S.H. Kapadia

Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Supreme Court Transfers Case to High Court for Enhanced Monitoring (09 August 2012)

Date of the Judgment: 09 August 2012 Citation: 2012 INSC 478 Judges: S.H. Kapadia, CJI, A.K. Patnaik, J., Swatanter Kumar, J. Can a public interest litigation concerning a major industrial disaster be effectively managed by the Supreme Court, or is it better handled by a High Court with closer jurisdictional ties? The Supreme Court of […]

Bhopal Gas Tragedy: Supreme Court Transfers Case to High Court for Enhanced Monitoring (09 August 2012) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies compensation for forest land acquisition under KUZALR Act: Rajiv Sarin & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (09 August 2011)

Date of the Judgment: 09 August 2011 Citation: Rajiv Sarin & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (2011) INSC 477 Judges: S.H. Kapadia, CJI, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J, K. S. Radhakrishnan, J, Swatanter Kumar, J, Anil R. Dave, J. Can the government acquire private forest land without providing compensation simply because the owner did

Supreme Court clarifies compensation for forest land acquisition under KUZALR Act: Rajiv Sarin & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. (09 August 2011) Read Post »

Supreme Court Addresses Technical Member Absence in IPAB for Patent Dispute: Natco Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India (2008)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: October 01, 2008 The Supreme Court of India stepped in to address a unique problem: what happens when the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which is supposed to handle complex patent disputes, doesn’t have a Technical Member? This issue arose in a case involving Natco Pharma Limited and the Union

Supreme Court Addresses Technical Member Absence in IPAB for Patent Dispute: Natco Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies tax liability of clubs supplying goods to members in sales tax cases: Cosmopolitan Club vs. State of Tamil Nadu (25 September 2008)

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2008 Judges: S.H. Kapadia, B. Sudershan Reddy The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether clubs are liable to pay sales tax on the supply of food and drinks to their members. The core issue revolves around whether such supplies constitute a ‘sale’ under the Tamil Nadu General Sales

Supreme Court clarifies tax liability of clubs supplying goods to members in sales tax cases: Cosmopolitan Club vs. State of Tamil Nadu (25 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the treatment of provision for doubtful debts under Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act in company taxation: Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Delhi vs. M/s HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (2008)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 23, 2008 The Supreme Court of India addressed a key question regarding the Income-tax Act: Can a provision for doubtful debts be added back to a company’s net profit when calculating its tax liability under Section 115JA? This case, Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Delhi vs. M/s HCL Comnet Systems

Supreme Court settles the treatment of provision for doubtful debts under Section 115JA of the Income-tax Act in company taxation: Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Delhi vs. M/s HCL Comnet Systems & Services Ltd. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Dismisses Excise Duty Appeal in Shikakai Powder Case: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Shanmugananda Soapnut Works (17 September 2008)

Date of the Judgment: 17 September 2008 Judges: S.H. Kapadia and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ. Can the government impose excise duty without properly examining the manufacturing process? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a case involving M/s. Shanmugananda Soapnut Works, a manufacturer of Shikakai powder. The court dismissed the appeal by the Commissioner

Supreme Court Dismisses Excise Duty Appeal in Shikakai Powder Case: Commissioner of Central Excise vs. M/s. Shanmugananda Soapnut Works (17 September 2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the nature of license fee in liquor policy cases: State of M.P. vs. Lalit Jaggi (2008)

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the nature of payments made by auction purchasers to State Governments as license fees for selling liquor. CASE TYPE: Excise Law Case Name: State of M.P. & Ors. vs. Lalit Jaggi Judgment Date: September 17, 2008 Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 17, 2008 Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5751 OF 2008 Judges:

Supreme Court settles the nature of license fee in liquor policy cases: State of M.P. vs. Lalit Jaggi (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Capital Receipt vs. Revenue Receipt for Incentive Subsidy under Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008)

Date of the Judgment: September 16, 2008 Citation: Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5694 of 2008 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7926/04) Judges: S.H. Kapadia, J., B. Sudershan Reddy, J. Are incentive subsidies received by businesses capital receipts or revenue receipts for income tax purposes?

Supreme Court clarifies Capital Receipt vs. Revenue Receipt for Incentive Subsidy under Income Tax Act: Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act in import-related sales: Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (2008)

Date of the Judgment: September 16, 2008 Judges: S.H. Kapadia, J. and B. Sudershan Reddy, J. When does a sale occasion the import of goods, thus falling under the purview of Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956? This question was at the heart of a dispute between the Commissioner of Sales Tax

Supreme Court clarifies the applicability of Section 5(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act in import-related sales: Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies scope of “like article” in anti-dumping duty cases: Designated Authority vs. Lubrizol (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2008)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 10, 2008 Judges: Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justice B. Sudershan Reddy When is an imported article considered similar enough to a domestic product to warrant anti-dumping duties? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the interpretation of “like article” under the Customs Tariff Act.

Supreme Court clarifies scope of “like article” in anti-dumping duty cases: Designated Authority vs. Lubrizol (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decision on Discharge of Bond for Medical Disability: Union of India vs. Priyankan Sharan (2008)

Introduction Date of the Judgment: September 8, 2008 Citation: Civil Appeal No. 5539 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25514 of 2004) Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. and S.H. Kapadia, J. Can a medical cadet, who executed a bond to serve the nation after completing their MBBS, be discharged from the bond due

Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decision on Discharge of Bond for Medical Disability: Union of India vs. Priyankan Sharan (2008) Read Post »

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Order Denying Interest on Excise Refund: Union of India vs. Sterlite Industries (2008)

Date of the Judgment: September 03, 2008 Judges: S.H. Kapadia, B. Sudershan Reddy When a government department delays a refund, is it obligated to pay interest on the delayed amount? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving Sterlite Industries and the Union of India. The core issue revolved around whether

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against Order Denying Interest on Excise Refund: Union of India vs. Sterlite Industries (2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top