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...
Mr. Bharat Gandhi, Advocate, Mumbai has informed us that in respect of the parties whose cases are pending in DRTs, if one approaches the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is issuing ex-parte stay orders restraining further action under the SARFEASI Act. The matters are tagged with the case of Khaja Industries in respect of which the vires of notification has been challenged, issued by the Central Govt in 2003, by which the co-operatives banks are invoking provision of SARFEASI Act. Mr. Bharat Gandhi has obtained such stays in few cases recently.
Mohammad Ahmad & Anr. Versus Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors. One half of the lis between landlord and tenant would not reach courts, if tenant agrees to pay the present prevalent market rate of rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord. In that case landlord would also be satisfied that he is getting adequate, just and proper return on the property. But the trend in the litigation between landlord and tenant shows otherwise. Tenant is happy in paying the meagre amount of rent fixed years ago and landlord continues to find out various grounds under the Rent Acts, to evict him some how or the other. This case appears to be another classic example of the aforesaid scenario.
The Supreme Court last week ruled that the criminal trial of directors of a company accused of forging documents to get loan from a bank could not be quashed merely because the loan has been repaid with interest. In this case, Sushil Suri vs CBI, some directors of a pharmaceutical firm, Morpen Laboratories Ltd of Delhi, were charge-sheeted for fabricating false invoices to obtain a hire purchase loan from Punjab & Sind Bank. On information, CBI investigated and charged the directors with fraud, forgery, conspiracy and other criminal offences. Some directors moved the Delhi high court seeking to quash the charge sheet. They argued that they had repaid the loan with interest and therefore the bank or anyone else has not suffered any loss. The high court dismissed their petition. The Supreme Court stated that the high court was justified in doing so as a prima facie case for trial has been made out despite the repayment of the loan.
The Supreme Court last week set aside a Delhi high court judgment holding that the high court had no power to entertain an international arbitration petition in the appeal case, Videocon Industries Ltd vs Union of India. A production sharing contract was entered into between the government and a consortium of four companies consisting of […]
In a landmark judgment, Supreme Court restores Rs. 5,05,053 compensation for permanent injury in motor accident, emphasizing pain and suffering.
SKS Microfinance today challenged in the Supreme Court the special act passed by the Andhra Pradesh government to regulate micro finance institutions in the state after allegations that their high interest rates and strong-arm recovery methods led to suicides by farmers. A bench of justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra issued notice to the state government, directing it to file reply and posted the matter for hearing in the third week of July.
The Supreme Court today banned the production, sale and use of controversial pesticide Endosulfan in the country for the next eight weeks, holding that human life is more important than anything else. Keeping in mind various judgements of this court under Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution and particularly keeping in mind the precautionary principle we, hereby, direct and pass ad-interim order for immediate ban on production and use of Endosulfan all over India, a bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said.
The company had challenged the government policy of not allowing existing operators to bid for the immediate next terminals. According to the policy, The court asserted that the government has the right to make a policy to prevent companies from bidding for the immediate next terminals so that no monopoly of cargo firm is created. The court upheld the policy. APM Terminals B.V. Vs. Union of India & ANR. (Supreme Court -11.05.2011)
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Allahabad high court, stating that the high court had inserted words in a Uttar Pradesh notification which it had no power to do. The court should only interpret provisions of tax laws; it should not take over the role of the supervisor or legislator, the court stated in the judgment, State of UP vs Mahindra & Mahindra. The case arose when the tractor manufacturer moved the high court seeking exemption in the sale/excise duty for tractor engines specifying cubic capacity not exceeding 1800 cc. The high court allowed the writ petition. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. It remitted the matter to the excise tribunal for reconsideration, asking it not to alter the scope of the state notification.
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.- All disputes are not capable of settlement through arbitration; some by nature have to be adjudicated by courts, according to the Supreme Court. A suit for sale, foreclosure or redemption of mortgaged property should be tried by a court and not by arbitral tribunal, the court stated in the judgment, Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. Vs SBI Home Finance Ltd. In this case, two firms took loan from SBI to buy flats in Mumbai and they entered into leave and licence agreements with Booz. The borrowers did not repay the loan and so SBI filed a mortgage suit before the Bombay high court. Booz moved the high court for arbitration which was dismissed. Its appeal was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. It stated that a court where the mortgage suit is pending should not refer the parties to arbitration as it is not an “arbitrable” issue. This is so because only a court can protect the interests of third parties. Arbitration deals with only disputes between parties to the arbitration agreement. The court gave similar instances where arbitration should not be attempted, like insolvency and winding up matters, tenancy, wills, criminal offences, matrimonial disputes and guardianship issues.
