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 set aside the PMLA cognizance order as the accused was not heard under the first proviso to Section 223(1) BNSS before cognizan...
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 : 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...
L. N. Gadodia & Sons & ANR. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Supreme Court of India)- When two establishments are run by the same family under a common management with common work force and with financial integrity, they are expected to be treated as branches of one establishment for the purposes of the Provident Fund Act, the Supreme Court ruled last week.
M/s. Thermax Ltd. & Ors. Vs. K.M. Johnny & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- Though civil law recognises the principle of ‘vicarious liability’ of directors of companies, the concept is not acknowledged in criminal law, the Supreme Court stated while allowing the appeal case, M/s Thermax Ltd Vs K M Johnny.
Land acquired by Government or its instrumentalities for a specific public purpose cannot be changed and transferred to private individuals or corporate bodies, the Supreme Court has held. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya said though Government enjoys power of “eminent domain” to compulsorily acquire any land for public purpose, yet,it cannot legitimise any fraudulent act of the authorities.
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. & ANR. (Supreme Court of India)- The Supreme Court has set aside the ruling of the Allahabad high court and held that manufacturers of beer in the state are liable to pay excise duty from the stage of fermentation and not when beer was fit for human consumption. Mohan Meakin Breweries and other distilleries had challenged the imposition of duty from the stage of fermentation.
Yograj Infrastructure Ltd Vs Ssang Yong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- SC ruled that where the seat of arbitration was Singapore, rules governing the arbitration were of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) and the substantive law of contract was Indian law, then Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the 1996 Act) was excluded by implication.
Om Prakash Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India), Dated: September 30, 2011)- Central Excise Act – Sub-section (2) of Section 9A makes provision for compounding of all offences under Chapter II.
SC refers Appeal by Ram Jethmalani against purported inaction of Government to arrange for recovery of large sums of money deposited by Indian citizens in foreign banks to Honourable the Chief Justice of India.
SMS Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Chandmari Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)- SC held that under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 (‘Registration Act’) an arbitration clause can remain enforceable in certain situations even if it forms part of an unregistered (but compulsorily registrable) document. But the agreement including the arbitration clause will not be admissible as evidence in court prior to payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty as per Stamp Act, 1899 (‘Stamp Act’).
Pallavi Bhardwah Vs Pratap Chauhan (Supreme Court of India)- Merely coming to court for restitution of conjugal rights is not sufficient rather a definite proof of marriage is must.
Ghisalal Vs Dhapubai (D) By Lrs. (Supreme Court of India)- Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, s. 7- Adoption by husband -This is clear from Section 7 of the Act. Proviso thereof makes it clear that a male Hindu cannot adopt except with the consent of the wife, unless the wife has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. It is relevant to note that in the case of a male Hindu the consent of the wife is necessary unless the other contingency exists.
