The Supreme Court ruled that earlier compensation was inadequate and raised the award to ₹15.13 lakh, ensuring fair restitution for a minor’s lifelong disability.
SC held that even with a breach of insurance policy terms, insurer must first pay accident compensation and can later recover it from vehicle owner under pay-and-recover principle.
SC clarified that a trust’s 12AA registration isn’t enough to claim 80G benefit; the nature of its activities must be independently verified for charitable character.
The Supreme Court found that the arbitrator rewrote contract terms contrary to a Railway Board policy circular and thus committed “patent illegality” under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The award was quashed, and the High Court’s affirmance set aside.
The Supreme Court partially set aside the Enforcement Directorate’s attachment order, restoring properties to the resolution applicant for the benefit of genuine homebuyers while maintaining attachment over 11 identified units linked to alleged proceeds of crime.
Supreme Court holds that ‘previous financial year’ must align with the Income Tax Act; rejects arbitrary tender rejection by Odisha authorities.
The Supreme Court struck down Bihar Registration Rules requiring proof of Jamabandi/mutation for property registration. The Court ruled that mutation is a fiscal entry that does not confer title, and making it mandatory for registration is ultra vires the Registration Act, 1908.
Supreme Court upheld the judgement of High Court and held that in case of execution of a works contract through a sub-contractor, the sub-contractor was liable to pay tax under the VAT Act and therefore the payment made by the main contractor to the sub-contractor was not liable to be included in the taxable consideration of the main contractor as this would lead to double taxation.
The Court reiterated that mere drafting labels cannot convert a settlement clause into an arbitration agreement. Since Clause 8.28 only contemplated conciliation and allowed recourse to courts, it failed to reflect intent for binding adjudication by an independent arbitrator.
The Supreme Court held that an appellate decree passed in favour of deceased appellants is a nullity. As no legal heirs were substituted, the appeal automatically abated, and the original trial court decree revived and became executable.
