Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Corporate

Corporate

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 275(1), 275(1)(a) -Period of limitation – Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Income- Tax Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the period of limitation in the instant case is governed by the provisions of Section 275(1) as the penalty was initiated in the assessment order itself and the penalty order was issued within time in accordance with the provisions of Section 275(1)(a) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961

Apr 30, 2017 sclaw

  (2013) 217 TAXMAN 400 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Appellant Vs. KEDIA POWER LTD. — Respondent ( Before : H.L. Dattu, J; Dipak Misra, J…

Corporate

Preventive Detention–Once it is found that the detention order contains many grounds, even if one of them is to be rejected, principle of segregation contained in Section 5A gets attracted—Grounds are referred to as ‘materials on which the order of detention is primarily based’-

Apr 27, 2017 sclaw

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 133 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 512 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri  The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre                                            …

Corporate

Central Excise Tariff – Item 26AA(ia), 25(8) – Classification of elastic rail clips – Learned Counsel for the appellant that a Special Bench of five members of Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal has considered the same question and taken the view in favour of the assessee that elastic rail clips are classifiable under Item 26AA(ia)/25(8)

Apr 27, 2017 sclaw

  (1998) 77 ECR 439 : (1997) 92 ELT 5 : (1998) 4 JT 439 : (1997) 8 SCC 483 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VEE KAY INDUSTRIES — Appellant Vs.…

Corporate

There is no element of compensation involved and, therefore, the High Court was right in the view that it took, namely, that the assessee was not entitled to a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act in respect of the amounts that it had been required to pay under the provisions of Section 17(3) – Appeals allowed.

Apr 24, 2017 sclaw

  (1997) 142 CTR 137 : (1997) 225 ITR 383 : (1997) 10 SCC 659 : (1997) 105 STC 188 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA MALWA VANASPATI AND CHEMICAL CO. —…

You missed

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw