Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court upheld Section 69 GST arrest powers, requiring recorded reasons, CrPC safeguards, CBIC instructions and limiting arr...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court held excise duty paid by buyers formed part of turnover, discussed colourable devices, and distinguished legitim...
Corporate Law : A non-speaking dismissal of an SLP does not affirm the High Court's reasoning or constitute law under Article 141. The doctrine of...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that summoning hotel booking records and call detail records to prove adultery does not violate privacy, a...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court agreed to examine allegations that bank dues were settled at steep discounts through ARCs, while clarifying that...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court upheld joint insolvency proceedings against two interconnected real estate companies due to common management an...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court ruled that CoC and RP can surrender financially burdensome assets voluntarily, clarifying moratorium under section 1...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies limits of High Court's writ powers in IBC cases and recognises Indian CIRP as foreign main proceeding in cross-border...
Corporate Law : Justice BR Gavai sworn in as India's 52nd Chief Justice. Focus areas include addressing case pendency and improving court infrastr...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Corporate Law : SC held a Ministers statement binds the Government only if it reflects the Governments view and declined to issue speech guideline...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court granted bail under the PMLA, noting prolonged custody, documentary evidence, delayed trial, parity with co-accused, ...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court set aside the High Court's PMLA bail order for failure to apply Section 45 twin conditions and remanded the matter f...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court declined to refer the Article 370 challenge to a larger Bench, holding there was no conflict between earlier Constit...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court upheld termination of a slum redevelopment developer for prolonged delay and reaffirmed the statutory duty and accou...
Corporate Law : The Bill seeks to amend Articles 15 and 16 to allow reservation for backward classes proportionate to their population identified ...
Fema / RBI : RBI directs banks, NBFCs, and other entities to implement Supreme Court’s accessibility guidelines for digital KYC, ensuring inc...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : No restrictions on joint bank accounts or nominations for the queer community, as clarified by the Supreme Court and RBI in August...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
In present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by observing that the income of people of the similar status as of deceased have to be taken into consideration
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeals held that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 would not be committed if the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque; and when a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted
Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs CIT (Supreme Court) The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing […]
Explore the impact analysis of the recent Supreme Court verdict in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT-1 on the treatment of delayed Employee PF Contribution payment under the Income Tax Act. Understand the background, adjustments in summary proceedings, Finance Act 2021 amendments, and the way forward for ongoing litigation.
Supreme Court held that the appellant-JSPL is duly complying with the prescription in Explanation to Rule 3 of Distribution License Rules and hence cancellation of licence is unjustified.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that a preliminary enquiry shall be conducted by the High Court on the issue whether the dispute is arbitrable or not while deciding an application made under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrators.
In present facts of the case, it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court of India that an NGO could not have filed writ petition before Honble High Court as it do not have any locus standi in present facts of the case as it was not an aggrieved party. Also, it was observed that the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
In present facts of the case, while allowing the appeal it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud and the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity.
Non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. Therefore, the judgment or decree obtained by fraud was to be treated as a nullity as the respondent had not only suppressed a material fact but had also tried to mislead the High Court.
In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Writ under Article 32 would be maintainable as after the Apex Court, no litigant has any opportunity of approaching any higher forum to question its decision. The only remedy available to the petitioners would be to approach this Court by way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for protection of the fundamental rights (Right to Privacy in this case) of citizens of India.
