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.

Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 – Section 7 read with 19(1) – Forfeiture of Property – The Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 has been enacted by the Parliament with an object to provide for the forfeiture of illegally acquired properties of smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto – Order of forfeiture is upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. PLATINUM THEATRE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY SMUGGLERS & FOREIGN EXCHANGE MANIPULATORS (FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY) ACT, 1976 AND ANOTHER — Respondent…

(IPC) – Sections 364A, 302 and 201 – Kidnapping and murder of 7 years old child – Death sentence – Review of judgment – “rarest of rare” doctrine requires that the death sentence not be imposed only by taking into account the grave nature of crime but only if there is no possibility of reformation in a criminal

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUNDAR @ SUNDARRAJAN — Appellant Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI., Hima Kohli and…

Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 – Section 13(1)(e) and 15(1) – Unless the contract itself permits subletting, it shall not be lawful, after coming into operation of the Act of 1947, for a tenant to sublet the premises let out to him or to assign or transfer in any manner his interest therein with an exception the State Government may permit so by gazette notification.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YUVRAJ @ MUNNA PRALHAD JAGDALE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JANARDAN SUBAJIRAO WIDE — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.…

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.…

You missed