Advocates Act, 1961 — S. 16 — Validity of: Validity of S. 16 Advocates Act, 1961, upheld. Uniform guidelines prescribed for Supreme Court and all High Courts as to procedure for designation of Senior Advocates. [Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 11(6) & (6-A) — Appointment of arbitrators: Disputes arising out of distinct contracts for different works but pertaining to the same project/bid and between the same parties, cannot be dealt with by a composite reference/single Arbitral Tribunal. [Duro Felguera, S.A. v. Gangavaram Port Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 729]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 11 and Or. 1 R. 10 and Or. 22 — Res judicata — Applicability: First application under Or. 22 R. 4 dismissed without adjudication on merits, subsequent application under Or. 1 R. 10 not barred by res judicata. [Pankajbhai Rameshbhai Zalavadiya v. Jethabhai Kalabhai Zalavadiya, (2017) 9 SCC 700]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 80 — Notice under: Requirement for instituting suit against Government or public officer, notice under Section 80 CPC is required. [Sant Prasad v. Kausla Nand Sinha, (2017) 9 SCC 655]

Constitution of India — Arts. 136 and 20(3) — Bail — Refusal to confess by accused as basis for allegation of non-cooperation by accused in investigation, for cancellation of bail: Right against self-incrimination is provided for in Art. 20(3), Constitution. Art. 20(3) is an essential safeguard in criminal procedure and is also meant to be a vital safeguard against torture and other coercive methods used by investigating authorities. Therefore, merely because appellant did not confess, it cannot be said that appellant was not cooperating with investigation. However, in case there is no cooperation on part of appellant for completion of investigation, it is open for respondent to seek for cancellation of bail. [Santosh v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 9 SCC 714]

Constitution of India — Arts. 136 and 226 — Pendency/Delay in progress of proceedings: Directions for time-bound disposal of writ petitions beginning on a specific date and conclusion thereof within a certain period as directed. It was held that having regard to seriousness of matter, parties directed to appear before High Court on 31-10-2017, on which date, writ petitions to be posted as first item in High Court, to be finally heard and disposed of, in any case, within 10 days. Parties are free to mention before Supreme Court on 14-11-2017, in case writ petitions are not disposed of by High Court, as directed above. [Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure v. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende, (2017) 9 SCC 681]

Consumer Protection — Consumer Forums — Revision — Revision before National Commission — New plea in defence — Permissibility: Plea raised for first time before National Commission that space for sale concerned was a commercial space and, therefore, appellants were not consumers. [Kusum Agarwal v. Harsha Associates (P) Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 806]

Consumer Protection — Services — Insurance — Theft of vehicle — Insurance claim for: Condition in insurance policy for owner to intimate insurer immediately after theft of vehicle should not bar settlement of genuine claims, when delay in intimation or submission of documents is due to unavoidable circumstances. Decision of insurer to reject claim has to be based on valid grounds. [Om Prakash v. Reliance General Insurance, (2017) 9 SCC 724]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 — Inherent powers of High Court under: Guiding principles which High Court should consider in determining whether to carry out quashment of FIR/complaint/criminal proceedings in exercise of such inherent jurisdiction, summarized. [Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat, (2017) 9 SCC 641]

Education Law — Medical and Dental Colleges — Affiliation/Recognition — Derecognition/Cancellation/Withdrawal of — Renewal of permission for admitting students: In this case conditional Letter of Permission (LoP) for 2016-2017 (first batch of MBBS students) was issued on recommendations of Oversight Committee. Later, there was withdrawal of conditional LoP and direction was issued for encashment of bank guarantee of Rs 2 crores as Central Government found serious deficiencies even after rehearing pursuant to directions of Court in Modern Dental College & Research Centre, (2016) 7 SCC 353. Without going into merits and following precedents, students already admitted for first batch, that is, 2016-2017 not disturbed by the Supreme Court but prayer for admission of students for 2017-2018, rejected. However, application for renewal directed to be treated as application for 2018-2019. For this authorities directed not to encash bank guarantee and keep it alive and to conduct fresh assessment expeditiously for academic year 2018-2019. If bank guarantee already encashed pursuant to impugned order, it should be refunded and fresh bank guarantee be taken. [Advanced Medical & Educational Society v. Union of India, [(2017) 9 SCC 656]

Excise — Concession/Exemption/Incentive/Rebate/Subsidy — Exemption — Circular No. 495/61/99-CX.3 dt. 22-11-1999 — Perfumery compound used in manufacture of agarbathis — When is exigible to tax: Circular clarifying exigibility of perfumery compound, used in agarbathis could not be equated with that of an exemption notification but was required to be read within the limited scope of its context in which it was issued and the circular did not give exemption to products which were otherwise dutiable. [CCE & Service Tax v. Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd., (2017) 9 SCC 718]

Income Tax Act, 1961 — S. 80-IA r/w S. 32 — Deductions under S. 80-IA — Mandatory reduction of, by the allowance of depreciation even when assessee does not claim depreciation under S. 32: Contrasting Ch. VI from Ch. IV of the Act where allowance of depreciation is linked to investment, it was held, that not only S. 80-IA is a code by itself, it contains the provision for special deduction which is linked to profits. Further, S. 80-IA of the Act not only contains substantive but procedural provisions for computation of special deduction. Thus, any device adopted to reduce or inflate the profits of eligible business has to be rejected. Therefore, it was mandatory to reduce deduction under S. 80-IA by way of depreciation. [Plastiblends India Ltd. v. CIT, (2017) 9 SCC 685]

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — S. 28-A r/w S. 220(2), Income Tax Act, 1961 and S. 4(1), Interest Act, 1978 — Interest on unpaid penalty and/or orders of disgorgement prior to 18-7-2013, i.e. date on which S. 28-A came into effect: Interest would be chargeable under S. 28-A r/w S. 220(2) of the Income Tax Act only prospectively, as levy of interest belongs to the realm of substantive law. However, the Interest Act of 1978 would enable Tribunals such as SAT to award interest from the date on which the cause of action arose till the date of commencement of proceedings for recovery of such interest in equity. [Dushyant N. Dalal v. SEBI, (2017) 9 SCC 660]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.