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

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

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NEEMUCH V. MAHADEO REAL ESTATE

SC-Setting aside the Madhya Pradesh HC order,the Hon’ble SC held that the HC while exercising its powers of judicial review of administrative action, could not have interfered with the decision unless it suffers from the vice of illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety. The Commissioner, instead of blindly accepting the directions contained in the communication, acted in larger public interest so that the Municipal Council earns a higher revenue by enlarging the scope of the competition and the State Government has re-examined and reconsidered the issue and authorised the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders directing initiation of fresh tender process and so such orders were not illegal, improper or irrational.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra,M.R. Shah and B.R. Gavai [17-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/municipal-council-neemuch-vs-mahadeo-real-estate

#saketagarwal
#plclaws #prathamalawchambers

THE BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD V. RADHA BALLABH HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE (P) LTD

SC-Setting aside the order of the Patna HC,the Hon’ble SC held that the appellant as a State is required to act fairly in fixation of price for allotment of a plot. The order of the HC to direct the appellant to charge the price proportionate to the price advertised earlier has no legal basis and is a commercial decision taken by the appellant fixing the price of the plot. In the matter of fixation of price, the Board has a right to fix such price, more so, when such price was accepted by the respondent on three different occasions.The action of the respondent to dispute the allotment price after accepting the price is neither fair nor reasonable and so, cannot be accepted.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [13-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/the-bihar-state-housing-board-vs-radha-ballabh-health-care-and-research-institute-(p)-ltd

#saketagarwal

UNION OF INDIA V. SANDEEP KUMAR

SC-Finding that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while setting aside the order of conviction passed by the DCM,the Hon’ble SC held that Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 confers wide power on the Tribunal so as to allow an appeal against conviction by a Court Martial where the finding of the Court Martial is legally not sustainable due to any reason; the finding involves wrong decision on a question of law or there was a material irregularity in the course of the trial resulting in miscarriage of justice but such wide powers do not confer jurisdiction to the Tribunal to reverse the findings merely because it finds that different view is possible.-Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta[13-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/union-of-india-vs-sandeep-kumar

#saketagarwal

M/S GEO MILLER & CO.PVT.LTD. V. CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD

SC-The Hon’ble SC affirmed the view of the Rajasthan HC that the entire dispute seems concocted so as to pursue a monetary claim against the respondents, taking advantage of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellant’s own default in sleeping over his right for 14 years will not constitute a case of ‘undue hardship’ justifying extension of time under Section 43(3) of the 1996 Act or show ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellant should have approached the Court for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 8(2) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 within the appropriate limitation period.-Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi [03-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-geo-miller-and-copvtltd-vs-chairman,-rajasthan-vidyut-utpadan-nigam-ltd

M.J.THULSIRAMAN V. COMMR.

SC- The Hon’ble SC while dismissing the Appeal against the Madras HC held that the “Bakers Choultry”, and the rock inscription therein, constitute a “specific endowment” as defined under the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, and the same is not the private property of the appellants. The contents of the rock inscription are sufficient to hold that there has been a valid divestment of the right to receive a certain part of the income, with the inscription also stipulating a bar on the right of the Manager to transfer the choultry.- Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi [03-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/mjthulsiraman-vs-commr

EX.SEPOY (WASHERMAN) RAM KHILAWAN V. UNION OF INDIA

SC-The Hon’ble SC allowed the Appeal in a case challenging the orders passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal regarding the discharge of the Appellant from service. It held that the discharge is covered by clause (iii) of Rule 13(3)(III) of the Army Rules, 1954, as the discharge of the appellant was only on the ground of his medical unfitness for further service, therefore, he could not be invalidated out of service without the recommendation of the Invalidating Board. Such discharge which was not under the residual clause (v) but under clause (iii) of Rule 13(3)(III) of the Rules and which was made without reference to Invalidating Medical Board, is not legally sustainable.-Hon'ble Justices L.Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [02-09-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/exsepoy-(washerman)-ram-khilawan-vs-union-of-india

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA V. SAYEDABAD TEA CO. LTD. AND ORS

SC-Setting aside the Calcutta HC orders, in as case relating to appointment of an Arbitrator by the Central Government with respect to Sec. 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956,the Hon’ble SC held that in view of the power being vested exclusively with the Central Government to appoint an Arbitrator under Sec. 3G(5) of the Act 1956, being a special enactment, the application filed under Sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator was not maintainable and provisions of the Act, 1996 could not be invoked for the purpose.-Hon'ble Justices N.V. Ramana,Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi[27-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/national-highways-authority-of-india-vs-sayedabad-tea-co-ltd-and-ors

RAMESHWAR . V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

SC-Affirming the conviction of appellant No.2-Balaram under Sec. 302 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him, the Hon’ble SC opined that the presence of appellant No.2 has been established by consistent evidence of the eye-witnesses and he was armed with rifle and thus shared the common intention acting in concert with accused Rameshwar and has been proved to have acted in furtherance of the common intention. To invoke Section 34 IPC, it must be established that the criminal act was done by more than one person in furtherance of common intention of all. -Hon'ble Justices R.Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna[21-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/rameshwar-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh

www.plclaws.com

SALEEM AHMED V. STATE

SC-Allowing the petition filed under Sec. 482 of the CrPC and quashing the FIR,the Hon’ble SC opined that once the dispute in relation to recovery of outstanding amount was finally settled between the appellant and BSES amicably in Lok Adalat resulting in passing of the award in full and final satisfaction of the entire claim, there was neither any occasion and nor any basis to file FIR by the BSES against the appellant in respect of the cause which was subject matter of an award. The filing of FIR after passing of the award by the Lok Adalat was wholly unjust and not legally sustainable.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy[19-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/saleem-ahmed-vs-state

www.plclaws.com

STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. SHIV DAYAL

SC- Allowing the appeal and remanding the case to the HC,the Hon’ble SC reiterated that if the Appellate Court affirms the finding, it is called “concurrent finding of fact” whereas if the finding is reversed, it is called "reversing finding". When any concurrent finding of fact is assailed in second appeal, the appellant is entitled to point out that it is bad in law because it was recorded de hors the pleadings or it was based on no evidence or it was based on misreading of material documentary evidence or it was recorded against any provision of law and lastly, the decision is one which no Judge acting judicially could reasonably have reached.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and R. Subhash Reddy[14-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/state-of-rajasthan-vs-shiv-dayal

www.plclaws.com

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 MUMBAI V. M/S S.G. ASIA HOLDINGS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

SC- In a case relating to assessment proceedings wherein the respondent was directed to furnish details about the parent company and the rate of brokerage, the Hon’ble SC affirmed the view of the tribunal that the transfer pricing adjustment made by the Assessing Officer was contrary to the mandatory instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes in its Instruction No.3/2003 dated 20.05.2003 and by not making reference to the TPO, the AO had breached the mandatory instructions issued by the CBDT. It would therefore be upto the authorities and the Commissioner concerned to consider the matter in terms of Sub-Sec. (1) of Sec. 92CA of Income Tax Act, 1961.-Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran[13-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/the-principal-commissioner-of-income-tax-4-mumbai-vs-ms-sg-asia-holdings-(india)-pvt-ltd

VINOD KUMAR V. ASHOK KUMAR GANDHI

SC-The Hon’ble SC did not find any good ground to refer the judgment of this Court in Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. Vs. UOI for reconsideration by a larger Bench. It observed that the case of Satyawati  Sharma which held that sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958  is violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution insofar as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes when the same are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the latter's right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only, cannot be held to be per incuriam.-Hon'ble Justices Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph[05-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/vinod-kumar-vs-ashok-kumar-gandhi

GST Evaders Can Be Arrested: SC Upholds Telangana HC Judgment

Supreme Court has dismissed a plea challenging Telangana High Court judgment that held that a person can be arrested by the competent authority in cases of Goods and Service Tax (GST) evasion. 

The vacation bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Aniruddha Bose, dismissing the Special Leave Petition, said that it is not inclined to interfere. 

The Division bench of the Telangana High Court, in April, comprising of V. Ramasubramanian and Justice P. Keshava Rao had dismissed a batch of writ petitions seeking protection from arrest for alleged tax evasion. The challenge was against the summons issued by Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) of the Hyderabad GST Commissionerate under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The bench observed that sub Section (1) of Section 69 of the Act empowers the Commissioner to order the arrest of a person, when such a person is believed to have committed a cognizable and non bailable offence. 

It had said: "If reasons to believe are recorded in the files, we do not think it is necessary to record those reasons in the authorization for arrest under Section 69(1) of the CGST Act. Since Section 69(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 specifically uses the words “reasons to believe”, in contrast to the words “reasons to be recorded” appearing in Section 41A(3) of Cr.P.C., we think that it is enough if the reasons are found in the file, though not disclosed in the order authorizing the arrest." 

The state had submitted before the High Court that the petitioners before it were allegedly involved in incorporating several partnership firms and had claimed input tax credit on the basis of certain invoices, without there being any actual physical receipt of goods. It had alleged that the fraudulent input tax credit claimed by them was to the tune of Rs 224.05 crore. 

The High court had also rejected the contention that here cannot be an arrest even before adjudication or assessment. 

It had said: "To say that a prosecution can be launched only after the completion of the assessment, goes contrary to Section 132 of the CGST Act, 2017. The list of offences included in sub Section (1) of Section 132 of CGST Act, 2017 have no co relation to assessment. Issue of invoices or bills without supply of goods and the availing of ITC by using such invoices or bills, are made offences under clauses (b) and (c) of sub Section (1) of Section 132 of the CGST Act. The prosecutions for these offences do not depend upon the completion of assessment." 

The bench also did not favour the argument raised by the petitioners that since all the offences under the Act are compoundable under sub Section (1) of Section 138 of the CGST Act, 2017, subject to the restrictions contained in the proviso thereto and that therefore, there is no necessity to arrest a person for the alleged commission of an offence which is compoundable. The court also had observed that the furthering of enquiry/ investigation is not the only object of arrest.

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/gst-evaders-can-be-arrested-14530

WHETHER ARBITRATION AWARD DIRECTING TRANSMISSION OF SHARES CAN BE ENFORCED THROUGH NCLT?

Cheran Properties Ltd. vs Kasturi and Sons Ltd. & Ors. 
Civil Appeal 10025/2017 decided on 24.04.2018 

The court held that since the award postulates a transmission of share to the Claimant, the directions contained in the award can be enforced only by moving the tribunal for rectification in the manner contemplated by law.

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Review Decision On Kohinoor Diamond

The Supreme Court has given the legal burial to a case which had sought judicial intervention to reclaim the 108-carat Kohinoor diamond from the United Kingdom.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi dismissed a curative petition seeking to re-examine its 2017 verdict in which it had said that it cannot pass order for reclaiming Kohinoor diamond from the UK or to stop it from being auctioned.

Kohinoor, which means Mountain of Light, is a large, colourless diamond that was found in Southern India in early 14th century.

The 108-carat Kohinoor gem, which fell into British hands during the colonial era, is the subject of a historic ownership dispute and claimed by at least four countries including India.

"We have gone through the curative petition and the connected papers. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this court in the case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra & another....Hence, the curative petition is dismissed," said the bench, also comprising Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, DY Chandrachud and SK Kaul, in its recent order.

Curative petition is heard in the chamber of judges in the absence of lawyers.

The top court had in April 2017 disposed of pleas filed by an NGO and others seeking directions to bring back the treasured diamond to India saying it cannot ask a foreign government not to auction a property.

The court had made it clear it could not pass an order with regard to a property which was in another country.

In its order, the court had referred to an affidavit filed by the Centre and said that "the Government of India continues to explore ways and means with the UK government on the issue".

The Centre had earlier told the apex court that Kohinoor was neither "forcibly taken", nor "stolen" by British rulers but given to the East India Company by the rulers of Punjab.

The pleas had sought directions to the Indian High Commissioner in the UK for the return of the diamond, besides several other treasures.

After the April 2017 order, a plea seeking review of the verdict was filed in the top court.

COMMENT

The review plea was dismissed by the court in November 2017.