EBHA ARJUN JADEJA V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

EBHA ARJUN JADEJA V. THE STATE OF GUJARAT

SC-Setting aside the order of the TADA Court,the Hon’ble SC held that non-compliance of Section 20-A(1) of  Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 is fatal and so the appellants have been discharged in so far as the offence under TADA Act is concerned. Where the information basically discloses an offence under TADA Act and the other offence is more in the nature of an ancillary offence then the information cannot be recorded without complying with the provisions of Section 20-A(1) of TADA Act. The language of Section 20-A is mandatory in nature and forbids the recording of information about the commission of offence under TADA Act by the police without prior approval of the District Superintendent of Police. -Hon'ble Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose[16-10-2019]

Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ebha-arjun-jadeja-vs-the-state-of-gujarat

#saketagarwal

UNION OF INDIA V. GAUTAM KHAITAN

UNION OF INDIA V. GAUTAM KHAITAN

SC-Directing the Delhi HC to decide the writ petition on its own merits, the Hon’ble SC observed that the penal provisions under Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money Act would come into play only when an assessee has failed to take benefit of Sec. 59 and neither disclosed assets covered by the Black Money Act nor paid the tax and penalty thereon. The HC was not right in holding that, by the notification/order impugned before it, the penal provisions were made retrospectively applicable. Sub-sec. (3) of Sec. 1 of the Act, itself provides that save as otherwise provided in this Act, it shall come into force on 1st day of July, 2015.The assessment year in consideration was 2019-2020 and the previous year relevant to the assessment year was the year ending on 31.03.2019.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R.Gavai[15-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/union-of-india-vs-gautam-khaitan

#saketagarwal

R.SRINIVAS KUMAR V. R.SHAMETHA

R.SRINIVAS KUMAR V. R.SHAMETHA

SC-Allowing the application for divorce filed by the appellant-husband,the Hon’ble SC observed that the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife have been living separately for more than 22 years and it was not possible for the parties to live together.While protecting the interest of the respondent-wife to compensate her by way of lump sum permanent alimony, this is a fit case to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to dissolve the marriage between the parties. It reiterated that inherent powers under Article 142 has been exercised for dissolution of a marriage where the Court finds that the marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally dead, beyond salvage and has broken down irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not provide a ground in law on which the divorce could be granted. -Hon'ble Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and M.R. Shah[04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/rsrinivas-kumar-vs-rshametha

#saketagarwal

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. V. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP

AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISES LTD. V. K.S. INFRASPACE LLP

SC-Dismissing the appeal against the Gujarat HC,the Hon’ble SC observed that that in order to fall within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act,2015 the immovable property must be “used exclusively” or “being used exclusively” in trade or commerce. There has been nothing on record to show that at the time when agreement to sell came to be executed in 2012, the property was being exclusively used in trade and commerce so as to bring the dispute within the ambit of sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. Merely because, the property is likely to be used in relation to trade and commerce, the same cannot be the ground to attract the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.-Hon'ble Justices A.S.Bopanna and R.Banumthi [04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)- https://www.legitquest.com/ambalal-sarabhai-enterprises-ltd-vs-ks-infraspace-llp

#saketagarwal

DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD. V. A.J. AGROCHEM

DUNCANS INDUSTRIES LTD. V. A.J. AGROCHEM

SC-Confirming the order of the NCLAT which held that the insolvency petition under Sec. 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 initiated by the respondent-operation creditor shall be maintainable, the Hon’ble SC observed that the entire “corporate insolvency resolution process” as such cannot be equated with “winding up proceedings”. The provisions of the IBC would have an over-riding effect over the Tea Act, 1953 and that no prior consent of the Central Government before initiation of the proceedings under Sec. 7 or Sec. 9 of the IBC would be required and even without such consent of the Central Government, the insolvency proceedings under Sec. 7 or Sec. 9 of the IBC initiated by the operational creditor shall be maintainable.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai[04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/duncans-industries-ltd-vs-aj-agrochem

#saketagarwal

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (M AND M) CORP LTD. V. P P SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

SC- The Hon’ble SC while allowing the appeal against the Kerala HC judgment, held that the decision taken by the Govt. in overriding public interest was a measure to strike a balance between the competing interest of the displaced Abkari workers and unemployed youth in the State of Kerala. The impairment of the fundamental rights of the Respondents due to the change in policy was not excessive and it cannot be said that the change in policy regarding re-employment of displaced abkari workers is disproportionate. If an announcement is made by the Govt. of a policy conferring benefit on a large number of people, but subsequently, due to overriding public interest, the benefits announced earlier are withdrawn, it is not expedient to provide individual opportunities to such innominate number of persons.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [04-10-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kerala-state-beverages-(m-and-m)-corp-ltd-vs-p-p-suresh-and-ors-etc-etc

#saketagarwal