Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Justdial लिमिटेड बनाम पीएन विग्नेश मा...
Corporate Law : SC slams High Court for 'playing it safe' on bail in Manish Sisodia's case, emphasizing that bail should be the norm, not the exce...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, ruling consensual relationship. Calls for legal reforms to prevent misuse of penal laws against m...
Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राज्य बार काउंसिलों द्वारा अत्य...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore critical GST case laws from July 2024, including SCN issuance, personal hearing rights, appeal delays, and more. Essential...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Excise Duty : Supreme Court admits Ecoboard Industries Ltd.'s appeal on excise duty for intermediate products, questioning Tribunal's duty impo...
Excise Duty : Case Title: M/s. Marwadi Shares and Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27124/2023; Dat...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court rules Vodafone Idea is not liable for TDS on payments to foreign telecom operators. The decision aligns with earlier...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court overrules India Cement case, ruling that MADA judgment should not be applied retrospectively to avoid disrupting pas...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court held that the Purchase Price as defined u/s. 2(18) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would not include purcha...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that Banks/ Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are obliged to adopt restructuring process of MSME as conte...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge an enrolment fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
Corporate Law : Explore the updated FAQs on the implementation of the EPFO judgment dated 04.11.2022. Understand proof requirements, pension compu...
Income Tax : Comprehensive guide on CBDT's directives for AOs concerning the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court verdict. Dive into its implication...
Income Tax : Supreme Court's circular outlines guidelines for filing written submissions, documents, and oral arguments before Constitution Ben...
Corporate Law : The establishment M/s Radhika Theatre, situated at Warangal, Telangana was covered under ESI Act w.e.f. 16.01.1981 on the basis of...
Tenders or public auction best way to sell state properties- The Supreme Court (SC) has declared “inviting tenders from the public or holding public auction is the best way for disposal of properties belonging to the state.” In this case, Kerala Finance Corp vs Vincent Paul, the borrower failed to repay the loan and the state finance corporation tried to dispose of the mortgaged property. But the process was entangled in civil suits. The SC ssaid the corporation has not framed rules or guidelines for sale of properties owned by them. Therefore the court itself framed rules to be followed by the corporation till it formed its own guidelines.
Withdrawn tax exemption cannot be reclaimed- An industry which has been granted tax exemption to set up unit in a backward region cannot claim the benefit even after it was withdrawn by the state, the SC stated in the case, State of Haryana vs Mahabir Vegetable Oils Ltd. In this case, the firm set up a solvent extraction plant and enjoyed the sales tax benefit till 1996. That year, the firm was put in the negative list as it was found to be a polluting industry. The benefit was withdrawn since then. This was challenged by the firm in the Punjab and Haryana high court. It allowed its petition and ruled that once the firm invested funds on the promise of tax benefit, the government could not withdraw the exemption mid-way. Reversing this view, the SC emphasised that there was no vested interest in the firm to get the benefit for all times. The government can change the rules in public interest. In this case, the decision to put the firm in the negative list was on account of the unit’s polluting nature, the SC said, allowing the appeal of the state government.
Compensation received under Non-Competition Agreement became taxable as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt by specific legislative mandate vide Section 28(va) and that too with effect from 1.4.2003. Hence, the said Section 28(va) is amendatory and not clarificatory. Lastly, in Commissioner of Income-Tax, Nagpur v. Rai Bahadur Jairam Valji reported in 35 ITR 148 it was held by this Court that if a contract is entered into in the ordinary course of business, any compensation received for its termination (loss of agency) would be a revenue receipt. In the present case, both CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal, came to the conclusion that the agreement entered into by the assessee with Ranbaxy led to loss of source of business; that payment was received under the negative covenant and therefore the receipt of Rs. 50 lakhs by the assessee from Ranbaxy was in the nature of capital receipt. In fact, in order to put an end to the litigation, Parliament stepped in to specifically tax such receipts under non-competition agreement with effect from 1.4.2003.
Right to privacy has been a subject matter and reiterated in the State of Andhra Pradesh and District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and another versus Canara Bank and others (2005) 1 SCC 496. However, the said right is not an absolute right. Right to information is a part of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act balances right to privacy and right to information. It recognizes that both rights are important and require protection and in case of conflict between the two rights, the test of over-riding public interest is applied to decide whether information should be withheld or disclosed.
(1) Euthanasia – Right to die – Legality – In 1973, petitioner, staff nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEM hospital), was sexually assaulted and choked, leaving her blind, deaf, paralysed and in a vegetative state – In 1999, ‘X’ as petitioner’s next friend filed a petition for euthanasia submitting that petitioner should be allowed to die with dignity as there was not the slightest possibility of any improvement in her condition – Whether petition filed by the ‘X’ regarding euthanasia for the petitioner could be allowed?
Service – Preparation of judgments through third party – Removal from service – Legality (i) Whether High Court was justified in dispensing with enquiry while passing order recommending appellant’s removal (ii) Whether order of removal passed by Governor was within his jurisdiction Constitution – Whether High Court could invoke Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution while passing recommendation for removal of subordinate judge.
The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those cases.
Rudra Appellant(s) versus Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another Respondent(s) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — section 166 — claim petition under — the Tribunal concluded that merely because the appellant had consumed alcohol did not mean that the driver of the vehicle did not need to drive the vehicle cautiously. Thus, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded total compensation amounted to Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. — the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,48,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. — appeal for enhancement of compensation — the doctor assessed whole body disability at 29% and also stated that the nature of disability is such that the appellant cannot work as a coolie or do any other manual work — the impugned judgment of the High Court modified, awarding Rs.3,00,000/- with interest of 6% p.a. on the enhanced sum — appeal allowed — no costs.
whether Jaljira which is a product manufactured by the respondent herein is only an appetizer and is not a masala and therefore liable to sales tax at the rate of 10% and not 16% ….. There is no doubt that Jaljira is a drink. The contents of Jaljira is put into water and taken as digestive drink but when we look into the manner and method of preparation of the product Jaljira, we find that it is a mixture of different spices after grinding and mixing. Therefore, it is nothing but a Masala packed into packets of different nature/quantity and sold to the consumers. It would, therefore, for all practical purposes would come within the Entry No. 184 and it cannot be said that it would come under the residuary entry as held by the High Court.
Various benches of the high court have taken different stands on the issue of relationship between the employer and such workers. SC framed three questions for the larger bench. The first and main one is “whether a person who is employed by a contractor who undertakes contracts for the execution of any of the whole of the work or any part of the work which is ordinarily work of the undertaking is an employee under the Act?”
