R.F. Nariman

Supreme Court clarifies tender eligibility criteria for construction projects: M/s Sam Built Well Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deepak Builders & Ors. (2017)

/ Contract Law, Contract Law with Clause 8 of the Notice Inviting Tenders, Judges, Navin Sinha, R.F. Nariman, Tender Disputes

LEGAL ISSUE: What constitutes “similar work” in tender documents for construction projects? CASE TYPE: Contract Law, Tender Disputes Case Name: M/s Sam Built Well Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deepak Builders & Ors. Judgment Date: December 14, 2017 Introduction Can a court interfere with an expert committee’s decision on tender eligibility? The Supreme Court of India addressed […]

Supreme Court clarifies tender eligibility criteria for construction projects: M/s Sam Built Well Pvt. Ltd. vs. Deepak Builders & Ors. (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Legal Metrology Act to hotels and restaurants: Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India vs. Union of India (2017)

/ Constitution of India, Constitution of India with Article 366 (29-A), Judges, Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Legal Metrology Act, 2009 with Section 2(l), Navin Sinha, Pre-packaged commodity, R.F. Nariman, Sale

Date of the Judgment: December 12, 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 1084 Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Navin Sinha, J. Can hotels and restaurants charge more than the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) for packaged water bottles? The Supreme Court addressed this question, clarifying the scope of the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, and its applicability to the service

Supreme Court clarifies applicability of Legal Metrology Act to hotels and restaurants: Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India vs. Union of India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Declares Stringent Bail Conditions Under PMLA Unconstitutional: Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India (23 November 2017)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Constitutional Law with Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Judges, Offence of Money Laundering, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 with Section 45, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Can bail be denied based on the nature of a related offense, rather than the primary offense itself? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India. This case challenged the constitutional validity of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, which imposed

Supreme Court Declares Stringent Bail Conditions Under PMLA Unconstitutional: Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India (23 November 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Entry Tax set-off for Oil Companies in Bihar: Indian Oil Corporation vs. State of Bihar (2017)

/ Bihar Tax on Entry of Goods Act, 1993, Bihar Value Added Tax Act, 2005, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 14, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Tax Law, Tax Law with Section 3(2)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether oil companies are eligible for a set-off of Value Added Tax (VAT) against Entry Tax paid on petroleum products when the VAT is levied at the point of sale by other oil marketing companies (OMCs). CASE TYPE: Tax Law Case Name: Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. State of Bihar & Anr. Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies Entry Tax set-off for Oil Companies in Bihar: Indian Oil Corporation vs. State of Bihar (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Service Tax Liability in Lease Agreements: Union of India vs. Bengal Shrachi Housing (2017)

/ Finance Act, 1994, Finance Act, 1994 with Section 65, Finance Act, 1994 with Section 66, Finance Act, 1994 with Section 68, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the party liable for service tax under a lease agreement. CASE TYPE: Service Tax/Lease Agreement Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Bengal Shrachi Housing Development Limited & Anr. Judgment Date: 7 November 2017 Date of the Judgment: 7 November 2017 Citation: [Not Available in Source] Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Sanjay

Supreme Court Clarifies Service Tax Liability in Lease Agreements: Union of India vs. Bengal Shrachi Housing (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Permanent Establishment (PE) norms in India-US DTAA: Assistant Director of Income Tax vs. E-Funds IT Solution Inc. (24 October 2017)

/ Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Article 27, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Article 5, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Article 7, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 90, Income Tax Rules, 1962 with Rule 44H, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a foreign company has a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India, making it liable for taxation in India under the India-US Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA). CASE TYPE: International Taxation Case Name: Assistant Director of Income Tax-I, New Delhi vs. M/s E-Funds IT Solution Inc. Judgment Date: 24 October 2017 Date of the

Supreme Court clarifies Permanent Establishment (PE) norms in India-US DTAA: Assistant Director of Income Tax vs. E-Funds IT Solution Inc. (24 October 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Tax Implications of Unregistered Joint Development Agreements: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) INSC 859 (04 October 2017)

/ Capital Gains, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 2(47), Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 45, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Registration Act, 1908, Registration Act, 1908 with Section 17(1A), Registration Act, 1908 with Section 49, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with Section 53A

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an unregistered Joint Development Agreement (JDA) constitutes a “transfer” under Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, making it liable for capital gains tax. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Balbir Singh Maini [Judgment Date]: 04 October 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 04 October

Supreme Court Clarifies Tax Implications of Unregistered Joint Development Agreements: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Balbir Singh Maini (2017) INSC 859 (04 October 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies “Dispute” Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for Operational Debts: Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2017)

/ Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 5(6), Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 with Section 8, Judges, Operational Debt, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

Can a mere allegation of breach of contract constitute a “dispute” to halt insolvency proceedings? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a case concerning operational debts under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. This judgment clarifies what constitutes a valid dispute that can prevent the initiation of insolvency proceedings by operational

Supreme Court Clarifies “Dispute” Under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for Operational Debts: Mobilox Innovations Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kirusa Software Private Limited (2017) Read Post »

Tax Exemption on Tobacco Products: Supreme Court Refers Conflict to Larger Bench in Shanti Fragrances vs. Union of India (21 September 2017)

/ Interpretation of Tax Laws, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Sales Tax Act, Sales Tax Act with Section 3, Sales Tax Act with Section 4, Sales Tax Act with Section 7, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Tax Exemption, Tax Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a specific entry in a tax rate schedule can override a general exemption for the same goods. CASE TYPE: Tax Law – Sales Tax Case Name: M/S Shanti Fragrances vs. Union of India and Ors. Judgment Date: 21 September 2017 Introduction Date of the Judgment: 21 September 2017 Citation: Not available in

Tax Exemption on Tobacco Products: Supreme Court Refers Conflict to Larger Bench in Shanti Fragrances vs. Union of India (21 September 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies maritime claims and vessel ownership in Chrisomar Corporation vs. MJR Steels (2017)

/ Admiralty Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 62, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 63, Judges, Maritime Claims, Maritime Lien, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul

LEGAL ISSUE: Determination of ownership of a vessel for enforcing maritime claims and the effect of settlement agreements on original contracts. CASE TYPE: Admiralty Law Case Name: Chrisomar Corporation vs. MJR Steels Private Limited & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 14 September 2017 Date of the Judgment: 14 September 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 776 Judges: R.F. Nariman,

Supreme Court clarifies maritime claims and vessel ownership in Chrisomar Corporation vs. MJR Steels (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of ‘Child’ Under POCSO Act: Eera vs. State (2017)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure with Section 164A, Dipak Misra, Indian Penal Code, Indian Penal Code with Section 376(2)(l), Judges, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 2(d), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with Section 5(k), R.F. Nariman

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of the definition of “child” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Child Protection Case Name: Ms. Eera Through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Judgment Date: July 21, 2017 Introduction Citation: 2017 INSC 684. Can a

Supreme Court Clarifies Definition of ‘Child’ Under POCSO Act: Eera vs. State (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Interprets SEBI Takeover Regulations: Laurel Energetics vs. SEBI (2017)

/ Companies Act, 1956, Judges, R.F. Nariman, Sanjay Kishan Kaul, SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, SEBI Regulations, Securities Law, Takeover Regulations

Can inter se transfers of shares between promoters be exempt from open offer obligations under SEBI regulations if the target company is a result of a demerger? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment. The core issue revolved around whether the three-year promoter status should be calculated from the date

Supreme Court Interprets SEBI Takeover Regulations: Laurel Energetics vs. SEBI (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top