Customs Act, 1962 – Section 9(1)(e) – Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods Valuation Rules, 1988 – Rules 4, 9(1)(e) and 12 – Import consignments – Custom valuation – Provisions of Rule 9(1)(e) cannot be automatically applied to every import which has surface features of a turnkey contract.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) KOLKATA — Appellant Vs. M/S STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha…
Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 – Sections 3, 6 and 6(2) – Liability to tax on inter-State sales – Whether as a condition of giving the benefit of Section 6(2) of the said Act, the tax authorities can impose a limit or timeframe within which delivery of the respective goods has to be taken from a carrier when the goods are delivered to a carrier for transmission in course of inter-state sale. HELD In such circumstances fixing of timeframe by order of the Tax Administration of the State in our opinion would be impermissible. Decided on : 27-04-2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER — Appellant Vs. M/S. BOMBAY MACHINERY STORE — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) Civil…
Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 – Section 66 – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Sections 79-B and 104 – Plantations – Exemption from the restrictions on holding imposed under that statute – Effect of such treatment would be that such land under plantation would be exempted from the restrictions on holding imposed under that statute – This Court direct the Tahsildar to undertake fresh proceeding on the basis of the declaration filed under Section 66 of the 1976 Act by the predecessors of the respondents – It shall be open to the authorities undertaking such proceeding to examine as to whether declaration under Section 66 of the Act was proper course or not for determining the issues in dispute, including the question of vesting of the land or part thereof in the State Decided on : 27-04-2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF KARNATAKA — Appellant Vs. Y. MOIDEEN KUNHI (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha…
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 2(s), 3(iv) and 19 – Right to residence in matrimonial home – Victim of domestic violence – The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has recognised the concept of “shared household” in terms of Section 2(s) of this statute. Alienating an immovable asset to defeat the right of a victim lady under the said Act can constitute domestic violence, coming, inter-alia, within the ambit of the expression “economic abuse” under Section 3(iv) of 2005 Act. There cannot be forcible dishousing of a wife from her matrimonial home. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 18 – Right to residence in matrimonial home – A married woman is entitled to live, subsequent to her marriage, with rest of her family members on the husband’s side,Decided on : 27-04-2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AISHWARYA ATUL PUSALKAR — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha…
Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 56 – Disconnection of supply – Disconnection of supply is special power given to the supplier in addition to the normal mode of recovery by instituting a suit – HELD Once that plea for instalment payment was accepted and agreement was entered into for clearing the dues, it demonstrated willingness to pay on the part of the company of the dues in a manner acceptable to the appellant Board – Such plea of the company was accepted after keeping the matter pending for a long time – High Court was right in giving its finding that the act of disconnection was arbitrary – Appeals dismissed. Decided on : 27-04-2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ETC. — Appellant Vs. M/S ICEBERG INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and…
No ill-founded sympathy for Advocates who try to browbeat or threaten Judges: Supreme Court holds three Advocates guilty of Contempt of Court . HELD “both the complaints are ex facie contemptuous. Highly scurrilous and scandalous allegations have been levelled against the two judges of this Court. In our view, the entire contents of the complaints amount to contempt.”
No ill-founded sympathy for Lawyers who try to browbeat or threaten Judges: Supreme Court holds three lawyers guilty of Contempt of Court The Supreme Court has also observed in its…
[Sexual Harassment] HELD “A priori, when inaction or procrastination (intentionally or otherwise) is meted out in response to the attempt of setting the legal machinery in motion, what is put to peril is not just the individual cries for the assistance of law but also the foundational tenets of a society governed by the rule of law, thereby threatening the larger public interests. The denial of timely inquiry and by a competent forum, inevitably results in denial of justice and violation of fundamental right,”
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NISHA PRIYA BHATIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…
Grant of Protection of three weeks to Arnab Goswami from any coercive action on Multiple FIRs against him – In addition to the personal security provided to the petitioner, if a request is made by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai
Docid # IndLawLib/1464844 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ARNAB RANJAN GOSWAMI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah,…
Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 68 – Will – Proof of – Mere proof of the document in accordance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act is not final and conclusive for acceptance of a document as a Will – When suspicious circumstances exist and the suspicions have not been removed, the document in question cannot be accepted as a Will – Appeal dismissed
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SHIVAKUMAR AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHARANABASAPPA & ORS. — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…
Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 – Rule 27 – Constitutional validity – Criteria for appointment of a member of higher judicial service to the post of District Judge and Sessions Judge or its equivalent – HELD “while raising grievances with regard to the impact and effect of ACR gradings, the appellant appears to have missed out the fundamental factor that for the promotions in question, an individual”s minimum merit, by itself, was not going to be decisive, but the relevant factor was going to be comparative merit of the persons in the zone of consideration”.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUJATA KOHLI — Appellant Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF DELHI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari,…