Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Deduction of amounts received under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 — Supreme Court clarifies that only benefits directly replacing lost income are deductible from compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. Other benefits, such as pensions or life insurance, remain unaffected. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 7 — Adjudicating authority must satisfy itself that a financial debt exists and there is a default — Pre-existing dispute is not a bar to admitting an application by a financial creditor under Section 7, unlike in the case of an operational creditor under Section 9. Companies Act, 1956 — Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Section 238 (IBC) — Overriding effect of IBC — Scheme of arrangement (SOA) under Companies Act vs. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under IBC — Delay and non-compliance with statutory timelines in the SOA process renders it defunct — IBC provisions prevail over inconsistent provisions in other laws — Adjudicating Authority under IBC can initiate CIRP even if SOA proceedings are pending, especially if SOA is defunct. Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 vs. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Jurisdiction — Orders passed under Benami Act cannot be questioned before authorities under IBC — NCLT lacks jurisdiction to entertain challenges to provisional attachment orders under Benami Act — Remedy lies exclusively before competent forum under Benami Act — IBC cannot be converted into a parallel appellate forum to review validity of attachment orders under specialised enactment — Doing so would render appellate machinery of Benami Act otiose. Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 — Section 98 — Recovery Certificate — Sale under Section 98 — Mandatory Deposit — Rule 107(11)(h) of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 — Deposit of entire auction amount within 15 days of auction date is a mandatory condition — Failure amounts to void sale — Bank did not raise objection and accepted deposit after 15 days — Such acceptance does not waive the mandatory condition — Sale was void as the entire amount was not deposited within the stipulated period.

Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 – Sections 2(4) and 31(2) – Eviction – having purchased the land in the year 2007 after parting with valuable consideration, the appellant cannot be condemned without providing him a full opportunity to put forth his case with supporting evidence – Accordingly, This Court allow this appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Gujarat High Court as well as the orders passed by the authorities and remand the matter for consideration afresh on facts and law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANAIYALAL MAFATLAL PATEL — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 – Arbitration Proceedings – Applicability of Group of Companies Doctrine – Group of Companies doctrine is applicable to arbitration proceedings – Definition of “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration Act includes both the signatory as well as non-signatory parties

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH COX AND KINGS LTD. — Appellant Vs. SAP INDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI., Hrishikesh…

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 32(1) – Income Tax Rules, 1962 – Rule 5(1A) – There is no requirement under the second proviso to sub-rule (1A) of Rule 5 of the Rules that any particular mode of computing the claim of depreciation has to be opted for before the due date of filing of the return

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Appellant Vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LIMITED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR — Respondent ( Before : B. V.…

Suit for specific performance – Refund of earnest money – Merely refunding the earnest money paid, after sixty years will be unreasonable as the respondent, after booking the plot, has been waiting all along as even in the litigation since 1986 – Price of the land in the area has increased manifold for the last sixty years – Appellant pays a total amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the respondent as full and final settlement of claim in the suit – Appeals disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY @ APPELLANT Vs. KANTI PRASAD JAIN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and…

You missed