Month: April 2020

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 194E – Payments made to the Non-Resident Sports Associations in the present case represented their income which accrued or arose or was deemed to have accrued or arisen in India. Consequently, the Appellant was liable to deduct Tax at Source in terms of Section 194E of the Act. Decided on : 29-04-2020

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PILCOM — Appellant Vs. C.I.T. WEST BENGAL-VII — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – Sections 4(2), 4(3), 4(5) and 7 – Calculation of amount of gratuity – In case of such an employee the gratuity has to be calculated in accordance with the provisions of the Act and while so calculating, not only the basic principle available in Section 4(2) as to how the gratuity is to be calculated must be applied but also the ceiling which is part of Section 4(3) must also apply . Decided on : 29-04-2020

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BCH ELECTRIC LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PRADEEP MEHRA — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Right of residence – Alternative accommodation – Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the appellant would certainly be entitled to a shared residence being her matrimonial home or in lieu thereof her husband to provide her with a suitable reasonable accommodation in accordance with law -Decided on : 29-04-2020

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NEELAM GUPTA — Appellant Vs. MAHIPAL SHARAN GUPTA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari,…

SC Upholds NEET; Says Uniform Exam For Admission In Medical & Dental Courses Does Not Violate Minority Rights . Held that prescribing a uniform examination of NEET for admissions in medical & dental courses did not violate rights of unaided/aided minority institutions under Articles 19(1) (g) & 30 read with 25, 26 & 29(1) of Constitution. D/APRIL 29, 2020.

SC Upholds NEET; Says Uniform Exam For Admission In Medical & Dental Courses Does Not Violate Minority Rights [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 29 April 2020 2:59 PM In a…

Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Results In Waiver Of Right To Raise Objections On Jurisdiction After Award : SC HELD hat the specification of a “Venue” or “Place” of arbitration may not hold much significance in domestic arbitrations as against international commercial arbitrations due to the uniform applicability of the substantive & curial law.D/April 29, 2020.

Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Results In Waiver Of Right To Raise Objections On Jurisdiction After Award : SC [Read Judgment] Sanya Talwar 29 April 2020 6:49 PM Court also pointed…

In Partial Relief To Vodafone Idea, SC Allows Tax Refund Of Rs 773 Crores Held that since the statute now envisages exercise of power of withholding of refund in a particular manner, it goes without saying that for assessment year commencing after 01.04.2017 the requirements of Section 241-A of the Act must be satisfied.

In Partial Relief To Vodafone Idea, SC Allows Tax Refund Of Rs 773 Crores [Read Judgment] Mehal Jain 29 April 2020 2:48 PM GMT In a setback of sorts to…

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 2(c) (xi) – Deemed University – Whether the trustee of Deemed University is a ‘public servant’ covered under Section 2(c) of the PC Act – Held, Deemed university covered under PC Act – This Court is of the opinion that the High Court was incorrect in holding that a “Deemed University” is excluded from the ambit of the term “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT — Appellant Vs. MANSUKHBHAI KANJIBHAI SHAH — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.