Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 – Rule 3(3) – Whether Rule 3(3) was rightly struck down as arbitrary – High Court manifestly erred in striking down the Rule 3(3) of the Pension Rules,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF TRIPURA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SMT. ANJANA BHATTACHARJEE AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna,…
Service tax – Amounts collected by a company during post clearing activities were not liable to be computed for service tax
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE VADODARA – I — Appellant Vs. M/S JYOTI LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M. R.…
Specific performance – There is no doubt that the claim of purchaser is hit by delay and laches on their part as they did not take appropriate measures within the stipulated time and filing of the suit was delayed by almost five years – It is not an appropriate case for granting relief to the purchaser in terms of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as the claim of the purchaser is barred by delay, laches and limitation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMT. KATTA SUJATHA REDDY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SIDDAMSETTY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD.AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Krishna…
Service Law – candidates have been appointed and are working for almost 2 years by this time, it will be unjust for this Court to now permit the Government to take a UTurn in compliance of the impugned judgment, and nonsuit the candidates who are working for sufficiently long time.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. )…
Ingredients of Section 120B IPC – it is not necessary that there must be a clear, categorical and express agreement between the accused – An implied agreement must manifest upon relying on principles established in the cases of circumstantial evidence.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAM SHARAN CHATURVEDI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. )…
It is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4/Corporation to return the land acquired by it to the appellants within four weeks. Once the possession is restored, the appellants shall be permitted to use it for residential purposes. Further, the respondents are directed to compensate the appellants @ Rs.1 crore per year for the loss caused
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH RAJHAN NARENDRA ROUT AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…
Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 36(1)(vii) and 37 – Where the claim of bad and doubtful debt was disallowed -Section 37 applies only to items which do not fall in Section 30 to 36 – If a provision for doubtful debt is expressly excluded from Section 36 (1) (vii) then such a provision cannot claim deduction under Section 37 of the IT Act even on the basis of “real income theory”.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 — Appellant Vs. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat…
Ceiling limit on iron ore mining – Relaxation – Ceiling limit of iron ore mining may be raised from 28 MMT to 35 MMT for District Bellary, and from 7 MMT to 15 MMT for Chitradurga and Tumkur Districts collectively.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Hima Kohli and…
Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy – Words “No Court shall take cognizance” employed in Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequential bar created under the said provision would undoubtedly show that the bar is against ‘taking of cognizance by the Court’ and not against registration of a crime or investigation
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARVEZ PARWAZ AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Hima Kohli and…
Insolvency process – Limitation – Burden of prima facie proving occurrence of the default and that the application filed under Section 7 of the Code is within the period of limitation, is entirely on the financial creditor
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAJENDRA NAROTTAMDAS SHETH AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and…