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...
the ld. Magistrate viewed that imposition of a fine payable as compensation to the Appellant was sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the instant case. The High Court confirmed the order of the ld. Magistrate, with an increased fine — the Supreme Court held no interference with the order of the High Court, except to the extent of increasing the amount of compensation payable by a further sum of Rs.2 lakhs — appeal partly allowed.
The SC last week dismissed the appeal of Hyderabad Engineering Industries against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh high court ruling that the transactions between several cities constituted inter-state sales, as contemplated under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The company was part of Jay Engineering Works with head office in Delhi. It has other related companies with different names in different states.
The SC last week dismissed the appeal of Hans Steel Rolling Mill against the ruling of the excise appellate tribunal and stated that “importing of elements of one scheme of tax administration to a different scheme of tax administration would be wholly inappropriate as it would disturb the smooth functioning of that unique scheme. The time limit prescribed for one scheme could be completely unwarranted for another scheme and time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is no exception.”
All conditions in policy circular no 15 of 1st February 2011 will continue to apply, except the specification about dates and the calendar given in Annexure 2 thereof since the allocation is being made today (10th March 2011 and not on 10th February 2011). Special attention be paid to para 3(iv) & (v).
The respondent raised certain claims against the appellant and invoked the arbitration agreement — the appointed Arbitrator adjusted Rs.11,10,662 awarded to the appellant, towards the sum of Rs.91,33,844 awarded in favour of the respondent and consequently directed the appellant to pay to the respondent, the balance of Rs.80,23,182 — the appellant paid the said amount to the respondent and filed a petition under section 11 of the Act praying for appointment of an arbitrator to decide its claim for the extra cost in getting the work completed through the alternative agency — the High Court dismissed the said application and held that the application under section 11 of the Act by the appellant was misconceived, barred by res judicata, and mala fide — appeal —
Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 — provisions of — whether applicable — execution of an agreement in regard to maintenance of water supply and electrical works in different parts of Gwalior Municipal Corporation area — a work order was issued to the appellant by the respondent — bills were not paid — the designate of the Chief Justice appointed an independent arbitrator — the arbitrator made award however, the High Court set aside the orders holding that the arbitral award passed by the sole arbitrator was without jurisdiction as the dispute raised by the appellant could only be decided by the statutory arbitral tribunal constituted under the 1983 Adhiniyam and therefore the sole arbitrator appointed by the designate of Chief Justice under section 11(6) of the Act lacked inherent jurisdiction to decide the disputes
It logically follows that Parliament is not empowered to legislate with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes that have no nexus whatsoever with India,” a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said. The apex court said it did not agree that Parliament, on account of its alleged absolute legislative sovereignty, should be deemed to have the powers to enact any and all legislation, even without the requirement that it is for the benefit of India.
Problem of judgements without giving reasons continues :- Though the SC has criticised some high courts for writing judgements without giving reasons, the problem seems to continue. In the case of Tikaula Sugar Mills vs State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allahabad high court was asked to pass a reasoned judgement in the dispute. The high court had set aside the order of the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, without giving reasons. “In our considered view, the judge should not have set aside the order without assigning any reasons,” the SC said, and asked the high court to dispose of the case within a month.
Once a gift is complete, the same cannot be rescinded. For any reason whatsoever, the subsequent conduct of a donee cannot be a ground for rescission of a valid gift.
It is by now a settled law that the exemption notification has to be construed strictly and there has to be strict interpretation of the same by reading the same literally. In this connection reference can be made to the decision of this Court in Collector of Customs (Preventive), Amritsar vs. Malwa Industries Limited reported at (2009) 12 SCC 735 as also to the decision in Kartar Rolling Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi reported at (2006) 4 SCC 772 wherein also it was held by this Court that finding recorded by the Tribunal and the two authorities below are findings of fact and such findings in absence of evidence on record to the contrary is not subject to interference. In order to get benefit of such notification granting exemption the claimant has to show that he satisfies the eligibility criteria. Since the Tribunal and the authorities below have categorically held that the appellant does not satisfy the eligibility criteria on the basis of the evidence on record, therefore, we hold that the said exemption Notification is not applicable to the case of the appellants.
