Month: June 2020

Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax, 1959 – Section 7A – Levy of purchase Tax – Purchase of empty bottles – Course of business of manufacture and sale of Beer and IMFL – Entire scheme of Section 7-A of the Act, nowhere any exception is provided that if a particular commodity or goods would be subjected to sales tax in the event of their sale, they may not be liable to purchase tax

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MOHAN BREWARIES AND DISTRILLERIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh…

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 168 – Accidental Death Loss of consortium and loss of love and affection are not separate heads for compensation – HELD the relevant compensation criteria death case, are : (i) the age of the deceased at the time of his death; (ii) the number of dependants left behind by the deceased; and (iii) the income of the deceased at the time of his death.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SATINDER KAUR @ SATWINDER KAUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer,…

8 year old child wanted to live with father, however Custody given to mother for one year HELD Empirical studies show that mother infant “bonding” begins at the child’s birth and that infants as young as two months old frequently show signs of distress when the mother is replaced by a substitute caregiver.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before :- J. Chelameswar and A.K. Sikri, JJ. Civil Appeal No. 3962 of 2016. D/d. 13.2.2017. Vivek Singh – Appellants Versus Romani Singh – Respondents For…

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 – Section 63 – Transfers to non-agriculturists barred – Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 debars an agriculturist from parting with his agricultural land to a non-agriculturist through a “Will”.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VINODCHANDRA SAKARLAL KAPADIA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and A.S. Bopanna,…

Service Matters

Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1975 – Rule 13 – Probation – Departmental examination – Matter referred to High Court consider the effect of non-consideration of Rule 13 of 1975 Rules on the earlier occasion as well as the impact of the decisions of this Court

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WARAD MURTI MISHRA — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra,…

Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 47A – Suo motu – Power of – There is nothing in the scheme of the Act which purports to restrict the exercise of suo motu power under Section 47-A, and confines it to cases where knowledge of any illegality or infirmity in the proceedings undertaken by the subordinate officers must be gathered from sources other than through a pending appeal

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS. — Appellant K. BASKARAN — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu…

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.