Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 14B – Power to recover damages – Held, any default or delay in the payment of EPF contribution by the employer under the Act is a sine qua non for imposition of levy of damages under Section 14B of the Act 1952 and mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing penalty/damages for breach of civil obligations/liabilities.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HORTICULTURE EXPERIMENT STATION GONIKOPPAL, COORG — Appellant Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka,…
Application for permission to file review petition – Review Petition is now preferred by those who were not parties to the litigation with an application seeking permission to file Review Petition – No reason to grant the permission as prayed for – Consequently, the instant Review Petition is closed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VIJAY PRATAP YADAV AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 37(1) – Deduction – Pharmaceutical companies’ gifting freebies to doctors, etc. is clearly “prohibited by law”, and not allowed to be claimed as a deduction under Section 37(1)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S APEX LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT – II — Respondent ( Before :…
Held the tenant is liable to pay mesne profits or compensation for use and occupation of the premises at the same rate at which the landlord would have been able to let out the premises and earn rent if the tenant would have vacated the premises. The landlord is not bound by the contractual rate of rent effective for the period preceding the date of the decree. The doctrine of merger does not have the effect of postponing the date of termination of tenancy merely because the decree of eviction stands merged in the decree passed by the superior forum at a latter date. (2005) 1 SCC 705 reiterated .
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HEERA TRADERS — Appellant Vs. KAMLA JAIN — Respondent ( Before : K.M Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No(s). 5996-5997…
U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 – HELD held that a financier of a motor vehicle/transport vehicle in respect of which a hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered, is liable to tax from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreement.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Dishonour of cheque – When, the complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the company – Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process – Quashing of complaint set aside
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S TRL KROSAKI REFRACTORIES LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M/S SMS ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S.…
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d) – Consumer Complaint – Relations between the appellant and the respondent is purely “business to business” relationship – As such, the transactions would clearly come within the ambit of ‘commercial purpose’.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRIKANT G. MANTRI — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Demand of illegal gratification – Proof of – A case where the demand of illegal gratification by the appellant was not proved by the prosecution – Thus, the demand which is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 was not established – Appellant acquitted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. SHANTHAMMA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 100 – Partition Suit – Relief in Second Appeal – Entitlement – Plaintiff not entitled to relief in the second appeal on the ground that they have not challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court before the First Appellate Court, is not sustainable
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AZGAR BARID (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MAZAMBI @ PYAREMABI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Finance Act, 1994 – Section 66(B) – Exemption from service tax – Services provided in the nature of contract labour not job work – On reading the agreement as a whole, it is apparent that the contract is pure and simple a contract for the provision of contract labour – Appeal dismissed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ADIRAJ MANPOWER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE PUNE II — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…