Month: July 2022

HELD Anardana’ is a dried product of local ‘daru’ or wild pomegranate – well-settled principle that words in a taxing statute must be construed in consonance with their commonly accepted meaning in the trade and their popular meaning – Policy which specifically states – ‘import of pomegranate seeds will be free’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, AMRITSAR (PUNJAB) — Appellant Vs. M/S D.L. STEELS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela…

SEBI – Appellate Tribunal is an appellate forum and not the authority empowered to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 15-H or suo moto issue directions under Section 11, 11B or 11(4)(d) of the Act. It can uphold or set aside the direction issued, or modify and substitute the direction issued under Regulation 44 of the Takeover Regulations 1997 read with Sections 11, 11B and 11(4)(d) of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. SUNIL KRISHNA KHAITAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M.…

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 14(1) – There cannot be a fetter in a owner of a property to give a limited estate if he so chooses to do including to his wife but of course if the limited estate is to the wife for her maintenance that would mature in an absolute estate under Section 14(1) of the said Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOGI RAM — Appellant Vs. SURESH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

(IPC) – S 302/34 – Murder – Common intention- HELD the evidence available on record was not looked into as the witnesses had already been exposed to the accused in the police station – After all, the test identification parade is only a part of an investigation, and therefore, nothing more can be attached to it – Acquittal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SHISHPAL @ SHISHU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…

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.