Possession before execution of conveyance
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court set aside the impugned judgment imposing the penalty under Article 5(e)(i) of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The statute does not have a residual clause for Article 5(e) nor provides for a scenario where the property was previously handed over to the purchasee prior to the agreement to sell was to be entered into.

Reconstructed DVD inadmissible as evidence
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Electronic record, in the form of the DVD could not be treated as admissible evidence, in the absence of any verification as to its genuineness, veracity or reliability from the original electronic device by/from which these are created, for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 114-AA, Customs Act, 1962.

Disciplinary action against doctor
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“While it is true that principles of natural justice supplement, and not supplant, the law, such principles have been declared by the Court to be a constituent feature of Article 14. Validity of any disciplinary action, whenever questioned, has to be tested on the touchstone of Articles 14, 16 and 21 as well as Article 311(2), wherever applicable.”

CESTAT
Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

The Tribunal stated that no court has held that prohibited goods were to be released for re-export without payment of redemption fine. Such a stance would encourage importers smuggling/making improper import of goods, to take a chance with the law and if caught, request for re-export without a fine.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Section 129-E of Customs Act, 1962 makes it obligatory to deposit the duty/penalty pending the appeal and if a party does not comply either with the main Section or with any order that might be passed under the proviso, the Appellate Authority is fully competent to reject the appeal for non-compliance.

delhi high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Settlement of non-compoundable offences through mediated settlement agreements is not permissible. Even otherwise, to permit the accused and complainant to compromise an offence on payment of money, in session triable serious criminal cases which attracts punishment up to life, cannot be subject matter of mediated settlement agreements.