Courts below treated an agreement to sell as a conveyance due to possession with the buyer. The Supreme Court ruled that without express or implied surrender of tenancy, no deemed conveyance arises.
The Supreme Court held that a suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable where title, possession, and identity of land are seriously disputed. In such cases, the proper remedy is a suit for possession or declaration, not injunction alone.
The Supreme Court held that a joint committee is mandatory only when removal motions are admitted in both Houses. If admitted in one House alone, the Speaker or Chairman can validly constitute a committee.
The Supreme Court examined whether fees paid to foreign speakers through booking agents attract service tax as event management service. It held that speaker booking does not amount to planning, organizing, or managing an event and is therefore not taxable under that category.
The Court ruled that Section 17A lawfully requires prior approval before investigating decisions taken in official capacity. It clarified that the provision balances anti-corruption enforcement with protection against vexatious probes.
The Supreme Court held that gains arising from the sale of shares of a foreign company deriving substantial value from Indian assets are taxable in India. The ruling confirms that indirect transfer provisions override treaty claims when Indian assets are the real source of value.
The Court ruled that refunds arising from statutory pre-deposits must follow the specific appellate provisions, holding the High Court’s reliance on the general refund section unnecessary.
The Court examined whether procedural rigidity and expired panels could defeat disability rights. It held that denial of employment without reasonable accommodation violates constitutional guarantees and disability law.
The Court ruled that digital illiteracy, lack of transparency, and weak grievance redressal cannot be grounds to deny the 25% quota. It mandated structured rules to make admissions accessible, transparent, and enforceable.
Interpreting Sections 21 and 22 together, the Court held that heirs inheriting an estate must maintain statutory dependants. A widowed daughter-in-law qualifies even if she did not receive a share in the estate. The decision clarifies obligations of successors.
