Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 27 and 128 – Right to file refund claim- The claim for refund cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or selfassessment is modified in accordance with law by taking recourse to the appropriate proceedings and it would not be within the ken of Section 27 to set aside the order of selfassessment and reassess the duty for making refund
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ITC LIMITED — Appellant Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA IV — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ.…
Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 – Sections 62 and 62(5) – Validity of Section 62(5) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005- HELD to be legal and valid and the condition of 25% of pre-deposit not to be onerous, harsh, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TECNIMONT PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS TECNIMONT ICB PRIVATE LIMITED) — Appellant Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before :…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 – National Highways Act, 1956 – Section 3J – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 23 and 28 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14 – Solatium and interest – Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act relating to solatium and interest contained in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. TARSEM SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman and Surya Kant, JJ. )…
Finance Act, 2003 – Section 154 – Withdrawal of the exemption to the pan masala with tobacco and pan masala sans tobacco -This Court no hesitation to hold that the withdrawal of the exemption to the pan masala with tobacco and pan masala sans tobacco is in the larger public interest. As such, the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not have been invoked in the present matter. The State could not be compelled to continue the exemption, though it was satisfied that it was not in the public interest to do so.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S UNICORN INDUSTRIES — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and B.R. Gavai,…
Army Rules, 1954 – Rule 13(3)(III)(v) – Discharge from service – Offences for which the red ink entries are awarded, cannot be said to be such gross misconduct which would make the appellant indiscipline and liable to be discharged from service and that too, after a period of long service rendered by him – Order of discharge is wholly unjustified and not sustainable at law – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NARAIN SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Arun Mishra, M. R. Shah and B. R. Gavai,…
Army Act, 1950 – Sections 3, 3(i), 8 and 9 – Disability pension- There has to be a relevant and reasonable causal connection, howsoever remote, between the incident resulting in such disability/death and military service for it to be attributable. This conditionality applies even when a person is posted and leave; notwithstanding both being considered as ‘duty’.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DHARAMBIR SINGH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.…
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Sections 10(3)(a)(iii) and 14(1)(b) – Bonafide requirement – Nature of the requirement as stated by the landlord would be for running a garment shop .Mere non production of the approved plan or the documents to indicate financial capacity at this juncture cannot be held fatal in the instant facts
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH D. SASI KUMAR — Appellant Vs. SOUNDARARAJAN — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 7546-7547 of…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Sections 34, 34(2), 34(5) and 34(6) – Permission to adduce evidence – The proceedings under Section 34 of the Act are summary proceedings and not a regular suit. When the order of the District Judge dismissing the application filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not suffer from perversity, the High Court, HC cannot interfere .
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CANARA NIDHI LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M. SHASHIKALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil…
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 14 – Possession of secured asset – CJM is competent to process the request of the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN BANK — Appellant Vs. D. VISALAKSHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…
Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 13 – Recovery of dues- Contempt petition.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MR. SANJIV GUPTA & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. )…