Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – Section 18(2) – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 80 – Facilitation Council, which had initiated the Conciliation proceedings under Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act, 2006 would be entitled to act as an arbitrator despite the bar contained in Section 80 of the Arbitration Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GUJARAT STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MAHAKALI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED (UNIT 2) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh…
HELD Commission Vendors/bearers working in the Northern Railway are entitled to the same benefits which are held to be entitled to all the similarly situated Commission Vendors/Bearers working under different Zones/Divisions. There cannot be different criteria/parameters with respect to similarly situated employees-Commission Vendors/bearers working in different Zones/Divisions, but working under the same employer
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MUNSHI RAM — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Defamation complaint – Nothing specific has been attributed to A-1, Editor-in-Chief – not liable for the acts committed by the author of the Article, namely, A-2 HELD This Court accept the appeals insofar as Editor in chief A-1 and the public servants (A-3, A-4 and A-8) set aside the summoning order, quash Complaint
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AROON PURIE — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI. and Bela M.…
Money-laundering – By handing over money with the intent of giving bribe, such person will be assisting or will knowingly be a party to an activity connected with the proceeds of crime – Without such active participation on part of the person concerned, the money would not assume the character of being proceeds of crime – The relevant expressions from Section 3 of the PML Act are thus wide enough to cover the role played by such person
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT — Appellant Vs. PADMANABHAN KISHORE — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. ) Criminal…
Section 319 CrPC HELD examined the material on record, the evidence recorded during the course of prosecution, if remains unrebutted, will not be sufficient to lead the conviction so far as the present appellant is concerned and accordingly the order passed by the High Court is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAVEEN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No(s).…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings — The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b) – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court ordering lapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in question under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. BHAGWAT SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings — The proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act is to be treated as part of Section 24(2), not part of Section 24(1)(b) – Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court ordering lapse of the acquisition with respect to the land in question under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Appellant Vs. KRISHAN LAL ARORA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil…
POCSO – (CrPC) – Sections 161, 164, 173(2) and 482 – HELD prima facie case against the persons named therein as accused, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the Trial Court at the time of trial –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DR. MAROTI S/O KASHINATH PIMPALKAR — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…
Clarification of judgment – Revenue seeks a clarification of the judgment dated 19.10.2022, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, Civil Appeal No. 21762 of 2017 -HELD that for the assessment years which this court was not called upon to decide, the concerned authorities will apply the law declared in the judgment, having regard to the facts of each such assessment year. In view of this discussion, no further clarification is necessary or called for.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) — Appellant Vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra…
HELD concerned landowners who have continued to occupy the lands shall vacate it upon the deposit of compensation. The Collector or the concerned authority shall issue a certificate in this regard which shall entitle them to the one-time rehabilitation payment or payment in lieu of compensation or any other benefit under the Act, according to the choice exercised by them in the manner ..
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MAHANADI COAL FIELDS LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MATHIAS ORAM AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI., S. Ravindra…