Latest Post

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 36(1)(viii) — Interpretation of “derived from” vs. “attributable to” — The phrase “derived from” connotes a requirement of a direct, first-degree nexus between the income and the specified business activity (providing long-term finance) — It is judicially settled that “derived from” is narrower than “attributable to,” thus excluding ancillary, incidental, or second-degree sources of income — If income is even a “step removed” from the core business, the nexus is broken (Paras 14, 15, 20, 33). Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) — Section 11 — Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) — Jurisdiction against employee of different department — The ICC constituted at the workplace/department of the “aggrieved woman” has jurisdiction to entertain and inquire into a complaint of sexual harassment against a “respondent” who is an employee of a different department/workplace — The phrase “where the respondent is an employee” in Section 11 refers to a procedural condition (directing the ICC to apply the service rules applicable to the respondent as an employee) rather than a jurisdictional constraint limiting a particular ICC to hear the complaint. (Paras 2, 25, 27, 36-46, 72(i)) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11(4) — Appointment of Arbitrator — Existence of Arbitration Agreement — Non-Signatory/Third Party — The Referral Court (Appointing Authority) is required to inspect and scrutinize the dealings between the parties to prima facie examine the existence of an arbitration agreement, including whether a non-signatory is a “veritable party” to the agreement. (Paras 24, 25, 27, 28, 35) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of First Information Report (FIR) — Abuse of process of law — When civil dispute is masked as criminal complaint — Allegations in FIR (claiming criminal conspiracy, forcible occupation, and caste abuse) found inconsistent with contemporaneous civil suit filed by the informant regarding the same property and on the same day — Suit’s cause of action traced to earlier dates and did not mention the specific criminal incident alleged in the FIR — Absence of relief to set aside primary sale deeds in the suit suggests the criminal allegations are an afterthought or exaggerated — FIR quashed as a clear abuse of the process of law. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 9, 10) Service Law — Resignation — Forfeiture of past service — Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 — Rule 26(1) — Distinction between Resignation and Voluntary Retirement — An employee who resigns from service forfeits past service as per Rule 26(1) of the 1972 Rules, regardless of the length of service completed (20 years or more) — The act of resignation cannot be re-classified as voluntary retirement to claim pensionary benefits, as this would nullify the distinction between the two concepts and render Rule 26 nugatory — Claim for pension correctly denied where the employee resigned from service. (Paras 3, 4, 6, 9, 9.1, 9.5, 9.6, 12)

Accident—Loss of Future Earning—Non earning victim—Legal principles laid down Accident—Speedy disposal of Claim Petitions—Directions issued for establishment of Motor Accidents Mediation Authority in every district Accident—Speedy disposal of Claim Petitions—Police to complete investigation and file FIR and provide all documents in form of evidence to MACT and Insurance Company—Insurance Company to decide within 30 days whether claim is payable otherwise MACT to decide petition within 30 days

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1658 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 940: 2019) 1 ACC 730 : (2019) 1 ILR(Kerala) 883 : (2019) 2 JBCJ 35 : (2019) 2 KerLJ 253 : (2019)…

Consumer—Revision petition against an order passed by State Commission in execution proceedings before National Commission is not maintainable Execution Petition—Execution proceedings even though they are proceedings in a suit, but cannot be considered to be a continuation of the original suit

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1584 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1016 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Honlrie Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Civil Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Advocates—An advocate cannot work merely as mouth piece of his client while making presentation before the Court—He must tell the Court the correct position of law The College being affiliated to the University was bound by the provisions of the Act with its attendant consequences for noncompliance-Order of termination, passed without approval of Vice chancellor in violation of statutory rules, set aside.

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1578 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha Civil Appeal No(s). 4794…

You missed