Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court noted that the ‘interest' only follows the ‘principal', therefore, the ‘principal' being the payable tax, resulted into no liability to pay the tax along with return. Consequently, held that there is no liability to pay interest if there was no liability to pay the tax.
The Supreme Court's observation came after the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) had referred to Wikipedia for coming to the conclusion in a case under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
On the final day of the hearing, Solicitor General, sought reference of Constitution Bench's 2018 judgment which interpreted Article 239 AA of the Constitution and asserted the supremacy of the elected government by stating that Lieutenant Governor was bound by ‘aid and advice' of Council of Ministers.
The Supreme Court noticed that in the case at hand, without giving any reasonable time to the investigating agency to investigate the allegations in the FIR, the Madras High Court has, in haste, quashed the criminal proceedings.
While Justice Shah stated that the Kerala High Court has erred in interfering with the judgment of Trial Court of passing a decree for specific performance; Justice Nagarathna affirmed the Judgment of the High Court.
The bench of KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the definition of ‘family' under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is a restrictive and specific one and cannot be expanded to take within its sweep, all heirs, as provided under Hindu law, or other personal laws.
They neither had relevant experience nor possessed educational qualification for appointment as Staff Nurse. Therefore, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing that the Nursing Assistants serving in Assam Rifles were entitled to Nursing Allowance on a par with the Staff Nurse.
“The Courts have the power to cancel the bail and to examine the merits of the case in a case where the accused is released on default bail and released not on merits earlier. Such an interpretation would be in furtherance to the administration of justice.”
While Justice Shah stated that the plaintiff had not produced the Power of Attorney, Justice Nagarathna opined that non-production of Power of Attorney was not fatal to the case of the original plaintiff.
Noting that there is no disqualification for a Sikkim man, who marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008, the Supreme Court observed that the discrimination is based on gender.
While MR Shah, J, has struck down the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Nagarathna, J, has called for saving the Explanation to Section 10(26AAA) and has created a stopgap ‘sub-clause (iv)’ till the Union of India makes the requisite amendment to the provision.
Inviting tenders from the entities mentioned in paragraph 4(vi)(b) of the National AYUSH Mission Operational Guidelines is the most transparent and non-arbitrary method of allocation that can be undertaken. Hence, the appellant must henceforth purchase Ayurvedic medicines only through a free and transparent procedure such as tenders, and deviation from this rule to procure medicines by nomination can be done, only if exceptional circumstances exist.
Supreme Court opined that instead of shifting the burden of proof on the secured creditor to prove that the secured property was not agricultural property, the Telangana High Court should have laid down the burden of proof on the borrowers.
Supreme court has upheld a decision by the Bombay High Court that the period of parole should be excluded from the period of the sentence when considering 14 years of actual imprisonment for the purpose of premature release of convicts.
The Supreme Court observed that taxation depends upon the language of the charging section and what is brought to tax within the four corners of the charging section.
The Supreme Court was hearing the case where a manufacturer was earlier manufacturing “Spun Line Crown Cork” used for sealing the glass bottles but now with the use of modern technologies, was manufacturing “Double Lip Dry Blend Crowns”, also used for sealing the glass bottles.
The Supreme Court considered the provisions of Section 15 to 23 read with Section 24 of the MSMED Act and the provisions of SARFAESI Act and stated that there is no repugnancy between the two enactments and no conflict between the specific subject of ‘priority' . It, hence, upheld the subsequent enactment of law with non-obstante clause in SARFAESI Act over MSMED Act.
The Supreme Court stated that it was neither a case where the appellant did not make any application within the stipulated time under the 2019 Scheme nor where the appellant deliberately did not deposit the settlement amount.
A workable arrangement had to be arrived at to segregate people who may have no rights in the land and those who have, coupled with rehabilitation schemes
Justice C.T. Ravikumar is known among the legal circle for having a firm grasp of precedents and statutory provisions.. We have curated some of his important High Court and Supreme Court decisions.