Latest Post

Legal Representatives Can Claim Motor Accident Compensation Even Without Financial Dependency On Deceased Execution Of Unregistered Agreement To Sell Does Not Terminate Subsisting Landlord-Tenant Relationship Nor Entitle Tenant To Section 53A TP Act Protection A. Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 111(e) & (f) — Landlord and Tenant — Determination of lease by express or implied surrender — Execution of agreement to sell by landlord in favour of tenant — Effect on jural relationship — Held, mere execution of an agreement to sell between landlord and tenant does not ipso facto determine the subsisting tenancy — Tenancy is determined only when terms of agreement or unequivocal conduct of parties disclose express or implied surrender — Where agreement to sell contained clause for cancellation and restoration of possession in case loan was not sanctioned, existing possession was referable to tenancy and not to agreement to sell — Landlord-tenant relationship continued to subsist. Appellate Courts Should Not Remand Cases Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC As A Matter Of Course When Sufficient Evidence Is Available On Record. A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rules 23 and 24 — Power of Appellate Court to remand — Remand of case to Trial Court for framing of additional issues and fresh evidence — Permissibility — High Court remitted suit regarding one item of property for framing issues on whether sale deed was sham, limitation, and possession — Held, remand is not to be adopted as a matter of ordinary course and reflects incorrect exercise of discretion when sufficient evidence is available on record — Issues already framed by Trial Court were comprehensive enough to cover core disputes — Appellate Court is fully empowered to decide issues on merits or admit additional evidence if warranted, rather than remitting matter to cause unnecessary delay — Remand set aside and appeals restored to High Court for fresh disposal on merits. Extended Period Of Limitation Under Proviso To Section 11A, Central Excise Act Cannot Be Invoked When Facts Are Known To Department Without Wilful Suppression A. Central Excise Act, 1944 — Section 35L — Maintainability of appeal before Supreme Court — Preliminary objection raised by Department that appeal does not come under Section 35L as issue had no relation to rate of duty or valuation — Held, issue raised regarding extended period of limitation on ground of non-inclusion of certain costs in assessable value has an inextricable link with valuation of goods for purposes of assessment — Issue raised in show cause notice fundamentally dealt with valuation of goods — Supreme Court declined to relegate matter to High Court after almost a decade of pendency — Preliminary objection rejected. Environment Law — Environmental Clearance — Prior clearance — Mandatory character — Prior environmental clearance under EIA Notification, 2006 is mandatory, being founded on the precautionary principle and couched in imperative terms — Word “prior” and the graded four-stage screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal process render an anterior assessment the sine qua non of the clearance regime — Decriminalisation of contraventions under Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 does not alter this mandatory character.

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…

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 18 – Appeal against conviction – An appeal against conviction could not have been treated as infructuous merely for the reason that the convicted appellant had served out the sentence awarded by the Trial Court in any case, the appeal could not have been dismissed as infructuous – Appeal remanded

2022) 1 ApexCourtJudgments(SC) 394 : (2022) 1 CriCC 387 : (2022) 1 RCR(Criminal) 119 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GURJANT SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB —…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Acquittal – Judgment of acquittal can be reversed by the Appellate Court only when there is perversity and not by taking a different view on reappreciation of evidence – If the conclusion of the Trial Court is plausible one, merely because another view is possible on reappreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of acquittal and substitute its own findings to convict the accused – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RUPESH MANGER (THAPA) — Appellant Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Service Matters

Service Law – Benefit of revised pay scales – There is no reason why the appellants should be denied the same relief, especially when even as of 7th January 2014, the same benefit was granted to the similarly placed employees – Direction to State Government to extend the benefits under the Government Order dated 15th November 1999 to the appellants within a period of three months.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH B.C. NAGARAJ AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal,…

Restoration of Review application – No litigant should be permitted to be so lethargic and apathetic much less should be permitted to misuse the process of law – High Court had committed gross error in allowing such vexatious applications and that too without assigning any reason.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VASANT NATURE CURE HOSPITAL AND PRATIBHA MATERNITY HOSPITAL TRUST AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UKAJI RAMAJI-SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ANOTHER —…

When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other – In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity – This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination – Conviction and sentence set-aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAVED SHAUKAT ALI QURESHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…

Whether a person holding a driving licence in respect of a “light motor vehicle” could on the strength of the licence be entitled to drive a “transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class” having unladen weight not exceeding 7500 kgs – Any change in the position of law as expressed in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 SCC 663 would undoubtedly have an impact on persons who have obtained insurance relying on the law declared by this Court and who may be driving commercial vehicles with LMV licences – A large number of persons would be dependent on the sector for earning their livelihood HELD entire matter is evaluated by the Government before this Court embarks upon the interpretative exercise. Two months time granted

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S BAJAJ ALLIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAMBHA DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI.,…

You missed