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 : Supreme Court dismissed a miscellaneous application challenging its signed order, holding it not maintainable and imposing ₹2,00...
Income Tax : Supreme Court modified compensation by reassessing a self-employed deceased’s annual income after considering ITRs and business ...
Corporate Law : SC allowed the appeal and granted NDPS bail after holding that a case for bail was made out, subject to Trial Court conditions....
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 : 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...
Undoubtedly, in a civilized society governed by rule of law, the punishment not prescribed under the statutory rules cannot be imposed. Principle enshrined in Criminal Jurisprudence to this effect is prescribed in legal maxim nulla poena sine lege which means that a person should not be made to suffer penalty except for a clear breach of existing law.
Sri Marcel Martins Vs M. Printer & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) SEVERAL MEMBERS OF FAMILY PROVIDING CONSIDERATION TO CONVERT LEASE PROPERTY INTO FREEOLD BUT REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY HELD ON THE NAME OF ONE PERSON’S NAME-WHETHER CONSIDERED AS BENAMI PROPERTY? BRIEF FACTS: Ms. SM was a tenant (Lessee) of a residential house owned by Municipal […]
Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the judgment in G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 636, wherein during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act, prosecution under Sections 406/420 IPC had been launched. This Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, observing that it would amount to abuse of process of law. In fact, the issue as to whether the ingredients of both the offences were same, had neither been raised nor decided.
According to a Supreme Court order as given below, there is no need for the Charitable & Religious Trusts Registered in Maharashtra to pay the 2% Annual Cess / Levy / Fees Tax Contribution to the Charity Commissioner’s Office, of their total income, which is used to run the Charity Commissioner’s office.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the government and its agencies cannot alienate public property or issues licences in favour of selected individuals or companies at its sweet will. The government cannot give or withhold largesse in its arbitrary discretion or according to its sweet-will. The government cannot now say that it will transfer the property (land etc.) or will give jobs or enter into contracts or issue permits or licences only in favour of certain individuals.
There is no ambiguity, whatsoever, in the Notification issued by the Central Government. The Notification speaks of finished goods produced or manufactured by a 100% EOU and if it is sold in a DTA, the said EOU can take the benefit of the Notification No.8/97-CE. An exemption notification has to be interpreted in the light of the words employed by it and not on any other basis:
Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the Arbitrator has not exercised any discretion in the matter pertaining to the interest for the post-award period. Obviously, in absence thereof, by virtue of Section 31(7)(b) of the Act, the award would carry interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of the award till 5the date of payment. Whether May 24, 2001 when the entire award amount was deposited by the appellants into the High Court is the date of payment ?
The issue which has been raised in this writ petition is whether an offence which is not compoundable under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C., can be quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case.
SC held that No one acquires title to the property if he or she was allowed to stay in the premises gratuitously. Even by long possession of years or decades such person would not acquire any right or interest in the said property. it further held that Caretaker, watchman or servant can never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give (up) possession (of the property) forthwith on demand. Apex Court also laid fresh guidelines that caretakers, watchman or servants do not acquire any title to a property merely because of its possession by them for several years.
It is settled law that the notification has to be read as a whole. If any of the conditions laid down in the notification is not fulfilled, the party is not entitled to the benefit of that notification. The rule regarding exemptions is that exemptions should generally be strictly interpreted but beneficial exemptions having their purpose as encouragement or promotion of certain activities should be liberally interpreted.
