Month: June 2020

COMPARATIVE HARDSHIP – LANDLORD vs TENANT :: Kerala Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 – Section 11(8) – Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 – Section 13(2) – Eviction – Section 11(8) of the Kerala Rent Act is materially different from Section 13(2) of the Bombay Rent Act in that it does not provide for partial eviction if comparative hardship of a landlord and a tenant are to be weighed against each other.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ADDISSERY RAGHAVAN — Appellant Vs. CHERUVALATH KRISHNADASAN — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80-O – Deduction – Income received in foreign exchange – Whether the income received by the appellants in foreign exchange, for the services provided by them to foreign enterprises, qualifies for deduction under Section 80-O of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as applicable during the respective assessment years from 1993-94 to 1997-98 – Held, NO. Appeal dismissed

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMNATH AND COMPANY — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

Limitation Act, 1963 – Articles 2, 3, 22 and 113 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rules 11 an 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Barred by law of limitation HELD having noticed from the averments in the plaint that the right to sue accrued to the appellant on receiving letter from the Senior Manager, dated 8.5.2002, and in particular letter dated 19.9.2002, and again on firm refusal by the respondents vide Advocate’s letter dated 23.12.2003 in response to the legal notice sent by the appellant on 28.11.2003; and once again on the follow up legal notice on 7.1.2005, the plaint filed in February, 2005 would be well within limitation – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHAKTI BHOG FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Indira…

Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 – Sections 5 and 5(2)(AA) – General Conditions of Contract – Clause 45.2 – Reimbursement of sales tax – Contractor company is rightfully entitled to claim reimbursement of the amount of sales tax levied on the taxable turnover of the works contracts executed by it.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH STATE OF ORISSA — Appellant Vs. B. ENGINEERS & BUILDERS LTD. & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : A.M.Khanwilkar, Indira Banerjee and Dinesh…

Supreme Court dismisses CBI’s Review Petition challenging P Chidambaram bail in INX Media Case HELD The investigating agency argued that the findings of the Court dealing with influencing witnesses in the case “are contrary to record which is required to be corrected”.

Supreme Court dismisses CBI’s Review Petition challenging P Chidambaram bail in INX Media Case The investigating agency argued that the findings of the Court dealing with influencing witnesses in the…

Who is liable to pay outstanding statutory electricity dues after auction-sale of property? Supreme Court answers. HELD “That electricity dues, where they are statutory in character under the Electricity Act and as per the terms & conditions of supply, cannot be waived in view of the provisions of the Act itself more specifically Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (in pari materia with Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910), and cannot partake the character of dues of purely contractual nature.”

Who is liable to pay outstanding statutory electricity dues after auction-sale of property? Supreme Court answers Shruti Mahajan Jun 3, 2020, 12:27 PM IST The Supreme Court has reiterated that statutory…

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.