Latest Post

the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Sections 138 and 141 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Vicarious liability of office bearers — For a person other than the drawer or signatory of a dishonoured cheque to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the NI Act, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society at the time the offence was committed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of powers of Court to set aside or modify arbitral award — Modification of award is a limited power compared to annulment, aimed at achieving more just outcomes and avoiding hardship and delay, especially in India where litigation takes years — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as jurisdiction under Section 34. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 7 — Pleadings should not raise new claims or inconsistent allegations — A defendant cannot retract their initial stand taken in the written statement and introduce a completely new and contradictory case, especially after issues have been framed and the trial has commenced.

HELD on the principle of restitution to the facts of the case on hand, SCOI is of the opinion that this is a fit case to apply the principle of actus curiae neminem gravabit and the principle of restitution and to direct Shri Naresh Kempanna and Col. Mohinder Khaira to return the amount and deposit the same with this Court with 9% interest from the date on which the payment is received by them.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BHUPINDER SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNITECH LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI. and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) I.A. Nos. 88960…

Service Matters

HELD Resignation can become effective either by stipulation of law or by acceptance thereof — examining in this judgment is legality of an order by which the respondents plea for withdrawal of resignation was rejected on grounds spelt out in the order itself. The Tribunal and the High Court found the reasoning of the appellant unsustainable.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. KAMLESH RANI BHATLA — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Krishna Murari,…

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Section 113B – no eye-witness to the crime – Presumption – nothing specific has been stated by the complainant to bring home the guilt of the appellant for raising presumption as contained in Section 304B IPC read with Section 113B of the Evidence Act. In cross-examination, stated that he had seen his sister 4/5 months before her death – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MUNSHI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 10(a)(i) – Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 – Section 3(5) – Mere membership of a banned association is sufficient to constitute an offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 or Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ARUP BHUYAN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

Plea by Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) seeking land for construction of chamber block for lawyers – These are matters which cannot be resolved by the application of judicial standards and have to be taken up on the administrative side of the Supreme Court – Administrative functioning and decision-making, which the current issue requires, cannot be moved to the judicial side – Writ petitions disposed of

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION — Appellant Vs. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Sanjay…

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1988 – Order restricts unauthorised possession of gas cylinders – HELD officer or the Department of Food and Civil Supplies of the Government, not below the rank of an Inspector authorised by such Government – It nowhere prescribes that a Sub-Inspector of the Police can take action – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AVTAR SINGH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

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 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. BATTI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 4(4)(c) – Valuation of excisable goods – Related person – There is no finding that the price of the goods was lower than what was the price of those goods, in the market – In view of the foregoing discussion, it has to be concluded that the revenue’s decision in rejecting the value at which the goods were sold, by treating the assessee as a related person, was erroneous.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…

You missed