Latest Post

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 36(1)(viii) — Interpretation of “derived from” vs. “attributable to” — The phrase “derived from” connotes a requirement of a direct, first-degree nexus between the income and the specified business activity (providing long-term finance) — It is judicially settled that “derived from” is narrower than “attributable to,” thus excluding ancillary, incidental, or second-degree sources of income — If income is even a “step removed” from the core business, the nexus is broken (Paras 14, 15, 20, 33). Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) — Section 11 — Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) — Jurisdiction against employee of different department — The ICC constituted at the workplace/department of the “aggrieved woman” has jurisdiction to entertain and inquire into a complaint of sexual harassment against a “respondent” who is an employee of a different department/workplace — The phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 refers to a procedural condition (directing the ICC to apply the service rules applicable to the respondent as an employee) rather than a jurisdictional constraint limiting a particular ICC to hear the complaint. (Paras 2, 25, 27, 36-46, 72(i)) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(4) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — Non-Signatory/Third Party — The Referral Court (Appointing Authority) is required to inspect and scrutinize the dealings between the parties to prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, including whether a non-signatory is a “veritable party” to the agreement. (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 35) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10) Service Law — Resignation — Forfeiture of past service — Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 26(1) — Distinction between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement — An employee who resigns from service forfeits past service as per Rule 26(1) of the 1972 Rules, regardless of the length of service completed (20 years or more) — The act of resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement to claim pensionary benefits, as this would nullify the distinction between the two concepts and render Rule 26 nugatory — Claim for pension correctly denied where the employee resigned from service. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 12)

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 14(1) – Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – Section 2(7) – Manufacturer defect – Failure to provide an airbag system which would meet the safety standards as perceived by a car­buyer of reasonable prudence, should be subject to punitive damages which can have deterrent effect.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SHAILENDRA BHATNAGAR — Respondent ( Before : Vineet Saran and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Contempt Petition – Non-compliance of directions – Builder is guilty of delaying the construction by not taking suitable steps in complete disobedience of the orders passed by this Court based on its undertaking – Contempt Petition is closed with liberty to the tenants/occupants to approach this Court in case of non-compliance of the directions.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAGDISH MAVJI TANK (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. HARRESH NAVNITRAI MEHTA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao…

Only 10% of the cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination with those candidates who have qualified service of 7 years [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifying service as Civil Judge(Junior Division).

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai…

Territorial jurisdiction – Preliminary issue – When the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far as possible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue – Labour Court did not commit any error in deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.G. JAGDISHAN — Appellant Vs. M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

There is no application of mind at all by the High Court on merits of the order passed by the Tribunal – It can be seen that the High Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it while exercising the powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India – Matter remand to High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh in accordance with law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. MAYAN PAL SINGH VERMA — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development Act, 2006 – Section 19 – While challenge to award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 – Pre-deposit of 75% of the awarded amount under section 19 of the MSMED Act, 2006 is a mandatory requirement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TIRUPATI STEELS — Appellant Vs. M/S SHUBH INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Section 18 – Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 – Sections 32(2) and 34 – Acquisition of land – Enhancement of compensation – Future use of the acquired land cannot be the main criteria to determine the compensation for the lands acquired

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAMRAO SHANKAR TAPASE — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPN. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

You missed