Nature of modification which has been made by the High Court order in the form of an ad-hoc interim arrangement is exceeding its jurisdiction, and not within the realm of power of judicial review to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is well settled that by an interim order, even the final relief ordinarily should not be granted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (PMRDA) — Appellant Vs. PRAKASH HARKACHAND PARAKH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi,…
Commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors “CoC” is not to be interfered with, excepting the limited scope as provided under Sections 30 and 31 of the I&B Code – Paramount importance given to the decision of CoC. HELD NCLAT was not correct
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. KOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna…
One-time lease rent constitutes payment for the entirety of the period of lease covered by the document – Therefore, that component of the amount which represents the remainder period after the plot is sold in terms of this Order, ought not to be charged by NOIDA from the Petitioners
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HAMPSHIRE HOTELS AND RESORTS (NOIDA) PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RITU MAHESHWARI, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (NOIDA) — Respondent (…
(NI) – Ss 138, 139 – Dishonour of cheque – Presumption – It is well settled that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are quasi criminal in nature, and the principles which apply to acquittal in other criminal cases are not applicable in the cases instituted under the Act.HELD Section 139 of the Act, a presumption is raised that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the discharge of debt
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMETI VIJ — Appellant Vs. M/S PARAMOUNT TECH FAB INDUSTRIES — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
(CrPC) – Section 117 – Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion – Transfer Petition – Place of inquiry and trial has to be by the Court within whose local jurisdiction – Cause of action as per the averments in the FIR are alleged to have arisen
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SWAATI NIRKHI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra, JJ.…
Customs Act, 1962 – Section 28(4) – Recovery proceedings – Power of recovery on “the proper officer” – Where one officer has exercised his powers of assessment, the power to order re-assessment must also be exercised by the same officer or his successor and not by another officer of another department though he is designated to be an officer of the same rank
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V.…
(IPC) – Ss 302 r/w 34 – Murder by pouring kerosene oil – Merely because the accused might have tried to extinguish the fire will not take the case out of the clutches of clause fourthly of Section 300 of the IPC.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NAGABHUSHAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
Section 138 of the NI Act does not speak about the joint liability – Even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him, cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Two private individuals cannot be said to be “other association of individuals”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALKA KHANDU AVHAD — Appellant Vs. AMAR SYAMPRASAD MISHRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah,…
(IPC) – Ss 323, 504 & 506 – Voluntarily causing hurt -Trial courts have the power to not merely decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KRISHNA LAL CHAWLA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagouda and R. Subhash…
Goods were previously classified (before 1993) under Subheading 8536.90, but a revised classification list, classifying them under subheading 8608, submitted by the appellant, was approved by the competent Authority on 27.08.1993 – After such specific approval of the classification list, it is not proper on the part of the Authorities to invoke Note 2(f) of Section XVII.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH WESTINGHOUSE SAXBY FARMER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A. S. Bopanna…