Latest Post

the reasoning in the impugned judgment that the non-obstante clause would not in any manner dilute or override the employer’s obligation to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee’s income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before the returns are filed, of certain liabilities which are to be borne by the assessee in the form of tax, interest payment and other statutory liability. I Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Anticipatory Bail — Grant of — Grounds for — High Court granted anticipatory bail based on reasons that one co-owner was abroad during agreement execution, agreement was only notarized and not registered, part payment received, and complainant sought refund indicating civil dispute — Supreme Court found these reasons to be peripheral and not bearing direct nexus to parameters governing anticipatory bail — Seriousness of allegations, criminal antecedents, and requirements of investigation in economic offence were overlooked by High Court. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Sections 138 and 141 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Vicarious liability of office bearers — For a person other than the drawer or signatory of a dishonoured cheque to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the NI Act, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society at the time the offence was committed. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 and 37 — Scope of powers of Court to set aside or modify arbitral award — Modification of award is a limited power compared to annulment, aimed at achieving more just outcomes and avoiding hardship and delay, especially in India where litigation takes years — Appellate jurisdiction under Section 37 is coterminous with and as broad as jurisdiction under Section 34. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 6 Rule 7 — Pleadings should not raise new claims or inconsistent allegations — A defendant cannot retract their initial stand taken in the written statement and introduce a completely new and contradictory case, especially after issues have been framed and the trial has commenced.

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 & S.392–Murder–Last Seen Together-Adverse Inference-Robbery–Recovery of stolen items-Acquittal-Recovery of ornaments of the deceased from the accused or production of the same by the accused in the course of investigation, howsoever suspicious, cannot be conclusive of the question of the accused having committed the murder

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 250 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 519 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan Criminal Appeal…

Education Law-Admission-MBBS Course-Admissions to the MBBS Course could only through NEETI and NEET II–No other process of admission was permissible-Conducting of State Medical Admission Test despite the orders of Medical Council & Supreme Court-Admission cannot be held to be valid even though student is not at fault but is victim of mal-administration

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 247 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 518 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prafulla C. Pant…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 & S.438-Quashing-lnherent Powers- Anticipatory Bail–S.438 CrPC has been deleted in State of Uttar Pradesh-Wherever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice

2017(1) Law Herald (SC) 238 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 516 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy Criminal Appeal…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 23 and 24 – Acquisition of land in excess of ceiling – Determination of compensation – Land in excess of ceiling exempted by the Government – Land not vesting in Government – Acquisition under the Act, permissible – Land owner is entitled to compensation under the Act as acquisition is not under Land Ceiling Act.

  AIR 1996 SC 3142 : (1996) 3 JT 629 : (1996) 3 SCALE 140 : (1996) 3 SCC 282 : (1996) 3 SCR 772 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA GOVERNMENT…

You missed