvedi v. Ms. Smita Shrivastava & Anr. and connected matters

(b) Court:

• High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(c) Date of Decision:

• August 29, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar

Background Facts

• Marriage between Smita Shrivastava (Wife) and Sumit Verma (Husband) solemnized on October 10, 2002. Two children were born from the marriage (2004 and 2010), and were residing with the wife
• Wife filed divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i) & (ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on grounds of adultery and cruelty. Wife impleaded Ms. Tanvi Chaturvedi (R-2) as co-respondent, alleging adulterous relationship with husband
• Multiple interlocutory applications filed regarding impleadment, document production, and call detail records (CDRs)

Key Legal Issues and Court's Findings

1. Impleadment of Alleged Paramour (R-2)

(a) Issue:

• Whether R-2 can be struck off as a party from divorce proceedings

(b) Court's Decision and reasoning

• The impleadment of R-2 was upheld. The Court ruled that Order I Rule 10(2) CPC allows striking off improperly joined parties or adding necessary parties
• In adultery cases, alleged paramour is a "necessary and proper party" under principles of natural justice. Person against whom adultery findings may be made cannot be condemned unheard. Family Court Act Section 14 provides wider latitude in evaluating pleadings

2. Production of Call Detail Records (CDRs) and Tower Location Data

(a) Issue:

• Whether directing production of CDRs and tower location data violates right to privacy

(b) Court's Decision and reasoning:

• Production allowed with safeguards. Section 151 CPC preserves inherent powers for ends of justice. Section 14 Family Courts Act enlarges powers beyond technical evidence rules. Section 165 Evidence Act empowers courts to order document production. Right to Privacy (Article 21) must be balanced with right to fair trial.
• In adultery cases, circumstantial evidence (including CDRs/location data) is crucial as direct evidence is rare. Adultery is committed in "darkness and secrecy" - circumstantial evidence necessary. Proportionality test-disclosure must be limited in scope with confidentiality safeguards

3. Document Production under Order XI Rule 14 CPC

(a) Issue:

• Whether certain categories of documents should be produced or constitute "fishing inquiry"

(b) Court's Decision and reasoning:

• Partial allowance with specific directions
• Financial records: Bank statements, credit cards, UPI transactions, demat accounts, ESOP details and Hotel booking details and travel records were allowed to be produced.

(c) Documents Rejected:

• WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Microsoft Teams chats, Leave records and FASTag statements

Key Legal Principles

• Order XI Rule 14 CPC allows production of documents "relating to any matter in question in such suit"
• Court must balance right to evidence with protection from undue burden/intrusion
• Discovery must be guided by relevance and prima facie link to claims
• Hotel records and travel details constitute primary evidence in adultery cases
• Financial documents relevant for maintenance claims under Section 25 HMA