Legal News & Views

Providing relief to property tax payers, the Bombay high court, in an interim order, has directed some property owners to go by the old regime and to pay 25% of the differential amount. A bench of Chief Justice Mohit Shah and Justice M S Sanklecha in October admitted a petition filed by Atash Behrams, Agiaries and Religious Institutions Welfare Society, which challenged the validity of the new property tax structure introduced earlier this year. Under the new system, the tax is calculated on the basis of the capital value of a property, and the age of a building, its location and use are taken into account. Experts contested the new "flawed" system could push up the tax by 300% or more. The BMC also withdrewexemptions for charitable institutions. Bombay Hospital, a charitable institution, was the first to assail the hike in court, challenging the system and a Rs 2-crore bill for 2010 to 2013. Property tax under the old regime was calculated according to the rateable va

IFB Agro Industries Ltd vs. JCIT (ITAT Kolkata) December 21st, 2013 S. 2(22)(e): Inter-corporate deposits (“ICDs”) are not “loans and advances” and are not assessable to tax as “deemed dividend” S. 2(22)(e) refers to ‘loans’ and ‘advances’ and does not refer to a ‘deposit’. The fact that the term ‘deposit’ does not mean a ‘loan’ and that the two terms are two different & distinct terms is evident from the Explanation to S. 269T and S. 269SS of the Act where both the terms are used. Further, the second proviso to S. 269SS recognises the term ‘loan’ taken or ‘deposit’ accepted. Once it is accepted that the terms ‘loan’ and ‘deposit’ are two distinct terms which have distinct meaning then if only the term ‘loan’ is used in a particular section the ‘deposit’ received by an assessee cannot be treated as a ‘loan’ for that section. The Companies Act, 1956 also makes a distinction between a “loan” and a “deposit” in s. 58A, 269 & 370. The distinction between a “loan” and

The state consumer commission has directed an insurance company to pay Rs 82 lakh, along with a compensation of around Rs 10 lakh, to the widow of a man who died of mouth cancer in 2010. It held Life Insurance Corporation of India had wrongly repudiated the claim saying the man had a habit of chewing gutka and suffered from dyspepsia, a problem related to indigestion. Relying on a national commission order in a similar matter, the panel observed non-disclosure of chronic dyspepsia in the proposal form cannot be a ground for repudiation. "It is not a disease in itself but symptomatic of other diseases or disorders, characterized by vague abdominal discomfort, a sense of fullness after eating, eructation, heartburn, nausea and vomiting and loss of appetite," the commission said. The commission observed the medical summary clearly said Rajendra Chavan chewed gutka 14 years prior to his death and not for 14 years as the insurance company claimed. It noted the summary s

The Bombay High Court came down heavily on lower court judges, for blindly rejecting applications of cancellation of arrest warrants when the accused is not present. The High Court, on December 24, ruled that in such situations, orders must be passed on the basis of merit. "There is no law stating that the accused should personally remain present for cancellation of a warrant. If the lawyer makes an application for cancellation of a warrant, it needs to be considered on merits by the Magistrate, without insisting the appearance of the applicant or accused," said Justice M L Tahaliyani. The court was hearing an application filed by businessman Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, who is an accused in a cheque-bouncing case. Chaturvedi has not attended hearing in his case for the past one and a half years, due to which a non-bailable warrant was issued against him by a magistrate's court in Dadar. His lawyer approached the court to cancel the arrest warrant against him, assuring t

 The Bombay high court has held that a Hindu married to a non-Hindu in accordance with Hindu rituals cannot seek divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. Accordingly, a bench headed by Justice VK Tahilramani upheld a family court order which rejected a petition filed by Niranjani Roshan Rao, a Hindu, seeking divorce from husband Roshan Pinto on the ground that he was a Christian at the time of marriage and was professing the same religion till today. As the family court rejected her petition, she moved the high court, which, on December 24, rejected her appeal and upheld the lower court order. "We are of the view that an order passed by the learned judge of the family court is perfectly legal and calls for no interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction," said the bench while dismissing the appeal. The appellant had filed the petition in family court seeking a decree of nullity of marriage and alternatively claimed divorce on the grounds of cruelty. She said, on J

In the case of CIT v. Excel Industries Ltd., Mafatlal Industries P. Ltd. (2013) 358 ITR 295 (SC), the Supreme Court has explained that the Assessing Officer’s duty is to take a pragmatic view rather than adopt a pedantic approach. Besides, the Supreme Court has advised the Income-tax Department not to indulge in fruitless litigation where no loss of Revenue is involved. In its return for the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 12,57,525 under the head advance licence benefit receivable. The assessee also claimed a deduction in respect of duty entitlement pass book benefit receivable amounting to Rs. 4,46,46,976. These benefits related to entitlement to import duty free raw material under the relevant import and export policy by way of reduction from raw material consumption. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the claim of the assessee but the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the advance licence benefit receivable and duty entitlement pass book

In a rare judgement, a family court ordered a man to pay maintenance to his child born out of his love affair before his marriage to another woman. Family court judge M J Mehta ordered Rajkumar Adidravid on Tuesday to pay Rs 2,700 per month as maintenance to the boy and also pay arrears of Rs 1.14 lakh at 2,700 per month from the date of filing of case in June 2010. The court gave the judgement based on a DNA test report which proved that Adidravid fathered the child. Saying that bringing up the child is the father's responsibility, the court directed Indian Railways, where the man works, to deduct compensation amount from the his salary and give it to the child's mother. The child's mother had approached the family court demanding that Adidravid should pay maintenance of Rs 15,000 per month to bring up the child and also demanded arrears of Rs 10 lakh. As per case details, the child's mother had entered into a relationship with the Adidravid in 2004 after he

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a civic body has no right to disconnect water and electric supply to a dilapidated building before the process of evacuation begins. "Such action can only be taken at the time of evacuation and not in advance," Justice Anoop Mohata said on December 21 while hearing a petition filed by Manjul Darshan Building Tenants Welfare Association in suburban Borivali. The petitioner had challenged the action of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to disconnect water and electricity to the building in order to evacuate the occupants as it was in a dilapidated condition. The occupants/tenants unless evicted in accordance with law, are entitled to basic amenities such as water and electricity uninterruptedly. This in no way obstructs and/or can be stated to be a hurdle in way of the corporation's power and/or local authorities' power to take action of evacuation after due notice, said the judge. "The advance disconnection in s

Marriage under the Hindu law is not a contract that can be annulled by the signing of a deed of divorce by the couple themselves, the Bombay High Court has said, in a case that it termed as "very peculiar and most unusual." The court was hearing an appeal against a family court order by a city couple who, unaware of the legal provisions for divorce, had dissolved their marriage by simply signing a deed between themselves. They did not approach a family court for a decree of divorce. Later, discovering the inadequacy of their deed, they petitioned the family court for "divorce by mutual consent", but the court refused to hear their plea on the grounds that they had already got divorced by signing the deed. The HC division bench of Justice VK Tahilramani and Justice V L Achliya, earlier this week, directed the Bandra family court to dispose of the couple's plea as expeditiously as possible, even waiving the mandatory waiting period of six months for seeking d

Case :- INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 471 of 2011 Petitioner :- The Commissioner Of Income Tax And Another Respondent :- M/S Jeevan Deep Charitable Trust Petitioner Counsel :- A.N. Mahajan (Ssc-It),D Awashthi Respondent Counsel :- Kunal Ravi Singh,Manjari Singh Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J. Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. The present appeal has been filed under Section 260-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" against the order dated 08.12.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. The Revenue has proposed the following three substantial questions of law said to be arisen out of the order of the Tribunal. “(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in coming to the conclusion that registration granted to the assessee has been cancelled u/s 12-AA(3) of the Act merely on the ground that approval u/s 10(23C) (vi) of the Act had been denied to the assessee by completely o

Plea, which came after 200 days, was rejected by state consumer commission. Not realising the importance of filing appeals in time is going to cost a senior lawyer loss of face as despite being one of the most reputed practising lawyers in legal circles, his appeal was rejected for a mere technical reason - not adhering to deadlines set by the consumer forum. Stating that a practising lawyer could not be allowed condonation of delay (forgiveness for unintentional delay) in filing his appeal that took 200 days, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has rejected the appeal of senior high court lawyer Ashok Saraogi. In 2007, Mumbai-based lawyer Saraogi hired a lawyer and filed consumer case before Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum complaining against ICICI Bank, Kapadia Brothers and Ghel Automobiles Pvt Ltd for allegedly illegally using his credit card to buying petroleum products. “I was in Jaipur with my wife for some

Noting that right to property is now a human right, the Madras high court has directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to disburse compensation amount to an octogenarian woman, whose lands were acquired for the road widening project near Tambaram. Justice S Manikumar, pointing out that Siriyapushpam is now more than 80 years old and that the NHAI had not paid any money in lieu of the lands taken over from her more than five years ago, said: "As right to property has been now recognized by the apex court as a human right, and considering the age of Siriyapushpam, her legitimate right to seek compensation for the lands acquired, this court sincerely hopes that the authorities would implement the directions of this court in letter and spirit within the stipulated time." Siriyapushpam's land measuring 165sqm at Irumbuliyur villager near Tambaram was notified for acquisition by the NHAI in 2008 for widening, maintenance, management and operation of NH45.

Saavi Gupta had purchased four properties including a penthouse apartment from Omxame Azorim Developers. Her father, Dr Sanjeev Gupta, had contributed money for its purchase and was dealing with the builder on her behalf. Till November 2010, the Guptas paid several instalments but these were not been paid by the due dates. In December 2010, the builder sent a letter intimating that the price of the penthouse apartment had been revised from Rs 4.04 crore to Rs 4.35 crore. By this time the Guptas had already paid Rs 2.17 crore, which was more than half its cost. The Guptas protested against the unilateral revision in price. The builder did not pay heed but merely extended the time for making payments and thereafter cancelled the booking. The Guptas then filed a complaint before the National Commission, claiming they should be re-allotted the ap artment at the original rate, or be awarded a compensation of Rs 5 crore, along with 24% interest. The Commission observed that all the four

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed a revision petition filed by medical stores company against an order of state commission directing the insurance company to pay only Rs one lakh compensation. The complainant was running a medicine store which was taken on rent by another person. The complainant obtained "Shopkeepers Insurance Policy" from the insurance company for a sum of Rs 5.10 lakh for a period commencing from March 2006 to March 2007. The shop was demolished by the Municipal Corporation, in June 2006 with the help of bull dozer and JCB without any prior notice to the complainant on the ground of unauthorized occupation of the premises. In spite of injunction from the court, the entire shop along with goods and furniture and fixture was destroyed. The complainant alleged that due to malicious act on the part of Municipal Corporation, he sustained loss of Rs 4.85 lakh. The complainant filed claim before the company which was repudiated.

Just because a woman has remarried does not disentitle her from receiving compensation for the accidental death of her first husband, the Bombay high court has ruled. Six years after a Vile Parle resident Sandeep Purandare died when a dumper hit his bike on the Western Express Highway, a division bench of Justice S C Dharmadhikari and Justice R Y Ganoo ordered that 20 per cent of the compensation amount of over Rs 67 lakh will go to his widow Sunita (name changed), who has since remarried and looks after the couple's child. "Nothing has been pointed out to us in law which would disable Sunita to claim compensation only because she has remarried during the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal," said the judges, adding, "The law postulates grant of just compensation to the claimants. That she was married to deceased Sandip and had given birth to a girl child is undisputed. That she has lost the company of Sandip and will have to take care of the ch

A state's consumer court has held that a doctor cannot be held responsible for damages sustained by patient during surgery, but the hospital or trust that employs the doctor is liable to pay compensation to the patient. In this case, a Mehsana's consumer forum in 2006 had asked an ophthalmologist, Dr Rupesh Shah, to pay Rs 75,000 towards compensation for his negligence during a surgery conducted on a patient - Ganpatbhai Sadhu at M N Vakhariya Sarvoday Eye Hospital at Radhanpur. This hospital is run by a trust - Sarvoday Arogya Nidhi. The doctor treated the patient for cataract, but the patient lost vision in the right eye. The doctor was not satisfied with the court's decision and he approached the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with claims that he being an employee of the trust was not liable to pay damages, but the employer has to pay the compensation. The commission accepted his argument and ordered the trust instead to pay the compensation to

The Supreme Court on Friday said once a person was declared an absconder by a trial court, higher courts should not grant him anticipatory bail. "It is a settled position of law that where the accused has been declared an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail," said a bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjana P Desai and Ranjan Gogoi. One Pradeep Sharma was accused of poisoning to death one Rajesh Singh Thakur because of enmity on account of election to the post of sarpanch in Chhindwara in Madhya Pradesh. Thakur died on September 11, 2011 and the accused fled the area. However, on August 1, 2012, Sharma moved an anticipatory bail plea before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was rejected on the ground that custodial interrogation was necessary. On November 21, 2012, arrest warrants were issued against accused Pradeep Sharma, Sudhir Sharma and Naresh Raghuvanshi. As they were not traceable,

The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Calcutta High Court directing the Howrah Improvement Trust to call for a fresh bid for commercial plots after cancelling the earlier one. The high court passed the order on a writ petition moved by an individual, though the offer of the highest bidder was earlier accepted. "The notice inviting tender is no doubt an opportunity given to different bidders to submit their tenders and participate in the tender process but if an offer is made pursuant to the notice inviting tender and the same is accepted and the terms and conditions of the bid documents and the law provide that such acceptance will bind the authority inviting tenders, then the notice inviting tender cannot be cancelled at a later stage," the judgment stated in the case, Dr Nagendra Rai vs O P Singh. Article referred:  http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/conversion-of-land-use-disallowed-113121500671_1.html

Legal heirs or beneficiaries are entitled to claim a deceased person's property. But what happens when a person goes missing and remains untraceable? When and how do the legal heirs claim the property? Case Study: Jeet Singh did not return home from office on October 10, 2001. His wife, Raj Bala, lodged a police complaint stating that her husband had been kidnapped. The police registered an FIR on November 3, 2001. Singh had taken two insurance policies from LIC on January 20, 1999. One policy was for a sum insured of Rs 50,000, while the other was for Rs 2,00,000. Bala informed the insurance company that her husband had been kidnapped and was missing. However, the insurance company did not respond. Meanwhile, Bala continued paying the premium for the policies. The premium for one policy was paid till January 13, 2007, while for the other till January 26, 2008. On May 9, 2009, Bala filed a suit before the civil judge, Sonepat, for a declaration that her husband is dead and d

Petrol pump can't replace park An urban site earmarked for civic amenities like public park or playground cannot be changed and given to run a petrol pump in a crowded residential area, the Supreme Court stated while dismissing the appeal of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd (BPCL) against a judgment of the Karnataka High Court. The high court had quashed allotment of a site in Bangalore for a BPCL outlet allowing a public interest petition by some residents. The government company appealed to the Supreme Court arguing, among other things, that petrol pump is a civic amenity, according to a notification. The Supreme Court rejected all the arguments and said that the state law did not allow the Bangalore Development Authority to convert areas reserved for civic amenities for activities which did not fall within the definition of civic amenities. National Consumer Commission powers  Once the finding of facts by a district consumer forum is accepted by the National Commission, it

Liquidator barred from selling plot The Supreme Court has ruled that possession of a plot given to a company for a limited purpose would not create any interest or right in its favour. The Andhra Pradesh High Court view to the contrary was set aside in the appeal, APII Corporation Ltd vs Team-Asia Lakhi Semiconductors Ltd. Government-owned APII Corporation allotted plots for setting up industries to different persons on certain conditions. Team-Asia got a plot for which an amount had to be paid to the corporation. It was given possession for a limited purpose and allowed possession. The company could not pay the amount within the prescribed time and therefore the part amount already paid was forfeited. The company later went into liquidation and the official liquidator wanted to take back possession of the plot and sell it. The government corporation moved the company court against it, but its petition was dismissed. It appealed to the Supreme Court. While quashing the high court

The Bombay High Court has said if two parties got the registrations of trademarks done using identical prefix, they could use the same for all purposes and its exclusive use by only one owner was not allowed. While relying on the Trademarks Act, the court said use of such registered trademarks by another registered owner cannot be treated as "infringement". The court was hearing a plea by Pune resident Pritikiran Katole against a district court's order restraining him from using the trademark of 'Godwa' tagged with his businesses. The lower court had observed that it was "breach of registered trademark" used by the applicant Harsha Katole. Pritikiran moved the High Court against the order. Taking into consideration the Act's provisions, Justice Anoop V Mohta said, "The main objection with regard to the word 'Godwa' although both the parties got registration under the provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999, just cannot be the issue

Gujarat high court has ruled that the conciliation period of six months cannot be waived to get divorce decree, and it has also made it clear that only Supreme Court has got the power to grant relaxation in such cases by invoking the doctrine of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Justice Abhilasha Kumari refused to waive the six-month compulsory separation after filing of divorce petition by an estranged couple, which wanted the separated wife's visa to be extended. The wife, who is residing in the UK, wanted divorce decree before December 31, as she is required to apply for renewal of student visa. She expressed her inability to return to India before that and requested the court to waive the mandatory separation period. The couple, Jignesh and Anushi, got married in 2009, but could not live together for more than two years. They separated in 2011 and the wife went to the UK after obtaining dependent visa for study. In September 2011, the couple filed for divorce decree. Sh

Its earlier order not yet complied with, the Bombay High Court Monday asked the state's urban development department (UDD) to issue a circular within a week to all municipal corporations and zilla parishads instructing them to disallow construction on wetlands. The court had on October 14 this year directed the UDD to issue the circular. A division bench of Justice V M Kanade and Justice M S Sonak was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a group of NGOs on violations of Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notifications and rules on safeguarding the wetlands. The petitioners had said they were aggrieved by the callous attitude of the authorities concerned in protecting areas consisting of intertidal currents, wetlands and mangroves, in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region. Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Gayatri Singh pointed out that the state government had failed to constitute the state wetland authority. The bench directed the state to file its reply in this

The children saw the father killing their mother They were aged 11 and nine when their mother was murdered in 2009. The whole prosecution case centred around their testimony before the trial court. Confirming the life sentence awarded to their father for the murder, the Madras High Court said it was accepting the children’s evidence before the lower court. The prosecution case was that the murder took place on April 6, 2009 when the children, a boy and a girl, were sleeping in their house. Their father, M. George Arul Thangam, hit their mother, Pushpalatha’s head with a grinding stone. Pushpalatha succumbed to injuries. On September 21, 2010, the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari, sentenced George Arul Thangam to life imprisonment. Hence, the present appeal by Thangam before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Upholding the conviction, a Division Bench comprising Justices S. Rajeswaran and T. Mathivanan, said the testimonies of prosecution witnesses seemed to be unassail

No tenant can dictate usage of space to the house owner, a trial court has observed while ordering eviction of a tenant from the house of a 65-year-old handicapped widow in Nizamuddin. Additional civil judge M P Singh's order came as a relief to Femida Begum who had sought the court's intervention for the eviction of her tenant, Mohammad Ahmed, so that one of her daughter could open a tailoring shop in the area occupied by Ahmed. The court also held "there is no law that a woman, after marriage, is required to reside in her husband's house," adding that Femida's daughter might well prefer, in this case, to stay with her widowed and handicapped mother. The court made the observation while dismissing Ahmed's argument that daughter for which Femida was seeking eviction was of marriageable age and was soon likely to shift to her future husband's home. The court also said that the tenant could not suggest ways in which his landlady might have used th

The Supreme Court yesterday urged state governments to consider making necessary amendments to the law to make production and marketing of adulterated milk, which is injurious to human consumption, an offence punishable with life imprisonment. The observation by a bench of Justice K S Radhakrishnan and Justice A K Sikri came after it took note of Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Odisha having made the sale of adulterated milk, contaminated with synthetic material, an offence punishable with life imprisonment. “That shows the seriousness of the offence. That is why they have made it punishable by life imprisonment. Adulterated milk having synthetic material is harmful to heart, lungs, liver and is even cancerous. It also affects ladies, also those pregnant,” observed Justice Radhakrishnan. Asking the states to make more stringent the law to deal with production and sale of milk which is harmful to human beings, the court observed that the maximum punishment of six months for such o