SARFESAI Act, 2002 – Section 13(2) – If someone has been called upon to participate in the bidding process, the facts must be made clear to the parties for the reason that there is always a high variance between market realizable value and the distress value of the mortgaged property when put to public auction under the provisions of the Act, 2002.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHD. SHARIQ — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Civil…
RSS Route Marches in the State of Tamil Nadu – Permission to RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) is granted – Special Leave Petition against the order of the Division Bench of Madras High Court directing the State Police to grant permission to RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) is dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. PHANINDRA REDDY, I.A.S. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. G. SUBRAMANIAN — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Special…
(IPC) – Section 302/149 – Murder – Appeal against acquittal – Accused being a part of the unlawful assembly and who also participated in commission of the offence, he shall also be liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 149 IPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURENDRA SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court declaring that the acquisition with respect to the lands in question are deemed to have lapsed under section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 are hereby quashed and set aside – Matter remanded
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (HSIIDC) & OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – In case possession has been taken, compensation has not been paid then there is no lapse – Similarly, if compensation has been paid, possession has not been taken then there is no lapse.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAND AND BUIILDING DEPARTMENT THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ATTRO DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…
Where both the parties suffered injuries in free fight and the passage, which was the root cause of the fight, has been held to be the passage owned by Gram Panchayat and Rafiamm and not belonging to the complainant party – Conviction and sentence of the appellants cannot be legally sustained
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJMER SINGH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…
Reference to arbitration – Jurisdiction – High Court has committed an error in allowing the application under Section 11(6) of the Act – High Court ought to have examined the issue of the final settlement of disputes.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NTPC LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S SPML INFRA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…
Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 – Entry 36(8)(h)(vi) Schedule III – Dettol is used as an antiseptic and is used in hospitals for surgical use, medical use and midwifery due to therapeutic & prophylactic properties the same would fall under Entry 36(8) (h) (vi).
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAXES AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 271C – Penalty for failure to deduct tax at source – There shall not be any penalty leviable under Section 271C on mere delay in remittance of the TDS after deducting the same by the concerned assessee.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S US TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar,…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Domicile or the registration of the company is not at all relevant and the determinate test is where the sole right to manage and control of the company lies.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANSAROVAR COMMERCIAL PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…








