Month: June 2017

Income Tax Act, 1963 – Section – 245C, 245H, 245D – Application for settlement – The assessee approached the Settlement Commission (Commission) with an application under Section 245-C of the Act – Section 245-H empowers the Commission to grant immunity from prosecution to an applicant if it is satisfied that he has made full disclosure of his income and has fully cooperated with the Commission

  (1996) 2 AD 629 : (1996) 132 CTR 290 : (1996) 219 ITR 618 : (1996) 3 JT 144 : (1996) 2 SCALE 655 : (1996) 8 SCC 154…

Service Matters

Promotion – The respondents-employees were appointed to the posts of L.D.C. in 1970-71 – The Departmental Promotion Committee constituted for the purpose of selection for promotion to the post of U.D.C. had considered the appellant’s claim and found him fit. It regularised his services and has given him the promotion as he was senior to the respondents

  (1997) 10 JT 700 : (1997) 3 SCALE 91 : (1997) 9 SCC 658 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 1098 : (1997) 2 SCR 628 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA PRAHALLAD BARAL…

Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 – Section – 3(7) – Judicial separation – The claim made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, is that a wife who had separated in property from her husband, shall be treated to be a judicially separated wife for the purposes of Section 3(7) of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960

  (1998) 7 JT 237 : (1998) 9 SCC 186 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SAROJ BHARDWAJ (SMT) AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND OTHERS — Respondent (…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 95(2)(b) – Statutory liability of insurer – Scope of – The insured vehicle allowed to carry six passenger, the maximum liability of insurer is at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per passenger subject to total liability of Rs. 20,000/-. Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 – Section 110-B – Compensation – Considerations for determination of – Necessity to balance loss of future pecuniary benefit which could have accrued to the claimant – Decision partly on conjectures – Permissibility.

  (1971) ACJ 206 : AIR 1971 SC 1624 : (1971) 1 SCC 785 : (1971) SCR 20 Supp : (1971) 3 UJ 489 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SHEIKHUPURA TRANSPORT…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.