Latest Post

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation for Death of a Child — Calculation of Compensation — Deceased 14-year-old schoolboy — Principles adopted for calculating compensation for death of child — Notional monthly income adopted based on Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a Class B city (Rs. 5400/- per month) — Addition of 40% for future prospects — Multiplier of 15 adopted based on Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan — Deduction of one-half for personal expenses — Statutory heads of compensation (loss of estate, funeral expenses) awarded at Rs. 15,000/- each — Loss of filial consortium awarded at Rs. 40,000/- per parent — Compensation for pain and suffering of the deceased child, who died a day after the accident, awarded at Rs. 25,000/- to inure to the benefit of legal heirs — Total compensation enhanced to Rs. 8,65,400/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. (Paras 7, 8, 9) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Assessment of income of deceased — Standard of proof — Where claimants assert a high monthly income (Rs. 95,000/-) for the deceased (a transport contractor owning two trucks), which exceeds the taxable limit, failure to produce Income Tax Returns (ITR) is highly relevant and undermines the claim — The contention that high EMI payments (approx. Rs. 42,500/-) imply double the income is an unfounded assumption, amounting to mere surmises and conjectures. (Paras 3, 6) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Sections 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) — Divorce — Desertion and Cruelty — Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage — Where parties have been living separately for a long period (24 years in this case) without any prospect of reconciliation, this long period of separation amounts to mental cruelty to both parties, justifying dissolution of marriage — The marriage is deemed to have broken down irretrievably — Fact that spouses hold strongly views and refuse to accommodate each other also constitutes cruelty. (Paras 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34) Income Tax Act, 1961 — Sections 37(1), 44C — Deduction of Head Office Expenditure in case of Non-Residents — Interpretation of Section 44C and ‘Head Office Expenditure’ — Distinction between ‘Common’ and ‘Exclusive’ Expenditure — Section 44C, being a special provision with a non-obstante clause, governs the quantum of allowable deduction for any expenditure incurred by a non-resident assessee that qualifies as ‘head office expenditure’ — The definition of ‘head office expenditure’ in the Explanation to Section 44C does not distinguish between common expenditure (shared among branches) and exclusive expenditure (incurred solely for Indian branches) — The term ‘attributable to’ in Section 44C(c) is broad enough to include both common and exclusive head office expenditure; exclusivity is a form of strong attribution — Therefore, Section 44C applies to head office expenditure regardless of whether it is common or exclusive, subjecting the deduction to the statutory ceiling. (Paras 2, 26, 43-45, 47-49, 59-63, 71, 86, 88)

What is the scope and ambit of S 111A of the 1956 Companies Act, as amended by S 59 of the 2013 Act, to rectify the register of members? – Held, Rectificatory jurisdiction under Section 59 of the 2013 Act is summary in nature and not intended to be exercised where there are contested facts and disputed questions

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SICGIL INDIA LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.…

Government Contract and Tender – Government contracts involve expenditure out of the public exchequer – Since they involve payment out of the public exchequer, the moneys expended must not be spent arbitrarily – State does not have absolute discretion while spending public money – All government actions including government contracts awarded by the State must be tested on the touchstone of Article 14

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S INDIAN MEDICINES PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KERALA AYURVEDIC CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya…

IMP : Demonetization – Recommendation – Scheme mandates that before the Central Government takes a decision with regard to demonetization, it would be required to consider the recommendation of the Central Board – The word “recommendation” would mean a consultative process between the Central Board and the Central Government.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and…

(IPC) – Ss 302, 211 & 84 – Evidence Act, 1872 – S 105 – the manner of commission, with strangulation of the children one by one; throwing of their dead bodies into the canal; appellant himself swimming in the canal and coming out; and immediately thereafter, stating before several persons that the children had accidentally slipped into the canal – neither Section 84 IPC applies to the present case nor Section 329 CrPC would come to the rescue of the appellant – Conviction and sentence upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

(CrPC) – Section 482 – Summoning order – Quashing of – When the allegations in the complaint are so absurd or inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient wrong for proceeding against the accused, summons should not be issued – Summoning order quashed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEEPAK GABA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.…

Electricity Act 2003 – Section 126 – Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014 – Regulation 153(15) – Consumers in excess of the connected load/contracted load would amount to unauthorised use of electricity under explanation (b) to Section 126(6) of the Act 2003 – Regulation 153(15) of the Code 2014 is declared to be invalid being inconsistent with the provision of Section 126 of the Act 2003.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THOMAS JOSEPH ALIAS THOMAS M. J. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari…

You missed