Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 4(A) – Mere affixation of MRP does not make goods eligible to find refuge under Section 4(A) of the Act, and what is required along with such affixation is a mandate of law that directs the seller to affix such MRP.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & SERVICE TAX, KANPUR — Appellant Vs. M/S. A.R. POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari…
Remarks passed in court – it is essential for the courts to be extremely cautious while passing adverse remarks against the parties involved, and must do so with proper justification, in the right forum, and only if it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SEEMANT KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. MAHESH PS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 – there is no per se restriction on the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court – Union of India & Ors. v. Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr., (2015) 6 SCC 773does not lay down the correct law
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. PARASHOTAM DASS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka and B.V. Nagarathna,…
It is well settled that even if the decision on a question of law has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case it shall not be a ground for review of such judgment merely because a subsequent judgment of the Single Judge has taken contrary view.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRAMJEEVI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DINESH JOSHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, JJ.…
Anticipatory Bail in CBI case HELD When the primary focus is on documentary evidence, court fail to understand as to why the appellants should now be arrested – CBI did not require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 till 31.12.2021 Bail granted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHDOOM BAVA — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No……..…
HELD the question stock broker not only has to obtain a certificate of registration from SEBI for each of the stock exchange where he operates, at the same time, has to pay ad valorem fee prescribed no more res integra in view of Securities and Exchange Board of India Vs. National Stock Exchange Members Association and Another 2022 SCCOnline SC 1392
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GPSK CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MANTRI FINANCE LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before…
(CrPC) – Section 482 – – howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law – Unwarranted judicial activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the mind of the litigants.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CARDINAL MAR GEORGE ALENCHERRY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…
Service Law – Post-retirement benefits – Where employment is based on a fake community certificate the law is settled that post-retirement benefits cannot be granted
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R SUNDARAM — Appellant Vs. THE TAMIL NADU STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari,…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 354, 354-B, 376 and 506 – Cancellation of anticipatory bail – sufficient material in the FIR that would prima facie attract the provision of Section 376, IPC – These factors ought to have dissuaded the High Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the respondent No.2/accused for granting him anticipatory bail – Impugned orders, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2/accused, cannot be sustained – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MS. X — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal…
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Illegal gratification – Conviction and sentence – Appeal against – there are no circumstances brought on record which will prove the demand for gratification. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act were not established and consequently, the offence under Section 13(1)(d) will not be attracted – Conviction and sentence is set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEERAJ DUTTA — Appellant Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…