Month: October 2023

Service Matters

Absorption as Assistant Teacher – Res judicata – claim for absorption as an assistant teacher in the Higher Secondary Section is clearly barred by constructive res judicata – Plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the Court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SAMIR KUMAR MAJUMDER — Appellant Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…

Foreign Taxation – Exemption – Article 8(bis) of Omani Tax Laws exempts dividend tax received by the assessee from its PE in Oman- Assessees establishment in Oman has been treated as PE from the very inception up to the year 2011 – There is no reason as to why all of a sudden, the assessees establishment in Oman would not be treated as PE when for about 10 years it was so treated, and tax exemption was granted basing upon the provisions contained in Article 25 read with Article 8 (bis) of the Omani Tax Laws.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10 — Appellant Vs. M/S KRISHAK BHARTI COOPERATIVE LTD. — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra,…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 80P(4) – National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 – Banking Regulation Act, 1949 – Sections 5(b), 22 and 56 – If a co-operative society is not a co-operative bank, then such an entity would be entitled to deduction but on the other hand, if it is a co-operative bank within the meaning of Section 56 of BR Act, 1949 read with the provisions of NABARD Act, 1981 then it would not be entitled to the benefit of deduction under sub-section (4) of Section 80P of the Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. KSCARDB — Appellant Vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TRIVANDRUM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…

Infringement of copyright – Acquiescence is a defence available in action for the infringement of copyright – – Even assuming that the allegation of deceptive similarity in the labels used by the respondent was established by the appellant, one of the three elements which the appellant was required to prove, has not been proved

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIHAN KARAN SUGAR SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. YASHWANTRAO MOHITE KRUSHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.