Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 427 — Consecutive or concurrent running of sentences: Normal rule is that such subsequent sentence shall run consecutively. However, court has discretion under S. 427(1) to direct that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently. [Iqram v. State of U.P., (2023) 3 SCC 184]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — S. 24(2) — Deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings — Whether occasioned: In this case, there were allegation of non-payment of compensation and dispute regarding taking over of possession of the acquired land. Records indicating physical possession of land taken by authorities by following procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Compensation amount being deposited in court and later in treasury in the name of recorded owner of land. Hence held, there was no deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings. [North Delhi Municipal Corpn. v. Ram Chander Singh, (2023) 3 SCC 189]

Service Law — Continuation in Service/Continuity of Service: Continuation in service/continuity of service, when cannot be inferred, explained. [SBI v. Kamal Kishore Prasad, (2023) 3 SCC 203]

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — S. 26-E r/w Ss. 13(2), 13(4) and 14: Recovery under the SARFAESI Act has priority over that under MSMED Act. S. 24 of the MSMED Act inter alia provides that the provisions of Ss. 15 to 23 would have overriding effect. While S. 26-E of the SARFAESI Act provides that notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force, after the registration of security interest, the debts due to any secured creditor shall be paid in “priority” over all other debts and all revenue taxes and cesses and other rates payable to the Central Government or the State Government or local authority. Thus, “priority” conferred/provided under S. 26-E of the SARFAESI Act would prevail over the recovery mechanism of the MSMED Act. [Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators (P) Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 210]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — S. 14: Grantability of benefit of tax settlement scheme (2019 Scheme in present case re settlement of service tax), when payment for availing benefit of such tax settlement scheme, could not be made by corporate debtor in time on account of moratorium imposed i.e. when it was impossible for the appellant to deposit the settlement amount in view of the bar and/or the restrictions under the IBC, determined. [Shekhar Resorts Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 3 SCC 220]

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 9 and 238-A: Principles clarified regarding condonability of period during which the operational creditor’s right to proceed against or sue the corporate debtor remains suspended by virtue of S. 22(1) SICA, 1985, under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the effect of statutory bar under S. 22(1) SICA. [Sabarmati Gas Ltd. v. Shah Alloys Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 229]

Local Government, Municipalities and Panchayats — Municipalities — Municipal Taxes, Fees and User Charges — Property tax: Emanation of change or modification in the methodology adopted for levy of property tax, from Finance Commission, not mandatory. [Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Property Owners’ Assn., (2023) 3 SCC 258]

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.