Goods and Services Tax : The Finance Act, 2025 retrospectively amended Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act after the Supreme Court allowed ITC on certain comm...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court held that liabilities arising from corporate guarantees qualify as financial debt under Section 5(8) of the Inso...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court ruled that a shortfall payment clause in a Deed of Hypothecation can qualify as a contract of guarantee under th...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court expressed serious reservations about earlier rulings denying bail in UAPA cases, holding that smaller benches ca...
Income Tax : The article explains the Supreme Court’s landmark 2024 ruling that broken period interest on debt securities is capital in natur...
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...
Goods and Services Tax : The Supreme Court stayed further proceedings arising from a Section 74 GST order while examining whether writ petitions can be ent...
Finance : The Supreme Court refused relief to borrowers who defaulted from the very first instalment after availing an ₹8.09 crore loan. T...
Finance : The Supreme Court upheld a Will executed in favour of the testator’s sister despite objections from his wife and children. The C...
Income Tax : SC examined nature of amounts received from an AOP and upheld findings that receipts constituted profit share rather than revenue ...
Income Tax : The Supreme Court dismissed the challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling that quashed reassessment proceedings under Sections 148A(d...
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...
CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd (Supreme Court)- Having heard learned counsel on both sides, we are of the view that the High Court ought not to have dismissed the appeal without considering the following questions, which, according to us, did arise for consideration. They are formulated as under: “(A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal was right in holding that estimated expenditure for earning dividend income cannot be subject to disallowance while computing book profits as well as under the normal provisions of the Income tax Act?
Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another (Supreme Court)- Ketan Parikh, Kartik Parikh and M/s. Panther Fincap and Management Services Ltd, were imposed a penalty of Rs. 80 Crores, 12 Crores and 40 Crores respectively by the Special Director of Enforcement, Mumbai for FEMA violations. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 50 percent of penalty. The appellants pursued the matter in Delhi and Bombay High Courts. The matter reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be Forum Shopping and that the appellants deliberately concealed the facts relating to financial condition and directed the appellants to deposit the amounts as ordered by the Tribunal.
Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Viresh Sangwan & ANR(SC)- The housing development authority cannot be held responsible for the encroachments made after possession of the plot had been delivered to the allottees.. Neither the original allottee nor those who bought the property later, could accuse the development authority of deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of plot on the ground that some villagers had made encroachment on it. The appeal of the authority was against the National Consumer Commission order which confirmed the rulings of the state and district forums that there was deficiency in service of the authority as the plot had been encroached upon. The Supreme Court asserted that encroachments after the allotment and due to the negligence of the allottees cannot be subjected to consumer complaints.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court has stated that though the employer might have violated the retrenchment rules under the Industrial Disputes Act, daily wage employees who have worked for a long time in an establishment are not entitled to regularisation. They can only claim monetary compensation. In this case, the workers were on daily wages since 1984 and their services were terminated in 1991 due to non-availability of work.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sinitha & Ors. (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court last week dismissed National Insurance Company’s appeal against the award of compensation for the death of a youth, stating that the insurer has not proved that he was negligent while driving his motorcycle. It also did not bring evidence on the role of the youth – whether he was owner, agent, employee or representative, which was crucial to the case. The motor accident claims tribunal had awarded Rs 4.26 lakh to the widow, children and parents as against their claim of Rs 8 lakh. The company moved the Kerala high court and the Supreme Court and failed in each instance.
Union of India Vs. Col. L.S.N. Murthy & ANR. (SC) – An agreement to refer disputes to arbitration will not be void because a government instruction which makes the deal unprofitable. A contract in such cases will be valid unless it is unlawful. In this case, the government invited tenders for supply of fruits for the army. The successful bidder began the supply but stopped when the prices rose and the deal became unprofitable.
Sunil K.R. Ghosh & Ors. Vs. K. Ram Chandran & Ors. (Supreme Court)- Employees cannot be compelled to work under a new management and are entitled to retirement or retrenchment benefits, the Supreme Court has held. The apex court rejected the argument of Philip’s India Ltdthat since the employees had neither retired nor retrenched, hence they were not entitled to the benefits.
The disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent, instead of challenging the existence of a valid arbitration clause, took the stand that the arbitration would not be cost effective and will be pre-mature. In view of the facts, this Court held that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and the petitioner was entitled to a reference under Section 11 of the Act and observed: No party can be allowed to take advantage of inartistic drafting of arbitration clause in any agreement as long as clear intention of parties to go for arbitration in case of any future disputes is evident from the agreement and the material on record, including surrounding circumstances.
Citi corp. Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi (Supreme Court)- Even in case of mortgaged goods subject to Hire-Purchase Agreements, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the Agreements also contemplates such recovery to be effected in due process of law and not by use […]
M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III – (Supreme Court) – The Commissioner has not recorded any clear finding as to whether for the tubes that were cleared by the appellant during the relevant periods in respect of which show cause notices were issued, the caps were supplied free of cost by the customers of the appellant and such caps were fitted to the tubes manufactured in the factory of the appellant. As we have already held, in respect of the tubes for which caps have been supplied by the customers free of cost, the assessable value of the tubes will not include the value of the caps.The Commissioner, therefore, will have to record a clear finding as to whether for the tubes cleared during the three relevant periods, the caps were supplied by the customers of the appellant free of cost and accordingly pass a fresh order. In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as the original order passed by the Commissioner are set aside.
