Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Deduction on Payments to Non-Resident Sports Associations: PILCOM vs. C.I.T. West Bengal-VII (29 April 2020)

/ Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 115BBA, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 194E, Judges, Tax Deduction at Source (TDS), Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Deduction on Payments to Non-Resident Sports Associations: PILCOM vs. C.I.T. West Bengal-VII (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether payments made to non-resident sports associations for matches played in India are subject to tax deduction at source. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: PILCOM vs. C.I.T. West Bengal-VII [Judgment Date]: 29 April 2020 […]

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Deduction on Payments to Non-Resident Sports Associations: PILCOM vs. C.I.T. West Bengal-VII (29 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Gratuity Calculation: BCH Electric Ltd. vs. Pradeep Mehra (29 April 2020)

/ Judges, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with Section 4(2), Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with Section 4(3), Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 with Section 4(5), Sanjiv Khanna, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Gratuity Calculation Under Payment of Gratuity Act LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee is entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, or under a separate scheme by the employer, and whether they can choose the beneficial parts of both. CASE TYPE: Labour Law/Service Law Case Name: BCH Electric Limited vs.

Supreme Court clarifies Gratuity Calculation: BCH Electric Ltd. vs. Pradeep Mehra (29 April 2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies execution of arbitration award for land price fixation: Rajasthan Udyog vs. Hindustan Engineering (2020) INSC 257

/ Arbitration Act, 1940 with Section 17, Arbitration Award Execution, Arbitration Law, Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure with Order XXIII Rule 1, Contract Law, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 23, Judges, Specific Performance, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court clarifies execution of arbitration award for land price fixation: Rajasthan Udyog vs. Hindustan Engineering (2020) INSC 257 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an arbitration award that determines compensation for land under an agreement for sale can be executed as a suit for specific performance when the arbitration was only for price fixation. CASE TYPE: Arbitration

Supreme Court clarifies execution of arbitration award for land price fixation: Rajasthan Udyog vs. Hindustan Engineering (2020) INSC 257 Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes FIR for Stridhan Recovery: xxxx vs. xxxx (2020)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 406, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Quashes FIR for Stridhan Recovery: xxxx vs. xxxx (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a criminal complaint for non-return of Stridhan is sustainable when filed several years after separation and a divorce petition, and when the Stridhan has been tendered back. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law, Matrimonial Dispute Case Name: xxxx vs. xxxx & Ors. Judgment

Supreme Court Quashes FIR for Stridhan Recovery: xxxx vs. xxxx (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision in Auction Sale Dispute: Paul vs. T. Mohan (2020)

/ Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order XXI Rule 89, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 151, Indian Chit Funds Act, 1982, Indian Chit Funds Act, 1982 with Section 64(1)(A), Inherent Powers of Court, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision in Auction Sale Dispute: Paul vs. T. Mohan (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in setting aside an auction sale due to non-compliance of Order XXI Rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and if the inherent powers under Section 151 of the

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision in Auction Sale Dispute: Paul vs. T. Mohan (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of Reservation Act 2018 in Karnataka: B K Pavithra vs. Union of India (2020)

/ Article 142, Constitution of India, Constitutional Law, Creamy Layer Principle, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Judges, Order LV, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order XII Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Post-Based Reservations, Reservation in Promotions, Service Law, Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of Reservation Act 2018 in Karnataka: B K Pavithra vs. Union of India (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can entertain applications for directions that challenge subsequent government orders implementing a previously upheld act. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: B K Pavithra and Ors. vs. Union of India and

Supreme Court clarifies implementation of Reservation Act 2018 in Karnataka: B K Pavithra vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Triple Murder Case: Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020)

/ Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 with Section 235(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 364, Indira Banerjee, Judges, M. R. Shah, Offences Against Human Body, Sentencing, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Triple Murder Case: Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the death penalty was warranted in a case of triple murder based on circumstantial evidence. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh [Judgment Date]: 5 March 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court Commutes Death Sentence in Triple Murder Case: Manoj Suryavanshi vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Detaining Authority’s Duty to Consider Representation in Preventive Detention Cases: Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India (2020)

/ COFEPOSA Act, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 22, Fundamental Rights, Hemant Gupta, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Preventive Detention Law, Preventive Detention Law with Section 3(1), Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court Clarifies Detaining Authority’s Duty in Preventive Detention Cases (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a Detaining Authority must independently consider a detainee’s representation before receiving the Advisory Board’s report. CASE TYPE: Preventive Detention Law Case Name: Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 04 March 2020 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Supreme Court clarifies Detaining Authority’s Duty to Consider Representation in Preventive Detention Cases: Ankit Ashok Jalan vs. Union of India (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Leave for Suit Against Medical Trust: Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust (2020)

/ Administration of Public Trusts, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 92, Judges, Public Charitable Trusts, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court Upholds Leave for Suit Against Medical Trust: Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suit seeking a scheme of administration for a public charitable trust, including the appointment of a specific trustee, falls within the scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. CASE

Supreme Court Upholds Leave for Suit Against Medical Trust: Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles liability for lost Indira Vikas Patras in Post Office: Superintendent of Post Office vs. Jambu Kumar Jain (2020)

/ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with Section 2, Consumer Rights, Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986, Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 with Rule 5, Indira Vikas Patra Rules, 1986 with Rule 7(2), Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court on Lost Indira Vikas Patras: Post Office Not Liable LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Post Office is liable to pay the maturity value of lost Indira Vikas Patras (IVPs) when the original purchaser’s identity is not recorded. CASE TYPE: Consumer Protection Case Name: The Superintendent of Post Office, Bolangir Division, Bolangir, Odisha vs. Jambu

Supreme Court settles liability for lost Indira Vikas Patras in Post Office: Superintendent of Post Office vs. Jambu Kumar Jain (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Satish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020)

/ Arms Act, 1959, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 25, Arms Act, 1959 with Section 27, Hemant Gupta, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 34, Indu Malhotra, Judges, Uday Umesh Lalit

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Satish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in a case based on circumstantial evidence, particularly concerning the recovery of a dead body and a weapon based on disclosure statements. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case

Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Satish Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) Read Post »

Supreme Court quashes second complaint on same facts: Samta Naidu vs State of MP (2 March 2020)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 203, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 467, Judges, Offences Relating to Documents, Second Complaint, Uday Umesh Lalit, Vineet Saran

Supreme Court quashes second complaint on same facts: Samta Naidu vs State of MP (2020) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a second criminal complaint is maintainable when a previous complaint on the same facts has been dismissed. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Samta Naidu & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. [Judgment Date]: 2

Supreme Court quashes second complaint on same facts: Samta Naidu vs State of MP (2 March 2020) Read Post »

Scroll to Top