A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH S. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY — Appellant Vs. V. NARAYANA REDDY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli,…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 127 – Power to transfer cases – Even if the case or cases of an assessee are transferred in exercise of power under Section 127 of the Act, the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer has passed the order, shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction of appeal
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – I, CHANDIGARH — Appellant Vs. M/S. ABC PAPERS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S.…
HELD by accepting the alternate relief claimed by the plaintiff of refund of the advance amount along with the interest @ 12% per annum. The High Court found suspicious circumstances and doubtful situations being raised by both the sides. The reasons given by the High Court as contained in paragraph 40, in our opinion, were sufficient to arrive at a conclusion of not awarding the relief of specific performance of contract
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH AYILLYATH YADUNATH NAMBIAR — Appellant Vs. P. SREEDHARAN — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). 4943…
Prescription of pay scales and incentives are a matter of decision taken by the government which, when based upon the recommendation of an expert body like the Central Pay Commission, should carry weight and the courts should be reluctant to substitute the policy with their own views on what would be more equitable and just.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. EX. HC/GD VIRENDER SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.…
Compensation – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – There is no lapse of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the land which has stood vested with continues to do – Also, there is no question of payment of any compensation in respect of the suit land as per the Act, 2013 –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SUBHASH CHANDER SEHGAL AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 145(3) – Matter Referred to 5-Judge Bench – Constitutional questions relating to interpretation of Schedule X of the Constitution pertaining to disqualification, as well as the powers of the Speaker and the Governor and the power of judicial review thereo
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SUBHASH DESAI — Appellant Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari and Hima…
Inherent Powers of Court – Section 151 of the CPC can only be applicable if there is no alternate remedy available in accordance with the existing provisions of law. Such inherent power cannot override statutory prohibitions or create remedies which are not contemplated under the Code
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MY PALACE MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. B. MAHESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N. V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari…
Appeals from original decrees – A person who is affected by a judgment but is not a party to the suit, can prefer an appeal with the leave of the Court – Sine qua non for filing an appeal by a third party is that he must have been affected by reason of the judgment and decree which is sought to be impugned.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MY PALACE MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE SOCIETY — Appellant Vs. B. MAHESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N. V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari…
Prohibition of benami transactions – Section 3(2) of the unamended 1988 Act is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary – Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution – Section 3 (criminal provision) read with Section 2(a) and Section 5 (confiscation proceedings) of the 1988 Act are overly broad, disproportionately harsh, and operate without adequate safeguards in place. Such provisions were still-born law and never utilized in the first place – In this light, this Court finds that Sections 3 and 5 of the 1988 Act were unconstitutional from their inception
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. GANPATI DEALCOM PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna Murari and…
Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 – ACP Scheme – Any judicial review on the date chosen for applicability would arise only if such choice of date is demonstrated to be malafide or with ulterior motive –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MD. ISLAM AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S.…