Hindu Succession Act, 1956- The plea, of the appellants, that Rami Reddy’s family from the second wife and the testator’s family was a composite family and the properties were joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants, has not been accepted by the trial court as well as High Court. We have no justifiable reason to take a different view on this aspect.
L. N. Gadodia & Sons & ANR. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Supreme Court of India)- When two establishments are run by the same family under a common management with common work force and with financial integrity, they are expected to be treated as branches of one establishment for the purposes of the Provident Fund Act, the Supreme Court ruled last week.
M/s. Thermax Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K.M. Johnny & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- Though civil law recognises the principle of ‘vicarious liability’ of directors of companies, the concept is not acknowledged in criminal law, the Supreme Court stated while allowing the appeal case, M/s Thermax Ltd Vs K M Johnny.
Land acquired by Government or its instrumentalities for a specific public purpose cannot be changed and transferred to private individuals or corporate bodies, the Supreme Court has held. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya said though Government enjoys power of “eminent domain” to compulsorily acquire any land for public purpose, yet,it cannot legitimise any fraudulent act of the authorities.
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. & ANR. (Supreme Court of India)- The Supreme Court has set aside the ruling of the Allahabad high court and held that manufacturers of beer in the state are liable to pay excise duty from the stage of fermentation and not when beer was fit for human consumption. Mohan Meakin Breweries and other distilleries had challenged the imposition of duty from the stage of fermentation.
Yograj Infrastructure Ltd Vs Ssang Yong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- SC ruled that where the seat of arbitration was Singapore, rules governing the arbitration were of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the substantive law of contract was Indian law, then Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) was excluded by implication.
Om Prakash Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India), Dated: September 30, 2011)- Central Excise Act – Sub-section (2) of Section 9A makes provision for compounding of all offences under Chapter II.
SC refers Appeal by Ram Jethmalani against purported inaction of Government to arrange for recovery of large sums of money deposited by Indian citizens in foreign banks to Honourable the Chief Justice of India.
SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- SC held that under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 (‘Registration Act’) an arbitration clause can remain enforceable in certain situations even if it forms part of an unregistered (but compulsorily registrable) document. But the agreement including the arbitration clause will not be admissible as evidence in court prior to payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty as per Stamp Act, 1899 (‘Stamp Act’).
Pallavi Bhardwah Vs Pratap Chauhan (Supreme Court of India)- Merely coming to court for restitution of conjugal rights is not sufficient rather a definite proof of marriage is must.
