Dipankar Datta

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “encroacher” under the Wakf Act in property dispute: P.V. Nidhish & Ors. vs. Kerala State Wakf Board & Anr. (28 April 2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 20(1), Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Dipankar Datta, Encroachment, Judges, Retrospective Application of Law, S. Ravindra Bhat, Wakf Act, 1995, Wakf Act, 1995 with Section 3(ee), Wakf Act, 1995 with Section 52A

Supreme Court Clarifies Encroachment Under Wakf Act: P.V. Nidhish vs. Kerala State Wakf Board (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether tenants of Wakf properties whose leases have expired can be termed “encroachers” under the Wakf Act, 1995, particularly concerning the retrospective application of the 2013 amendment. CASE TYPE: Property Law, Wakf Law, Criminal Law Case Name: P.V. […]

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “encroacher” under the Wakf Act in property dispute: P.V. Nidhish & Ors. vs. Kerala State Wakf Board & Anr. (28 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Tenants in Wakf Property Dispute: P.V. Nidhish & Ors. vs. Kerala State Wakf Board & Anr. (28 April 2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 20(1), Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Wakf Act, 1995, Wakf Act, 1995 with Section 3(ee), Wakf Act, 1995 with Section 52A, Wakf Act, 1995 with Section 54

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Tenants in Wakf Property Dispute LEGAL ISSUE: Whether tenants of a Wakf property can be deemed “encroachers” under the Wakf Act, 1995, and subjected to criminal prosecution for continuing to occupy the property after the expiry of their lease, especially when their possession began before the relevant amendments to

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Tenants in Wakf Property Dispute: P.V. Nidhish & Ors. vs. Kerala State Wakf Board & Anr. (28 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Import Condition for IGST Exemption in Advance Authorisation Scheme: Union of India vs. Cosmo Films Limited (28 April 2023)

/ Advance Authorisation Scheme, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Dipankar Datta, Foreign Trade Policy, Foreign Trade Policy with Paragraph 4.13, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Import Condition for IGST Exemption in Advance Authorisation Scheme LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of ‘pre-import condition’ for availing IGST exemption under the Advance Authorisation scheme. CASE TYPE: Taxation Law, Foreign Trade Policy Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Cosmo Films Limited [Judgment Date]: 28 April 2023 Date of the Judgment: 28

Supreme Court Upholds Pre-Import Condition for IGST Exemption in Advance Authorisation Scheme: Union of India vs. Cosmo Films Limited (28 April 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels: Customs Dispute Resolved (29 March 2023)

/ Classification of Goods, Customs Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 85, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 90, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section XVI, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels: Customs Dispute Resolved (29 March 2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of imported Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. CASE TYPE: Customs and Excise. Case Name: CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. & CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Harman International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 29 March

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels: Customs Dispute Resolved (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023)

/ Classification of Goods, Customs Law, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 85, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Chapter 90, Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with Section XVI, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Classification of imported Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) panels under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. CASE TYPE: Customs Law Case Name: CCE, Aurangabad vs. M/S Videocon Industries Ltd. and CCE vs. M/S Harman International (India) Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 29

Supreme Court Classifies LCD Panels Under Chapter 90: CCE vs. Videocon & Harman (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused After 7 Years in NDPS Case: Mohd Muslim vs. State (28 March 2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 436A, Criminal Procedure Code with Section 439, Dipankar Datta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 37, Offences related to drug trafficking and possession, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused After 7 Years in NDPS Case: Mohd Muslim vs. State (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prolonged incarceration of an accused, without a speedy trial, justifies the grant of bail, especially under stringent laws like the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, NDPS Act

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused After 7 Years in NDPS Case: Mohd Muslim vs. State (28 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Grants Bail Based on Prolonged Incarceration: Mohd Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (28 March 2023)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 436A, Dipankar Datta, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 with Section 37, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused After 7 Years: Mohd Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether prolonged incarceration of an accused, despite stringent bail conditions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, warrants the grant of bail. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of

Supreme Court Grants Bail Based on Prolonged Incarceration: Mohd Muslim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (28 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition under Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (22 March 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Corporate Law, Dipankar Datta, Joint Venture, Judges, Related Person, S. Ravindra Bhat, Subsidiary Company, Valuation of Excisable Goods

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition under Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the price at which a company sells its products to a buyer should be treated as a transaction with a “related person” under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. CASE TYPE: Central

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition under Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (22 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition in Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries Case (22 March 2023)

/ Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Act, 1944 with Section 4, Dipankar Datta, Judges, S. Ravindra Bhat, Valuation of Excisable Goods

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition in Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries Case (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “related person” under Section 4(4)(c) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. CASE TYPE: Central Excise. Case Name: M/S BILAG INDUSTRIES P. LTD. & ANR. VERSUS COMMR. OF CEN. EXC. DAMAN & ANR. Judgment Date: 22 March 2023

Supreme Court Clarifies “Related Person” Definition in Central Excise Act: Bilag Industries Case (22 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Attachment: Neeraja Pipes Case (2023) INSC 236

/ Dipankar Datta, Judges, Revenue Recovery, Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, S. Ravindra Bhat, Tax Law, Tax Recovery, Telangana Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Telangana Value Added Tax Rules, 2005

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Attachment: Neeraja Pipes Case (2023) INSC 236 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tax attachment order can be enforced if the assessment orders were not served to the assessee. CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: The Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. vs. Neeraja Pipes Pvt. Ltd. Judgment Date: 15 March 2023 Date of

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Attachment: Neeraja Pipes Case (2023) INSC 236 Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Attachment Order: Commercial Tax Officer vs. Neeraja Pipes (2023)

/ Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, Dipankar Datta, Judges, Revenue Recovery, S. Ravindra Bhat, Tax Law, Telangana State Value Added Tax Act, 2005

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Attachment Order: Commercial Tax Officer vs. Neeraja Pipes (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a tax attachment order can be challenged on the grounds of non-service of assessment orders, especially when the assessee had prior knowledge of the tax liabilities. CASE TYPE: Tax Law, Revenue Recovery Case Name: The Commercial Tax Officer &

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Attachment Order: Commercial Tax Officer vs. Neeraja Pipes (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra (2023)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 313, Dipankar Datta, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 with Section 27, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Judges, Offences Against Human Body, S. Ravindra Bhat

Supreme Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide: Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the act of the accused constitutes murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Premchand vs. The State of Maharashtra Judgment Date: 3rd March 2023 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 3rd March

Supreme Court reduces murder conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder: Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) Read Post »

Scroll to Top