2022 SCC Vol. 9 Part 1

SCC Part

   

Income Tax Act, 1961 — Ss. 260-A, 269 and 120 — Appropriate High Court for filing appeal or reference against order of ITAT Bench exercising jurisdiction over more than one State — Determination of: Appellate jurisdiction of HighCourt under S. 260-A is exercisable by a High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the assessing officer islocated. [CIT v. ABC Papers Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 1]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Ss. 143-A and 145(2) — Right to cross-examine complainant/witnesses: Denial of right to cross-examine complainant/witnesses, on account of failure on part of the accused to deposit interim compensation i.e. 20% of the cheque amount as directed by the Magistrate under S. 143-A(1), held, not permissible. [Noor Mohammed v. Khurram Pasha, (2022) 9 SCC 23]

Consumer Protection — Cause of Action— Unfair trade practice: Non-deliveryof new car despite payment of full consideration, and, delivering a defective or used car instead is “unfair trade practice”. [Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31]

Trusts and Trustees — Appointment of Trustee — Condition/qualification for appointment of Trustee, namely, that the Trustee resides in Madras Presidency— Whether satisfied: Possession of Green Card of the United States of America by person seeking appointment of trustee, does not amountsto a disqualification.Continuous stay in India, holding property and bank accounts in India and alsoholding an Aadhaar card is not sufficient for establishing residency. Effect of modern dayadvancements such as videoconferences, etc., enabling discharge of function as founder trustee, explained.Relevance of scheme of Administration providing for the Office of founder trustee as heritable, when applicant alone remained the surviving male descendant satisfying such criterion, also elaborated. [V. Prakash v. P.S. GovindaswamyNaidu & Sons’ Charities, (2022) 9 SCC 36]

Service Law — Promotion— Particular Schemes— Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme) of State Government — Applicability of, to autonomous public undertaking such as the respondent herein — Terms on which ACP Scheme adapted by the autonomous public undertaking — Binding nature of: In this case, ACP Scheme adapted by respondent herein applied only to staff appointed after a particular date, without any retrospective effect.Hence, held, persons appointed prior to that date in the autonomous public undertakingconcerned, not entitled to benefit of the adapted ACP Scheme. [Mohd. Islam v. Bihar SEB, (2022) 9 SCC 67]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482: Exercise ofinherent powers of High Court under, to quash criminal proceedings in view of compromise arrived at between parties in case of matrimonial disputes, when warranted, explained. [JasmairSingh v. State of Haryana, (2022) 9 SCC 73]

Penal Code, 1860— Ss. 302, 307 and 328 — Testimony of sole surviving victim — When cannot form the sole basis ofconviction — Other evidence when coupled with such testimony, when may provide sufficient basis for conviction: In this case of multiple murders, deposition of surviving victim, held, could not form sole basis of conviction, as in a number of statements recorded of such witness, name of appellant-accused surfaced only in the last.However, there was other unimpeachable evidence, particularly the recovery evidence, coupled with which, held, conviction of appellantaccused can be confirmed. [Hajabhai Rajashibhai Odedara v. State of Gujarat, (2022) 9 SCC 75]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302, 363, 365 and 376(2)(f): Law summarisedregarding death sentence, whether to be confirmed/imposed, or, not, upon application of “crime test”, “criminal test” and “rarest of the rare test”. [Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 81]

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

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