Supreme Court clarifies the validity of Section 153C Income Tax Act notices in search cases: Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (29 August 2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 12AA, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 132, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 153C, Judges

LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the requirement of seized documents to pertain to the assessment years in question. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Pune vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society [Judgment Date]: 29 August 2017 Date of the Judgment: […]

Supreme Court clarifies the validity of Section 153C Income Tax Act notices in search cases: Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society (29 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Attachment on Formula One Income: Royal Bank of Scotland PLC vs. Axis Bank Limited (25 August 2017)

/ A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, Banking Law, Income Tax Act, 1961, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 195, Income Tax Act, 1961 with Section 281B, Judges, Letter of Credit (LC), Obligations of Banks, Tax Deducted at Source (TDS)

Can a tax authority attach funds related to a foreign company’s income in India, even when those funds are secured by Letters of Credit (LCs)? The Supreme Court of India tackled this complex issue in a case involving Formula One World Championship Limited (FOWC), an international company, and several banks. This case clarifies the extent

Supreme Court Upholds Tax Attachment on Formula One Income: Royal Bank of Scotland PLC vs. Axis Bank Limited (25 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court sets aside lease renewal by Ujjain Development Authority: Ajar Enterprises vs. Satyanarayan Somani (2017) INSC 759

/ D.Y. Chandrachud, Government Grants Act, 1895, Government Leases, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges, Leasehold Rights, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 with Section 181, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 with Section 181-A, Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 with Section 182

Can a public authority arbitrarily renew a lease of public land, especially when the original purpose of the lease is not being fulfilled? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case involving the Ujjain Development Authority (UDA) and Ajar Enterprises Private Limited. The court ultimately set aside the lease renewal, emphasizing

Supreme Court sets aside lease renewal by Ujjain Development Authority: Ajar Enterprises vs. Satyanarayan Somani (2017) INSC 759 Read Post »

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order for Lack of Reasoning in Property Partition Case (23 August 2017)

/ Abhay Manohar Sapre, Appellate Procedure, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 41 Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Order 41 Rule 31, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with Section 100, Judges, R.K. Agrawal, Reasoned Judgment, Second Appeal

Can a High Court dismiss a second appeal without stating reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a property partition dispute. The Court emphasized the importance of reasoned judgments, particularly in appellate cases. This case highlights the necessity for High Courts to provide clear explanations when dismissing appeals.

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order for Lack of Reasoning in Property Partition Case (23 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Claims for Extra Work in Construction Contract: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (23 August 2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appeals, Breach of contract, Civil Procedure, Contract Interpretation, Contract Law, Dipak Misra, Evidence, Judges, Pleadings, Terms and Conditions

Can a contractor claim additional payments for work beyond the original contract? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a construction contract dispute. The court examined whether a contractor was entitled to extra payments for stone pitching and water lead, ultimately ruling against the contractor. This judgment highlights the

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Claims for Extra Work in Construction Contract: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (23 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Contractor Claims in Construction Dispute: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Appeals, Breach of contract, Civil Procedure, Contract Law, Dipak Misra, Evidence, Indian Contract Act, 1872, Indian Contract Act, 1872 with Section 38, Interpretation of Contracts, Judges, Payment Disputes

Can a contractor claim additional payments for work when there’s a discrepancy in government-prescribed rates? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a civil appeal concerning a construction contract. The court upheld the High Court’s decision, which had rejected certain claims made by a contractor for extra work. This case clarifies how

Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Contractor Claims in Construction Dispute: National Building Construction vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies mandatory sports broadcasting sharing: Union of India vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India (2017)

/ Broadcasting Law, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 with Section 8, Cable Television Regulation, Judges, Navin Sinha, Ranjan Gogoi, Sports Broadcasting, Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007, Sports Law

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of mandatory sports broadcasting signal sharing under the Sports Act, 2007 and its interplay with cable television regulations. CASE TYPE: Broadcasting Rights/Sports Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors. Judgment Date: 22 August 2017 Introduction Can cable operators re-transmit sports broadcasts shared with

Supreme Court clarifies mandatory sports broadcasting sharing: Union of India vs. Board of Control for Cricket in India (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles the jurisdiction of trial courts under the SEBI Act: Classic Credit Ltd. vs. SEBI (21 August 2017)

/ Appeals and Revisions, Arun Mishra, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 2, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 407, Jagdish Singh Khehar, Judges, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 24, Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 with Section 26, Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014

LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct court for trying offenses under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (SEBI Act). CASE TYPE: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name: Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Classic Credit Ltd. Introduction Date of the Judgment: 21 August 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 729 Judges: Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI,

Supreme Court settles the jurisdiction of trial courts under the SEBI Act: Classic Credit Ltd. vs. SEBI (21 August 2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “Personal Effects” under Baggage Rules in a Customs Dispute: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017)

/ Baggage Rules, 1998, Customs Act, 1962, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 102, Customs Act, 1962 with Section 77, Customs Law, Judges, Personal Effects, Prafulla C. Pant, R.K. Agrawal

LEGAL ISSUE: Interpretation of “personal effects” under the Baggage Rules, 1998, specifically concerning the import of jewellery by tourists. CASE TYPE: Customs Law Case Name: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors. vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani Date of the Judgment: 18 August 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 716 Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J. and Prafulla C. Pant, J.

Supreme Court clarifies the definition of “Personal Effects” under Baggage Rules in a Customs Dispute: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Pushpa Lekhumal Tolani (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case After Settlement: G. Ravi vs. State of Karnataka (2017)

/ Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 420, Judges, Kurian Joseph, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with Section 138, R. Banumathi

Can a criminal case for cheating be quashed when the parties have settled a dispute arising from a cheque bounce? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the parties had reached an amicable settlement. This case involved a dispute initially related to a cheque dishonor, which then led to

Supreme Court Quashes Cheating Case After Settlement: G. Ravi vs. State of Karnataka (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Fatal Family Dispute Case: Madhavan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2017)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Criminal Law, Culpable Homicide, Dipak Misra, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 147, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 304, Judges, Sentencing

LEGAL ISSUE: Proportionality of sentencing in criminal cases involving sudden altercations. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law Case Name: Madhavan & Ors vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Judgment Date: 14 August 2017 Date of the Judgment: 14 August 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 701 Judges: Dipak Misra, J., A.M. Khanwilkar, J. Can a sentence be reduced if

Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Fatal Family Dispute Case: Madhavan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2017) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies cadre restructuring in BSF: Union of India vs. S. Ravichandran (2017)

/ Border Security Force, Cadre Restructuring, Cadre Review, Deepak Gupta, Government Orders, Judges, Madan B. Lokur, Prafulla C. Pant, Promotion, Service Law, Supersession of Orders

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a prior decision regarding cadre restructuring can be superseded by a later comprehensive review. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. S. Ravichandran & Ors. Date of the Judgment: 11 August 2017 Citation: (2017) INSC 707 Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Prafulla C. Pant, J., Deepak Gupta,

Supreme Court clarifies cadre restructuring in BSF: Union of India vs. S. Ravichandran (2017) Read Post »

Scroll to Top