Income Tax, Act, 1961 – Section 245D(4) – Powers and Procedure of Settelement Commission – It was not practicable for the Commission to examine the records and investigate the case for proper Settlement and even giving adequate opportunity to the applicant and the Department, as laid down in Section 245D(4) of the Act is not practicable.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of Plaint – Plaint is ought to have been rejected being vexatious, illusory cause of action and barred by limitation and it is a clear case of clever drafting.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMISETTY VENKATANNA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. NASYAM JAMAL SAHEB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – if one of the two ingredients of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is not met, there shall not be any deemed lapse of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DINESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…
Reservation – Domicile quota in B.Ed colleges – reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI) — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent…
(CrPC) – Ss 472 and 482 – Wakf Act, 1995 – Ss 3(ee) and 52A – Quashing of criminal complaint – Section 52A cannot cover cases where leases of wakf properties had expired in the past and where the tenant or lessee was, at the time the amendment of 2013 came into force, in physical possession and facing civil proceedings for eviction – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH P. V. NIDHISH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs KERALA STATE WAKF BOARD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…
HELD that if there is any tax concession, it “can be withdrawn at any time and no time limit should be insisted upon before it was withdrawn” – the respondents shall approach the jurisdictional commissioner, and apply with documentary evidence within six weeks from the date of this judgment. The claim for refund/credit, shall be examined on their merits,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COSMO FILMS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ. )…
(CPC) – Section 151 – Recall of judgment and order – When the law provides a specific remedy, it is not open to a party to take recourse to section 151 – It preserves the inherent powers of the court to do justice in a case where the party has no other remedy under the CPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S A.J. INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat…
Service Law – Seniority – Once on re-evaluation, the marks are increased the respective candidates whose marks are increased will have to be placed at appropriate place in the merit list – Non-grant of seniority based on revised marks, thus, would render the process of re-evaluation redundant.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…
HELD there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted – Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed – Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation the accused has not be heard.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE THROUGH CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Appellant Vs. HEMENDHRA REDDY AND ANOTHER. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala,…
HELD appellants had already got three promotions before they got themselves transferred to Kerala University. The salary drawn by them of the higher post was protected – special class of employees were already drawing salary of the higher post which in terms of the policy for inter-university transfer was protected, though they were placed at the bottom of the seniority at the entry level.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. SASIKALA DEVI. P — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…