National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 17 – Objective of Section 44, UAPA, Section 17, NIA Act, and Section 173(6) is to safeguard witnesses – They are in the nature of a statutory witness protection – On the court being satisfied that the disclosure of the address and name of the witness could endanger the family and the witness, such an order can be passed – They are also in the context of special provisions made for offences under special statutes.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH WAHEED-UR-REHMAN PARRA — Appellant Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.M. Sundresh, JJ. )…
Motor Accident – Compensation – Enhancement of – Post accident – Pain, suffering and trauma suffered by the claimant cannot be compensated in terms of the money – However, still it will be a solace to award suitable compensation under different heads including the pain, shock and suffering, loss of amenities and happiness of life
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI BENSON GEORGE — Appellant Vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Arms Act, 1959 – Sections 25 and 27 – Murder – Re-appreciation of evidence – evidence cannot be discarded only for the reason that PW allegedly did not raise any alarm or did not try to intervene when the deceased was being ferociously assaulted and stabbed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SURESH YADAV @ GUDDU — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Criminal…
Railways – Compassionate appointment – A child of a second wife of an employee could not be denied compassionate appointment on that ground alone. Child of second marriage at time of first marriage subsisting are legitimate per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat…
Work and Contract – Blacklisting/Banning – Considering the seriousness of the matter that due to the omission and commission on the part of the contractor a serious incident had occurred as there was a collapse of a ten meter slab while constructing a flyover in which one person died and eleven others injured, as such the contractor does not deserve any leniency
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PANDA INFRAPROJECT LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…
Central Excise Act, 1944 – Section 11E – SARFAESI Act, 2002 will have an overriding effect on the provisions of the Central Excise Act of 1944
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Vineet Saran, JJ. )…
Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 – Sections 9, 9(1), 9(2) and 9(2)(xvii) – Exemption to pay service tax – If the statute mandates that the Market Committees have to provide the land/shop/platform/space on rent/lease then and then only it can be said to be a mandatory statutory obligation otherwise it is only a discretionary function. No exemption from tax.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NEW MANDI YARD, ALWAR — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, ALWAR — Respondent ( Before :…
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 :…