The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against the Jharkhand High Court’s decision quashing prosecution under Sections 276B and 278B. The High Court had held that continuation of prosecution after deposit of TDS and interest was unwarranted in the facts of the case.
The Supreme Court ruled that Section 4 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked where the prescribed limitation period expires before the court closes for vacation. The Section 34 petition was therefore barred by limitation.
The Supreme Court held that the request to introduce a creamy layer system and challenge blanket tax exemption for Scheduled Tribes relates to legislative public policy. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Lok Sabha Committee on Petitions and submit representations to the authorities.
Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited Vs Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Pensioners Welfare Association (REGD.) & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court considered a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited challenging the dismissal of its review petition by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Before examining the merits of the […]
The Supreme Court held that once an earlier SLP has been dismissed and a subsequent review petition also fails, a fresh SLP is not maintainable without specific liberty from the Court. The ruling reinforces the principle of finality in litigation.
The Supreme Court held that the Service Code permitted representation only through a union or association of the Bank of Cochin’s employees or, with permission, by a lawyer. Denial of representation by an office-bearer of another bank’s union did not invalidate the disciplinary proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that the Working President validly convened the election meeting under the doctrine of necessity after all principal office bearers had died. It restored the accepted change report and directed fresh elections within six months.
The Supreme Court directed High Courts to first determine whether the reassessment cases relate to AY 2015-16. If they do, the notices must be declared time-barred in terms of Rajeev Bansal without further adjudication.
The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings without objecting to jurisdiction within the period prescribed under Section 124(3)(a) cannot subsequently challenge the Assessing Officer’s jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition after the Gujarat High Court held that the Tribunal’s findings on the non-genuineness of unsecured loan transactions were based on appreciation of evidence and disclosed no perversity.
