The Supreme Court held that courts must undertake a meaningful reading of the plaint and reject suits that indirectly seek enforcement of prohibited benami transactions. The ruling strengthens Order VII Rule 11 CPC as a safeguard against sham and legally barred litigation.
The Supreme Court held that a decree for specific performance does not automatically become unenforceable merely because the purchaser failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time.
The Supreme Court held that insolvency proceedings under the IBC cannot be invoked merely to recover disputed dues arising from contractual transactions.
The Supreme Court held that a collaborator essential to contract execution and bound through a Deed of Joint Undertaking can invoke the arbitration clause despite not being a direct signatory.
The Supreme Court refused to interfere with the Gujarat High Court ruling quashing reassessment proceedings where the assessee had disclosed all transactions in audited accounts and income tax returns. The Court left the question of law open.
The Supreme Court held that mere differences in property valuation do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) requires proof of deliberate inaccuracy. The ruling clarifies that estimation disputes alone cannot justify penalty.
The issue involved whether jurisdictional officers could issue reassessment notices. The Court set aside High Court rulings after a retrospective amendment clarified their authority and remanded the matter.
The Supreme Court upheld deletion of penalty where the dispute involved classification of subsidy as capital or revenue receipt. It ruled that such debatable issues do not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision reinforces limits on penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
The Supreme Court held that the IBC cannot be used as a substitute for execution of a civil court decree. It ruled that initiating CIRP for recovery purposes amounts to misuse of the insolvency framework.
The Supreme Court dismissed SLPs and upheld the High Court’s finding that reassessment notices lacked tangible material. The ruling reinforces that mere survey findings cannot justify reopening of assessments.
