Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Month: October 2023

Service Matters
Service

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.

Oct 1, 2023 sclaw

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. )…

Constitution

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.

Oct 1, 2023 sclaw

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,…

Banking Direct Taxation

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.

Oct 1, 2023 sclaw

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 :…

Corporate Intellectual Property

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

Oct 1, 2023 sclaw

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

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw