Latest Post

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) — Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Repeal of SICA and Abatement of Proceedings – Companies whose proceedings were pending before BIFR/AAIFR could approach NCLT within 180 days of IBC enactment – Failure to do so results in abatement and revival of earlier orders, like winding up recommendation. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) — Demand and Acceptance of Bribe — Ingredients for establishing guilt of public servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) include proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are sine qua non — While acceptance of bribe was admitted, the proof of demand was the crucial aspect in this case. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Banking — Cheque Presentation — Bank’s failure to re-present cheques within their validity period after they were returned due to a bank strike constitutes negligence and a deficiency in service, as banks have a duty of due diligence in handling customer deposits.Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Banking — Cheque Presentation — Bank’s failure to re-present cheques within their validity period after they were returned due to a bank strike constitutes negligence and a deficiency in service, as banks have a duty of due diligence in handling customer deposits. Air Force Act, 1950 — Section 19 — Air Force Rules, 1969 — Rule 16 — Administrative action after discharge from criminal court — Initiation of administrative action for disciplinary purposes is not permissible if the matter has already been decided by a criminal court by way of discharge, as discharge signifies no sufficient grounds for proceeding, placing the individual on a better footing than acquittal and thus ending the matter. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well.

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 28 – Levy of customs duty – Sale of cut flowers – The burden of proving to the contrary rested upon the appellant, which the appellant failed to discharge by failing to establish that the imported inputs were not used in the production of the cut flowers sold in DTA – In view thereof, the authorities below have rightly invoked Section 28 of the 1962 Act and allied provisions – CESTAT has rightly upheld the levy of customs duty – Appeal dismissed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. L. R. BROTHERS INDO FLORA LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh…

Attempt on part of the fugitive liquor baron ‘vijay mallya’ to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction – This Court direct fugitive liquor baron ‘vijay mallya’ to appear before this Court on 05.10.2020 at 02:00 p.m

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DR. VIJAY MALLYA — Appellant Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Ashok Bhushan,…

N D P S Act, 1985 – S 58 – Accused not entitled to acquittal just because complainant probed case – There cannot be any general proposition of law to be laid down that in every case where the informant is the investigator, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 overruled.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH MUKESH SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE (NARCOTIC BRANCH OF DELHI) — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah…

Medical Council of India Regulations, 2000 – Regulation 9 – Power to make any provision for reservation, for in service candidates in Post Graduate Medical Course – Medical Council of India which has been constituted under the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 is the creature of the statute in exercise of powers under Entry 66 List I and has no power to make any provision for reservation

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH TAMIL NADU MEDICAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Indira…

Tweets against CJI – Guilty of contempt – Act committed by the contemnor is a very serious one – The Court do not take cognizance of such conduct it will give a wrong message to the lawyers and litigants throughout the country – However, by showing magnanimity, instead of imposing any severe punishment, The Court is sentencing the contemnor with a nominal fine of Re. 1/ (Rupee one).

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANOTHER ( Before : Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal)…

Finance Act, 1994 – Section 65(105)(zzzzj) – Payment of service tax – Business of distributing natural gas – Supply of pipes and measuring equipment – HELD SKID equipment fulfils the description in Section 65(105)(zzzzj) of a taxable service: service in relation “tangible goods” where the recipient of the service has use (without possession or effective control) of the goods – Appeal allowed.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, AHMEDABAD — Appellant Vs. M/S ADANI GAS LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra…

HELD The Registration Certificate of vehicles which do not possess a valid PUC Certificate shall be forthwith suspended and/or cancelled, and penal measures initiated against the owner and/or the person(s) in possession and/or control of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law.

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Appellant Vs. CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra…

You missed