Latest Post

Medical Education — Relocation of Students — Financial Liability — Supreme Court intervened to protect academic future of students admitted to a college (SRMCH) facing deficiencies, by directing their relocation to other recognized colleges — The primary issue became the financial liability for the education provided at the transferee colleges. Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 147 and 148 — Reopening of assessment — Validity — Tangible material — Change of opinion — Assessing Officer has no power to review an assessment; reassessment must be based on tangible material, not a mere change of opinion — The discovery of fresh information during a survey, which reveals the true nature of a transaction and suggests income has escaped assessment, can form the basis for reopening an assessment, even if certain disclosures were made during the original assessment. Wife’s pursuit of professional career and desire to provide safe environment for child are not grounds for cruelty or desertion. -Family Law — Divorce — Grounds — Cruelty and Desertion — Wife’s pursuit of professional career and desire to provide safe environment for child are not grounds for cruelty or desertion. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21A — Right to education — Medium of instruction — Freedom of speech and expression includes the right to receive information in a comprehensible manner — Education must be imparted in a language that the child understands best — Right to primary education in a language of choice is part of freedom of speech and expression — State cannot impose controls on such choice. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Compensation — Enhancement — Deceased was an engineering student with good academic record and potential future earnings — High Court enhanced compensation but it was found to be on the lower side — The Supreme Court assessed the monthly income at Rs. 12,000/-, added 40% for future prospects, deducted half for personal expenses, and applied a multiplier of 18 — Compensation under conventional heads was also enhanced — The motorcycle damage was awarded as per the surveyor’s report.

HELD income of the Deceased is computed by adding the amount awarded under the two parts ( Rs 10,93,000/- + Rs 2,50,000/-), which comes to Rs 13,43,000/-. In terms of Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, forty per cent of the income has to be added towards future prospects, which would come to Rs 18,80,200/-. After deducting one-fourth towards personal expenses as per Sarla Verma  , the net amount comes to Rs 14,10,150/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency on account of the Deceased’s income is calculated at Rs 2,25,62,400/-. We further grant compensation under the remaining conventional heads as per the decisions in Pranay Sethi Satinder Kaur (2021) 11 SCC 780

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH K. RAMYA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.…

Land Acquisition – When the matter relates to the payment of amount of compensation to the land losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred rather than the other view, which may draw its strength only from technicalities.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH KAZI MOINUDDIN KAZI BASHIRODDIN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE MAHARASHTRA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH ITS SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, MTDC, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA…

HELD flat owners subsequently forming a cooperative society land allotted to builder who made construction HELD since the land was not allotted to a society but to a builder on lease, who has constructed flats for private individuals, who have subsequently formed a Cooperative Society, the 1983 Resolution and 1999 Resolution would not be applicable to the members of such a society.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MR. ASPI CHINOY AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna,…

HELD specifically rejected the contention that writ under Article 32 was barred or not maintainable with reference to an issue which was the subject matter of an earlier decision. – that the right to privacy is a fundamental right. No doubt that the right to information is also a fundamental right. In case of such a conflict, the Court is required to achieve a sense of balance – petitioners relegated to file writ under Art 32 to protect fundamental rights of its customers.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HDFC BANK LTD. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.…

High Court has not considered the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged against the respondent – High Court has also not noticed and/or considered that a non-bailable warrant was issued against accused and thereafter, he was arrested in the year 2021 – Order releasing respondent is hereby quashed and set aside – Appeal allowed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BOHATTI DEVI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. )…

A and C Act, 1996 – Section 9 – (CPC) – Order 38 Rule 5 – – conduct on the part of the opposite/opponent party which may tantamount to any attempt on the part of the opponent/opposite party to defeat the award that may be passed in the arbitral proceedings, the Commercial Court may pass an appropriate order including the restrain order and/or any other appropriate order to secure the interest of the parties.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SANGHI INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAVIN CABLES LTD., AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed