Interviewed by Anshita Khandelwal
Supreme Court: In an Insolvency and Bankruptcy case, the bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has explained the difference between
Supreme Court: The bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala*, JJ has explained the true import of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention
This roundup contains reports on Justice NV Ramana’s retirement as the 48th CJI; Justice UU Lalit’s plan as new CJI; Rulings on Benami Property law; Unconventional families and their rights; UP CM Yogi Adityanath Hate Speech; Orders on Release of Bilkis Bano’s rapists, PM Security lapse, Pegasus Spyware; PMLA cases; Explainers; Important references to larger/Constitution Benches and ‘Know Thy Judge’ reports on Supreme Court Judges and more.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M Joseph* and Pamidighantam Sri Barasimha, JJ., held that mere fact that food, refreshment and even
“Overall activities and functions of the Irrigation Department would have to be considered while deciding the question whether it is carrying on manufacturing activities.”
Supreme Court: In a case where a woman had sought compassionate appointment after her mother’s death in the year 2012, the bench
“Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right. It involves conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege.”
“Words are after all, a vehicle for communicating ideas, thoughts and concepts. A one-size-fits-all analogy may not always hold good when we construe similar words in entirely distinct settings.”
DTAA provisions must be treated as law and followed by Indian courts, notwithstanding what may be contained in the Income Tax Act to the contrary, unless more beneficial to the assessee.
“A Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a “civil sheep” in a “criminal wolf’s” clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court in cheque bouncing cases.”
“Undoubtedly, a limited right of appeal is given under section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. But it is not the province or duty of this Court to further limit such right by excluding appeals which are in fact provided for, given the language of the provision.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan*, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has held that while determining the taxable
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has upheld the constitutionality of imposition of