Category: State Laws

Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 – Sections 40 and 16(1)(i) – Disqualification – There cannot be a birthright to seek adjournments, especially when the Divisional Commissioner was mandated to decide the issue of disqualification within a period of ninety days from application, as per Section 40(2) of the Act – Divisional Commissioner thus rightly treated the written submissions as his defence – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIRENDRASING — Appellant Vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

Kerala Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Act, 2019 – Section 10 – Overriding effect – Once consent is taken from the Pollution Control Board, the necessity for reading down Section 10 of the Kerala MSME Act, for the purpose of protecting the environment, does not arise.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOLLY GEORGE AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. GEORGE ELIAS AND ASSOCIATES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ.…

Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 – Rule 36(2) – Expulsion of membership on account of non-payment of dues for construction of flats – There is violation of Rule 36(2) of the Delhi Cooperative Society Rules, 1973 and the prescribed procedure for expulsion of a society member has not been followed – Expulsion of membership order is upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GEETA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Aravind Kumar,…

Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976 – Rule 3A(2) – the submissions on behalf of the respondents – suppliers/transferers that as there is no sale or transfer of the goods and that they are not registered with the TST Act and therefore, the liability to pay the tax at 4% does not arise cannot be accepted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CHANDAN DEB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.…

Telangana Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 – Rule 64 – Service of orders and notices – When any statutory or administrative order, visits a citizen or entity with adverse consequences, such an order has to be served upon the concerned person; especially so, when that order is appealable or subject to revision by higher authorities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NEERAJA PIPES PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta,…

Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – Section 70 – Mere production of the invoices or the payment made by cheques is not enough and cannot be said to be discharging the burden of proof cast under section 70 of the KVAT Act, 2003 – Unless and until the purchasing dealer discharges the burden cast

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Appellant Vs. M/S ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…

Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948 – Section 4-A(5) – Exemption – the goods manufactured on use of advance and/or modern technology, cannot be said to be a different commercial activity at all – High Court has not committed any error in refusing to grant exemption to the appellant – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMD INDUSTRIES LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S. ASHOKA METAL DÉCOR PRIVATE LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, LUCKNOW AND ANOTHER — Respondent…

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.