Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur and another (Supreme Court)- Government of Manipur has notified the exemption of certain organizations of the State Government from the purview of the said Act.This Court makes it clear that those notifications cannot apply retrospectively. Apart from that the same exemption does not cover allegations of corruption and human right violations.
CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (Supreme Court)- Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appeal without considering the following questions, which, according to us, did arise for consideration. They are formulated as under: “(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in holding that estimated expenditure for earning dividend income cannot be subject to disallowance while computing book profits as well as under the normal provisions of the Income tax Act?
Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another (Supreme Court)- Ketan Parikh, Kartik Parikh and M/s. Panther Fincap and Management Services Ltd, were imposed a penalty of Rs. 80 Crores, 12 Crores and 40 Crores respectively by the Special Director of Enforcement, Mumbai for FEMA violations. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 50 percent of penalty. The appellants pursued the matter in Delhi and Bombay High Courts. The matter reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be Forum Shopping and that the appellants deliberately concealed the facts relating to financial condition and directed the appellants to deposit the amounts as ordered by the Tribunal.
Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Viresh Sangwan & ANR(SC)- The housing development authority cannot be held responsible for the encroachments made after possession of the plot had been delivered to the allottees.. Neither the original allottee nor those who bought the property later, could accuse the development authority of deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of plot on the ground that some villagers had made encroachment on it. The appeal of the authority was against the National Consumer Commission order which confirmed the rulings of the state and district forums that there was deficiency in service of the authority as the plot had been encroached upon. The Supreme Court asserted that encroachments after the allotment and due to the negligence of the allottees cannot be subjected to consumer complaints.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court has stated that though the employer might have violated the retrenchment rules under the Industrial Disputes Act, daily wage employees who have worked for a long time in an establishment are not entitled to regularisation. They can only claim monetary compensation. In this case, the workers were on daily wages since 1984 and their services were terminated in 1991 due to non-availability of work.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sinitha & Ors. (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court last week dismissed National Insurance Company’s appeal against the award of compensation for the death of a youth, stating that the insurer has not proved that he was negligent while driving his motorcycle. It also did not bring evidence on the role of the youth – whether he was owner, agent, employee or representative, which was crucial to the case. The motor accident claims tribunal had awarded Rs 4.26 lakh to the widow, children and parents as against their claim of Rs 8 lakh. The company moved the Kerala high court and the Supreme Court and failed in each instance.
Union of India Vs. Col. L.S.N. Murthy & ANR. (SC) – An agreement to refer disputes to arbitration will not be void because a government instruction which makes the deal unprofitable. A contract in such cases will be valid unless it is unlawful. In this case, the government invited tenders for supply of fruits for the army. The successful bidder began the supply but stopped when the prices rose and the deal became unprofitable.
Sunil K.R. Ghosh & Ors. Vs. K. Ram Chandran & Ors. (Supreme Court)- Employees cannot be compelled to work under a new management and are entitled to retirement or retrenchment benefits, the Supreme Court has held. The apex court rejected the argument of Philip’s India Ltdthat since the employees had neither retired nor retrenched, hence they were not entitled to the benefits.
The disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent, instead of challenging the existence of a valid arbitration clause, took the stand that the arbitration would not be cost effective and will be pre-mature. In view of the facts, this Court held that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and the petitioner was entitled to a reference under Section 11 of the Act and observed: No party can be allowed to take advantage of inartistic drafting of arbitration clause in any agreement as long as clear intention of parties to go for arbitration in case of any future disputes is evident from the agreement and the material on record, including surrounding circumstances.
Citi corp. Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi (Supreme Court)- Even in case of mortgaged goods subject to Hire-Purchase Agreements, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the Agreements also contemplates such recovery to be effected in due process of law and not by use […]
