Month: April 2023

Stamp Act, 1899 – Section 31, 32 and 47A – Adjudication of the stamp duty – When a sale deed is presented for registration, the registering authority must ascertain the correct market value of the property subject matter of the document on the date of execution of the document – Stamp duty is payable on the basis of such market value and not on the consideration mentioned in the document – Relevant market value is the one which prevails on the date of execution of the conveyance –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHANTI BHUSHAN (D) THR. LR. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Sections 14(1)(e) and 25-B(8) – Eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement – appellant-landlord is said to have acquired title to the property in question on being transferred by her brother-in-law; and has sought eviction of the respective tenants from suit premises on the ground that the premises were required bona fide by her for use and occupation of herself and the other members of her joint family – Order passed by the Rent Controller restored.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KUSUM LATA SHARMA — Appellant Vs. ARVIND SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.3111 of…

Power of Attorney – After the death of the original plaintiff, the Power of Attorney executed by him in favour of “V” ceased to have any effect – Though another Power of Attorney was executed in favour of said “V”, it was executed only by the appellant­”L” – As such, “V” had no right to file appeal on behalf of the other legal heirs

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGESH NAVINCHANDRA RAVANI — Appellant Vs. NANJIBHAI SAGRAMBHAI CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil…

Service Matters

Appellants are entitled to financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme on completion of requisite regular service ignoring the higher qualification prescribed for the next higher post as grant of such benefit is not actually a promotion but only financial upgradation and if the higher qualification is insisted it would frustrate the purpose of the entire scheme.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMRESH KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS .ETC.ETC. — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS .ETC.ETC. — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 143(1)(a) and 143(3) – Jurisdiction of AO to assess or reassess the ‘total income’ – Once during search undisclosed income is found on unearthing the incriminating material during the search, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income even in case of completed/unabated assessments.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3 — Appellant Vs. ABHISAR BUILDWELL P. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ.…

(CrPC) – Section 385 – Procedure for hearing appeal – In the absence of the records of the Court of Trial conviction cannot be upheld – Language of Section 385 shows that the Court sitting in appeal governed thereby is required to call for the records of the case from the concerned Court below

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JITENDRA KUMAR RODE — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

HELD appellants specifically sought liberty to file a case afresh if the need arose. The mere absence of the mention of such liberty in the dismissal order cannot be taken to be a refusal of such prayer by the High Court upon application of mind. There is no indication to that effect in the order itself. Set aside

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALI HUSSAIN ISHAQ ALI VOHRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay…

HELD money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of the countries but also to their integrity and sovereignty. Hence any lenient view in dealing with such offences would be a travesty of justice – that non-production of the relevant documents especially the documents in respect of which the relief is sought, along with the SLPs could be the sole ground for rejection of the SLPs at the outset.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ANOOP BARTARIA AND ETC. — Appellant Vs. DY. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi,…

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.