Latest Post

Meritorious reserved category candidates must be considered against unreserved vacancies at the screening stage without availing any concession, prioritizing merit over category bias. The Commission under the WBCE Act has jurisdiction to adjudicate deficiencies in patient care services and qualifications of personnel, distinct from medical negligence handled by State Medical Councils. Income Tax Act, 1961 — Section 37(1) — Revenue Expenditure vs. Capital Expenditure — Non-compete fee — Whether payment of non-compete fee constitutes allowable revenue expenditure or capital expenditure — Non-compete fee is paid to restrain a competitor, which protects or enhances the business profitability and facilitates carrying on the business more efficiently — Such payment neither creates a new asset nor increases the profit-earning apparatus for the payer, meaning the enduring advantage, if any, is not in the capital field — The length of time of the advantage is not determinative if the advantage merely facilitates business operations, leaving fixed assets untouched — Payment of non-compete fee made by the appellant (formed as a joint venture) to L&T (previous partner) to restrain L&T from competing for 7 years was essentially to keep a potential competitor out and ensure the appellant operated more efficiently and profitably, without creating a new capital asset or monopoly — Held: Payment of non-compete fee is an allowable revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act. (Paras 16, 25-29) Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 118 — Competency of child witness — Effect of delay and tutoring — Although a minor child is competent to testify, the reliability and evidentiary value of testimony given many years after the event, especially when the child has been residing with the complainant’s family (maternal grandparents), is significantly affected by the high possibility of memory distortion and tutoring. (Paras 5, 7, 10.2) Service Law — High Court Staff — Regularization — Discrimination — Appellants (Operator-cum-Data Entry Assistants/Routine Grade Clerks) appointed by Chief Justice under Rules 8(a)(i), 41, and 45 of Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976 — High Court refused regularization of Appellants while regularizing numerous similarly situated employees appointed through the same channel — Justification based on whether initial appointment was labelled ‘ad-hoc’ or whether appointment letter stipulated an examination — Held, distinction based solely on stipulations in appointment letters, when the channel of appointment and nature of work are identical, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and superficial — Such differential treatment violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as equals must be treated equally without rational differentia. (Paras 3, 4, 17, 23-28)

Accident–Fake Driving Licence–The decision in Swaran Singh’s case has no application to own damage case. Interpretation of Statute–To arrive at the intention of the legislation depending on the objects for which the enactment is made, the Court can resort to historical, contextual and purposive interpretation leaving textual interpretation aside.

  2007(5) LAW HERALD (SC) 3566 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Civil Appeal No. 1140…

Consumer–Interest–Housing–As per clause in allotment letter complainant agreed to refund of amount with 24% interest if required approvals are not got sanction within 12 months-Exorbitant rate of interest in allotment letter, is a strong indicator that the complainant in fact was an investor or financier in the project

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 379 (NCDRC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 596 IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Before The Hon’ble Mr. Presiding Member V.K. Jain Consumer Case No. 43 of…

You missed