October 2021 - Page 6 of 11 - Supreme Court of India Judgements

November 18, 2024 12:06 pm

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Ss 143(3), 263 and 263(2) – Assessment – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Receipt of the order passed under Section 263 by the assessee has no relevance for the purpose of counting the period of limitation – The order was made/passed by the learned Commissioner on 26.03.2012 and it was dispatched on 28.03.2012. The relevant last date for the purpose of passing the order under Section 263 considering the fact that the assessment was for the financial year 200809 would be 31.03.2012 and the order might have been received as per the case of the assessee. Wrongly held passed by the learned Commissioner was barred by period of limitation

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI — Appellant Vs. MOHAMMED MEERAN SHAHUL HAMEED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.…

Service

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 – Section 91(3) – Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 – Rule 86 – Termination – HELD Single Judge erred in entertaining the petition in the year 2012 challenging the order of termination passed in the year 1996, on the ground of delay and laches and more particularly when even otherwise if the termination order would not have been passed the deceased employee would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1999.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SURJI DEVI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…

Service

Part-time temporary employees in a Government run institution cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work – Regularization can be only as per the regularization policy declared by the State/Government and nobody can claim the regularization as a matter of right dehors the regularization policy

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. ILMO DEVI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. )…

Constitution

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Sections 20(3) and 20(5) – Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat – Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction at all to decide the matter on meris once it is found that compromise or settlement could not be arrived at between the parties – Impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat dismissing the writ petition on merits is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ESTATE OFFICER — Appellant Vs. COLONEL H.V. MANKOTIA (RETIRED) — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Environment

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Sections 14, 16, 18(2)(e) and 19(25) – Whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Held, NGT is vested with suo motu power in discharge of its functions under the NGT Act:

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. ANKITA SINHA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Will & Succession

Indian Succession Act S 63 & Indian Evidence Act S 68 have been duly complied with in proving Exhibit P4 (Will). HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.HELD due execution of Exhibit P4 is accepted as against Exhibit D1. Exhibit P4 also cannot be questioned by the Respondent No. 1 who is none other than the erstwhile brother-in-law of the Appellant. Respondent No. 1 & 2 merely rely upon Exhibit D1 which is rightly found to be not genuine by both the Courts. We feel that the Appellate Court has not considered the relevant materials and substituted its own views when not warranted either on facts or law.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V. PRABHAKARA — Appellant Vs. BASAVARAJ K. (DEAD) BY LR. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ.…

Service

Service Law – HELD Firstly, the first appellant found that the respondent is not suitable for re-appointment, which was approved by the other authorities. Therefore, the employer has taken a conscious decision in the interest of the society. Secondly, it is not a case of extension in which case maybe the confirmation by “ACC” would have been warranted. We may also note that all the appellants, including the Hon’ble Minister, have approved the subsequent decision to go for a fresh recruitment by taking note of the larger public interest.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. N MURUGESAN ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…

Constitution

Government houses/flats are meant for serving Government employees. Post retirement, the government employees including Kashmiri Migrants are granted pensionary benefits including monthly pension – Classification made in favour of Government employees who were Kashmiri Migrants stands on the same footing as that of other Government employees or public figures – There cannot be any justification on the basis of social or economic criteria to allow the Kashmiri Migrants to stay in Government accommodation for indefinite long period.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. OMKAR NATH DHAR (D) THROUGH L.RS. — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and A.S. Bopanna,…

Rent

High Court in its revisional jurisdiction after taking into consideration the material on record, arrived to the conclusion that the delay of 175 days was bona fide and has been satisfactorily explained and allowed the application seeking condonation of delay of 175 days. In sequel thereof, the ex-parte decree was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Rent Controller to hear the parties on merits.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MRS. AMBIKA MURALI — Appellant Vs. TMT. VALLIAMMAL AND ANOTHER AND ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

Service

HELD the grievance of the respondent is not sustainable for the reason that the post of Assistant Public prosecutor is included in the Schedule appended to the Uttar Pradesh Transport (Subordinate) Prosecution Service Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the 1979 Rules’) which was published in the extraordinary Gazette on 27.07.1979 and in terms of Rule 5 of the 1979 Rules. Appeal Allowed

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHYAM LAL JAISWAL — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. )…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw

Month: October 2021

You missed