In the present case, the appellant clearly sought an operational service from the Proprietary Concern when it contracted with them for the supply of light fittings. Further, when the contract was terminated but the Proprietary Concern nonetheless encashed the cheque for advance payment, it gave rise to an operational debt in favor of the appellant, which now remains unpaid. Hence, the appellant is an operational creditor under Section 5(20) of the IBC.
State of Manipur & Ors. Vs Surjakumar Okram & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The main contention in the appeal is that the declaration of the Assam Act, 2004 as unconstitutional does not per se render the 2012 Act invalid. It was argued that Bimolangshu Roy was wrongly decided and should be held to be […]
State of Kerala & Ors. Vs Laxmi Vasanth (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court observed that Sub-Section (5) of Section 30 of the Partnership Act shall not be applicable to a minor partner who was not a partner at the time of his attaining the majority. Sub-Section (5) of Section 30 of the Partnership […]
Indusind Bank Limited Vs Simarjit Singh (Supreme Court of India) In July 2006, the respondent-complainant, Simarjit Singh had availed a loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- from the appellant, IndusInd Bank Limited for financing a truck. The loan was repayable in equal monthly instalments of Rs. 35,150/-. The respondent committed default in payment of three instalments due […]
The finding overlooks that no one would like to avail services of a stranger or an agent if the work, that is, transfer of KVP certificates, could be otherwise handled and done with ease. Further, no one would like to lose money to a stranger. Necessarily, we would accept that the appellants had remained in touch with Rukhsana but were given the impression that the exercise is complex and would take time. Further they had belief that the post office would take care of their interest, act in good faith and would not be negligent.
Siddharthshankar Sharma Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) The grievance of the petitioner that he was denied the facility of a vaccination for failure to produce an Aadhar card has also been dealt with in the counter affidavit. It has been stated that the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare addressed a […]
Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs Rahul Modi (Supreme Court of India) Conclusion: The indefeasible right of an accused to seek statutory bail under Section 167(2), CrPC arose only if the charge-sheet had not been filed before the expiry of the statutory period. Held: In the instant case, investigation was directed to be conducted into the […]
Shiv Developers Vs Aksharay Developers (Supreme Court) As noticed, the crucial and key factor in the present case remains that the sale transaction in question is not arising out of the business of the appellant firm. Equally significant fact is that the subject suit is for enforcing a right of avoidance of a document on […]
Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes (Supreme Court) The Supreme Court while reversing the High Court’s Order has ruled that the assessee can adjust Income Tax paid under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 with tax payable if his application was rejected. The assessee made a declaration of an undisclosed income of a certain […]
There are three eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution. We find PWs-1 & 2 have not contradicted between themselves being the eye-witnesses. Merely because they are related witnesses, in the absence of any material to hold that they are interested, their testimonies cannot be rejected. There is also no delay in the registration of the FIR. PW-3 though turned hostile, spoke about the incident in his chief examination. Strangely, in the cross examination he turned turtle, while disputing the very factum of his chief examination made before the court. The view of the courts on this witness also deserves to be accepted.
