Month: September 2022

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – Section 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5) – Once the land stood vested with the Government compensation paid no justification for the appellants to claim deemed possession of the subject land in question and even if they are in physical possession, no right could be claimed in reference to the subject land by the appellants.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GOPALBHAI PANCHABHAI ZALAVADIA (DEAD) THR LRS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S.…

Benami ownership – Where the first plaintiff had proved that the properties had been purchased, with his funds, and the sons were minors, with no source of income – Plaintiff also proved that he had possession of the property, by adducing positive evidence of tenants, who paid rent to him – Elements necessary to establish benami ownership within the meaning of Section 4(3)(a) of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PUSHPALATA — Appellant Vs. VIJAY KUMAR (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindrabhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia,…

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 173­L – HELD returned goods may be treated as a raw material and therefore the “value” of the raw material can be considered for the purpose of “value” while determining the refund under Section 173­L cannot be accepted – Denial of the refund is in consonance of Section 173­L (v) of the Central Excise Act – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S PEACOCK INDUSTRIES LTD. — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Reduction of sentence – Court is required to go by the principle of proportionality – If undue sympathy is shown by reducing the sentence to the minimum, it may adversely affect the faith of people in efficacy of law – It is the gravity of crime which is the prime consideration for deciding what should be the appropriate punishment.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SAHEBRAO ARJUN HON — Appellant Vs. RAOSAHEB S/O KASHINATH HON AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka, JJ.…

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 2(12) – In the case of determination of a lease by the lease coming to an end, tenant would be liable to pay damages for use and occupation at the rate at which the landlord could have let out the premises on being vacated by the tenant

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. — Appellant Vs. SUDERA REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidi Ghantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

Gujarat Value Added Tax, 2003 – IBC – State is a secured creditor under the GVAT Act. Section 3(30) of the IBC defines secured creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest is credited. Such security interest could be created by operation of law – Definition of secured creditor in the IBC does not exclude any Government or Governmental Authority

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH STATE TAX OFFICER (1) — Appellant Vs. RAINBOW PAPERS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Faridkot Royal Family Property Dispute – Raja of Faridkot’s Estate Act, 1948 was not a valid enactment and would not be applicable for succession to the estate of the Ruler – No case was made out for the applicability of Rule of Primogeniture and succession based on said Rule – Order of High Court granting the majority share to Amrit Kaur and Deepinder Kaur is upheld.

CE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAJKUMARI AMRIT KAUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit CJI., S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 7 – Arbitration agreement – Section 7 of the Act does not mandate any particular form for the arbitration clause – – Deficiency of words in agreement which otherwise fortifies the intention of the parties to arbitrate their disputes, cannot legitimise the annulment of arbitration clause

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BABANRAO RAJARAM PUND — Appellant Vs. M/S. SAMARTH BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Abhay S. Oka,…

You missed