Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If there is a denial of a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution or there is a jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction”, stated the Supreme Court
Supreme Court held that when an affinity test is conducted by Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim
Supreme Court said that the object and purpose of the enactment of UAPA is to provide for more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities. To punish such a person who is continued as a member of such unlawful association which is declared unlawful due to unlawful activities can be said to be in furtherance of providing for effective prevention of the unlawful activities.
Supreme Court said that merely providing the mode or machinery/mechanism for recovery of tax payable by the transferer/supplier from buyer deducting tax at source and depositing the same with Revenue cannot be said to be ultra vires to Tripura Sales Tax Act and Rules.
The Supreme Court observed that the undertrial prisoners/convicts were not released on merits but were released only to prevent the spread of COVID-19 virus among prisoners in over-crowded prisons.
Supreme Court’s full bench declared the judgments in Arup Bhuyan, Indra Das and Raneef to be bad in law. Also, the High Courts Judgments which followed these precedents were overruled
The Supreme Court observed that such matters cannot be resolved by the application of judicial standards and have to be taken up on the administrative side of the Supreme Court.
Group of Companies Doctrine- an Arbitration Agreement entered into by a Company within a group of Companies can bind its non-signatory affiliates, if the circumstances demonstrate that the mutual intention of parties was to bind signatory as well as the non-signatory parties.
“The names which have been recommended earlier in point of time including the reiterated names ought not to be withheld or overlooked as this disturbs their seniority whereas those recommended later steal march on them. Loss of seniority of candidates is a matter of grave concern.”
While granting benefit of doubt to accused, the Supreme Court stated that “Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out.”
No mitigating circumstances of the petitioner were taken into account at any stage of the trial or the appellate process even though the petitioner was sentenced to capital punishment.
Supreme Court said that the object of the Administrative Tribunals Act is to reduce arrears and enable the provision of speedy justice to litigants. Abolishing a State Administrative Tribunal would not frustrate this objective because SATs are not the only method by which the object is capable of being achieved.
Supreme Court said that the civil suit filed at the instance of the respondents for taking possession of the subject land is pending for the last 32 years and has not started its journey yet, this is called the travesty of injustice to a person who is indisputedly the title holder and still unable to enjoy the property.
The Delhi High Court upheld Single judge’s decision to set aside ICC Award of $562.5 million in favour of Devas Multimedia (P) Ltd. for a failed satellite agreement with Antrix Corporation Ltd., on the grounds of fraud and being in conflict with the public policy of India.
The Supreme Court proposed that service rules are liable to prevail, and that there can be Government resolutions in consonance and not in conflict with those rules.
Given the existence of the unambiguous provision, Supreme Court held that the services rendered by primary teachers while in the service of the Zilla Parishad deserves to be counted towards their seniority after the transfer and merger of their services into the Pune Municipal Corporation
The case pertains to the resurrection of controversy surrounding the Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority judgements of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
On the pretext of some misgivings in circulation regarding the recently published BCI notification allowing entry of foreign lawyers and law firms in India, BCI clarified the restricted scope for practice.
To make the company viable, the unsecured creditor would have to sacrifice to some extent otherwise the revival efforts would fail, observed the Supreme Court..
The Supreme Court opined that the evidence has to be scrutinized so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and directly points to the guilt of the convict.