Sections 498-A, 302 and 120-B IPC – falsehood cooked up by the witnesses (regarding illness and hospitalisation of the victim) and readily accepted by the appellant coupled with the undischarged burden of Section 106 of the Evidence Act provide such strong links in this matter that the chain of circumstances is complete, leading to the conclusion on the guilt of the appellant beyond any doubt.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MD. ANOWAR HUSSAIN — Appellant Vs. STATE OF ASSAM — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…
Gift Tax Act, 1958, Wealth Tax Act, 1957 – Part C of Schedule III – Method of valuation of shares and debentures of a company – that the equity shares under the lock-in period were not “quoted shares”, for the simple reason that the shares in the lock-in period were not quoted in any recognised stock exchange with regularity from time to time.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II — Appellant Vs. M/S BPL LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ.…
Title Suit – Adverse possession – Once the plaintiffs are not found to be the owner, they cannot claim their title by way of adverse possession – Their possession over the land in question can only be in the nature of an encroacher – No injunction
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KESAR BAI — Appellant Vs. GENDA LAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…
Ss 4 & 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) – signature of the defendant on the pro-note has been established and proved by plaintiff – there is a presumption of consideration in the negotiable instrument albeit the same may be rebutted – no rebuttal evidence is led by the defendant – Suit decreed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAPIL KUMAR — Appellant Vs. RAJ KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 5854 of…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 302 r/w 34 – Murder – Appeal against acquittal – even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE — Appellant Vs. LALY @ MANIKANDAN & ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna…
Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 – Sections 14 and 46(1) – Rebate of Input tax – High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Assessment Order denying the Input rebate against which a statutory appeal would be available under Section 46(1) of the MP VAT Act, 2002.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S COMMERCIAL ENGINEERS AND BODY BUILDING COMPANY LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 – Section 40(1)(a) – Exemption from certain taxes, fees and duties – a member of the society executing the document in his own capacity or in the capacity of a Guardian or a minor shall not be entitled to the benefit of remission of stamp duty.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KERALA LAND REFORMS & DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah…
Appellant is a lady accused, who has already undergone 2 years and 9 months sentence – It appropriate to release the appellant on bail during the pendency of the appeal on the conditions that may be imposed by the learned Trial Court.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MENON EKKA @ SMT. MENON UJJANA EKKA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ.…
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Ss 11A & 17(3A) – possession is taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there is need to pass an award and requirement is to pay the balance within a reasonable time, the rigour of Section 11A of Act, 1894 will not apply – Acquisition shall not lapse
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S DELHI AIRTECH SERVICES PVT. LTD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer,…
Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – HELD it is an essential condition to claim deduction that such amounts are deducted from employees income regarding ESI PF etc deposited on or before the due date. under Section 43B or anything contained in that provision would not absolve the assessee from its liability to deposit the employee’s contribution on or before the due date as a condition for deduction.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH CHECKMATE SERVICES P. LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI, S. Ravindra Bhat and…