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

ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EPFO, BAREILLY V. M/S U P STATE WAREHOUSING CORP

SC-The Hon’ble SC remanding the matter to the Allahabad HC for deciding the Corporation's writ petition afresh on merits keeping in view the definition of "employee'' as defined under Sec. 2(f) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, held that the definition of "employee" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act is not identical to the one defined under Sec. 2(f) of the Act in question and secondly, the object of these acts is not the same. The issue was to be decided independently and de hors the proceedings decided under the ID Act.-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/asst-provident-fund-commissioner-epfo,-bareilly-vs-ms-u-p-state-warehousing-corp

www.plclaws.com

KANWALJIT SINGH V. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

SC-In a case relating to the extent of the liability of the Insurance Company with regard to individual claim under Family Mediclaim Policy, the Hon’ble SC affirmed that the maximum claim which could be payable in the present case would be 50% of the sum insured under the Policy for the medical treatment of one member of the family, which was Master Jasnoor Singh. The claim could not have been repudiated by the Insurance Company as there was no pre-existing disease when the initial individual Mediclaim Policy was taken in the year 2007-2008 and it was regularly renewed up to the year 2014-2015.-Hon'ble Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran[14-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/kanwaljit-singh-vs-national-insurance-company-ltd

www.plclaws.com

WAINGANGA BAHUDDESHIYA VIKAS SANSTHA THR. PRESIDENT B.B. KARANJEKAR V. KU. JAYA

SC-Setting aside the Bombay HC order,the Hon’ble SC observed that the appointment of respondent no. 1 is categorically on ad-hoc basis till such time full time Lecturer is appointed. The appointment of respondent No. 1 was not on probation but, it was purely ad-hoc appointment and the Management has kept right to terminate the services during ad-hoc period on account of unsatisfactory work.- Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [09-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/wainganga-bahuddeshiya-vikas-sanstha-thr-president-bb-karanjekar-vs-ku-jaya

THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE V. PRAVAT KUMAR DASH

SC-In a case relating to appointment to the post of gardeners, the Hon’ble SC stated that selection of the candidates for training as Gardeners was not by way of transparent procedure nor there was any commitment to appoint candidates who have completed training, therefore, even if a candidate has completed training, he cannot seek right of employment unless such posts are advertised and filled up by giving opportunity to all similarly situated candidates .The order of the Tribunal and the HC, directing the State to appoint the applicants as Gardeners is beyond their jurisdiction vested in the HC as there cannot be any direction for making appointment to the public post in such a manner.- Hon'ble Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta [09-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/the-director-of-horticulture-vs-pravat-kumar-dash

CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION V. HARI RAM

SC-Setting aside the order of the Punjab and Haryana HC, in an appeal filed by the Chandigarh Administration, the Hon’ble SC observed that the slump in the business cannot be the reason for default in payment of the lease rent and the ground rent. It directed that the Administration shall confirm the allotment if the amount ordered is paid within six months but failure to do so will entitle the Administration to proceed with eviction in accordance with law.- Hon'ble Justices R.Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna [06-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/chandigarh-administration-vs-hari-ram

R.JAYAPAL V. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

SC-Altering the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC to the one under Part-I of Sec. 304 IPC, the Hon’ble SC held that the act of the appellant leading to the death was with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. It extended the benefit of Exception 4 of Sec. 300 IPC to the appellant as the incident in question took place without any premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, when the deceased attempted entry into his house; and the appellant did neither take any undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner.-Hon'ble Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari [09-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/rjayapal-vs-the-state-of-tamil-nadu

M/S SHAHI AND ASSOCIATES V. STATE OF U.P.

SC-Restoring the interest awarded by the Arbitrator in accordance with Sec. 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996, the Hon’ble SC held that though the agreement was earlier to the date of coming into force of the Act of 1996, the proceedings admittedly commenced in the year 1999 and were conducted in accordance with the Act of 1996. If that be so, para 7-A of Sec. 24 of the U.P. Amendment Act has no application to the case at hand and so both the HC and the District Judge were not justified in reducing the rate of interest by following the U.P. Amendment Act.-Hon'ble Justices Arun Mishra, S. Abdul Nazeer and M.R. Shah[08-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/ms-shahi-and-associates-vs-state-of-up

MALLIKARJUN V. STATE OF KARNATAKA

SC-The Hon’ble SC while confirming the conviction of the accused No.1 and 2,observed  that there was no inordinate delay in the receipt of FIR in the court and the findings of the trial court and HC that the delay in lodging the complaint and receipt of FIR in the court have been properly explained, do not suffer from infirmity. It stated that the conviction is based upon proper appreciation of evidence and the reasonings are well balanced.-Hon'ble Justices R.Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna [08-08-2019]
Read the full judgment with iDRAF (Issue,Decision,Reasoning,Arguments,Facts)-https://www.legitquest.com/mallikarjun-vs-state-of-karnataka