Month: February 2022

Held the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree. The doctrine of merger does not have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date. (2005) 1 SCC 705 reiterated .

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEERA TRADERS — Appellant Vs. KAMLA JAIN — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). 5996-5997…

U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 – HELD held that a financier of a motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered, is liable to tax from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Demand of illegal gratification – Proof of – A case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution – Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established – Appellant acquitted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. SHANTHAMMA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Partition Suit – Relief in Second Appeal – Entitlement – Plaintiff not entitled to relief in the second appeal on the ground that they have not challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court before the First Appellate Court, is not sustainable

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…

Finance Act, 1994 – Section 66(B) – Exemption from service tax – Services provided in the nature of contract labour not job work – On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADIRAJ MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE II — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…

Cheating and forgery – Prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., there have to be applications under Section 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the Cr.P.C. – Filing of complaint under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of written statement is a ulterior motive of harassing the accused persons – Proceeding quashed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BABU VENKATESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices) Regulations, 2003 – Regulation 9, 10, 11 and 12 – Whether an investigation report under Regulation 9 of the PFUTP Regulations must be disclosed to the person to whom a notice to show cause is issued – Held, Person has a right to disclosure of the material relevant to the proceedings initiated against him

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH T. TAKANO — Appellant Vs. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.