The issue was whether indemnity obligations arise only after final appellate confirmation. The Supreme Court held that liability arises once it crystallises, requiring immediate discharge by the indemnifier.
The Supreme Court issued notice on whether the High Court’s ruling effectively reintroduces a verification requirement under amended Section 148A. The case raises questions on the scope of reassessment powers.
The SC refused to interfere where the High Court had quashed reassessment based on binding precedents. It held that no ground existed to reopen findings already settled by earlier rulings.
The case examined whether a partnership can shield unlawful sub-letting. The Supreme Court held that where possession is effectively transferred to third parties, courts can lift the veil and treat it as sub-letting. The ruling reinforces that substance prevails over form in tenancy disputes.
The Court held that ongoing disputes regarding defective goods and account reconciliation existed prior to the demand notice. It ruled that such disputes bar admission of insolvency proceedings under Section 9 of the IBC.
The issue was whether TCS applies to compounding fees collected from illegal mining activities. The court held that Section 206C(1C) applies only where rights are transferred through lease or licence. The key takeaway is that absence of contractual or legal rights excludes TCS liability.
Supreme Court held that section 64(d) of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 restricts Multi-State Co-operative Society investment only to entities in the same line of business. Accordingly, Multi-State Co-operative Society is ineligible to submit resolution plan for corporate debtor which doesn’t operate in same line of business.
Supreme Court held that borrower doesn’t possess any legal right to a personal hearing by banks before classifying their account as fraud account. Accordingly, the civil appeal is partly allowed.
The case examined reopening of assessment relying on earlier disallowance. The Court found that such disallowance had already been reversed by appellate authorities. The Supreme Court upheld the invalidation of the notice.
Supreme Court held that mere recovery under Section 27 is not enough without proof connecting it to the offence. It acquitted the accused due to incomplete chain of evidence.
