Legal News & Views

The Supreme Court in SEENI NAINAR MOHAMMED Vs STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE has set aside conviction of accused of murdering a Hindu Munnani Activist in Madurai. The Bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice RF Nariman held that the sanction order was illegal and hence the criminal proceedings for prosecution under the TADA Act are vitiated entirely and that TADA court grossly erred in taking cognizance of the case. The Bench observed that the Court convicted the accused under the TADA Act on the basis of confession of A-6 and not on the basis of any other material. “Confessions of A-1 and A-6 are involuntary as they were taken in the immediate custody of high security of CBI and a non-voluntary confession cannot form the basis of conviction”, the Bench said. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/non-voluntary-confession-cant-form-basis-conviction-sc-acquits-accused-hindu-munnani-activist-murder-case/

The Supreme Court, in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, has held that not every act or attempt to insult religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens would be penalised under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. Only malicious or deliberate acts, or attempts, undertaken with the intention of outraging the religious beliefs of a class of citizens would be penalised. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/deliberate-malicious-acts-insult-religion-can-penalised-sc/

The Supreme Court, in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury, has upheld a Calcutta High Court observation, which by relying on a judgment of the apex court, had held that 25 per cent of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife. The high court, in the instant case, observing that the net salary of the husband was Rs. 95,000 per month, enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 23,000 per month. This was assailed before the apex court.

Court cannot be expected to surrender its own judgment and delegate its authority to a third person, however great, the Supreme Court, in Machindra vs Sajjan Galpha Rankhamb, has observed while upholding a high court order which has set aside conviction of accused in a murder case. In the instant case, in the post-mortem report, cause of injuries was not stated nor was any opinion formed in that regard. In this context, a bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose observed that an expert’s opinion should be demonstrative and supported by convincing reasons. Affirming the high court order which had set aside the trial court order of conviction, the bench said if the report of an expert is slipshod and inadequate or cryptic and information on similarities or dissimilarities is not available in the report of an expert, then his opinion is of no value. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/courts-shall-not-surrender-judgment-expert-witnesses-sc-read-judgment/

Sri Srinivasaiah Vs. H.R. Channabasappa - Supreme Court The original plaintiff – M.N. Channabasappa was the owner of the suit land (described in detail in schedule to the plaint). He fell in need of money in 1969. He, therefore, approached the original defendant No.1 – B.M. Narayana Shetty and requested him to give some money to overcome the financial crisis faced by him during that time. Defendant No.1 agreed and accordingly gave Rs.1500/- to the plaintiff by way of loan. In order to secure the repayment, the plaintiff on request made by defendant No.1 executed a document on 28.07.1969 (Ex-P-1) in favour of defendant No.1 and got the same registered with the sub-Registrar, Kanakpura. Defendant No.1 was also placed in possession of the suit property pursuant to the document. On 30.06.1987, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to defendant No.1 and offered to repay Rs.1500/- to him with a further request to redeem the suit land in his favour in terms of the conditions of Ex. P-1. T

The Supreme Court, in Union of India vs M/S Simplex Infrastructures, has reiterated that intra-court Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of High Court at Calcutta is not maintainable against an order passed by the single judge on an application for condonation of delay filed along with the petition for setting aside an arbitration award. A division bench of Calcutta High Court, holding that intra-court appeal is maintainable against single judge order condoning the delay, had reversed the order by invoking its jurisdiction under Letters Patent Appeal. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/no-intra-court-appeal-condonation-delay-single-judge-plea-set-aside-arbitration-award-sc/

The Supreme Court, in a brief order, has observed that an FIR can be quashed in part against some accused against whom no cognizable offence is made out. The apex court bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice RF Nariman, in Lovely Salhotra vs State, set aside a Delhi High Court order and observed that the court could not refuse to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. The petitioners before the high court had sought to quash the complaint on the ground that on a reading of the FIR, no offence was made out against the petitioners. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/fir-can-quashed-part-no-cognizable-offence-made-accused-sc-read-order/

The Supreme Court, in Fazar Ali vs State of Assam, has held that there is no inconsistency in chargesheeting and convicting persons who have not been named along with the other accused in the First Information Report. In a criminal appeal before the apex court, one of the contentions put forth on behalf of convicts was that since the names of seven other accused were not disclosed in the FIR, they could not have been chargesheeted. A bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan observed that the FIR clearly mentioned that 12 persons were accused and the FIR, from the very beginning, claimed that apart from five names mentioned, seven others were also accused. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/no-inconsistency-chargesheeting-accused-not-named-fir-sc-read-judgment/

The Supreme Court in Shamshad Mehboob Ali Vs. Mohamed Mehboob Ali,  while referring to various other decisions of the Apex court stated that :- Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the Defendant. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness. The safe and better course is to give short notice on injunction application and pass an appropriate order after hearing both the sides. In case of grave urgency, if it becomes imperative to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction, it should be g

The Supreme Court, in Brijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan, has observed that the degree of satisfaction to exercise power under Section 319 CrPC to summon persons not arraigned as accused is more than the degree warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge sheet was filed. A bench headed by Justice AK Sikri observed that the prima facie opinion which is to be formed for exercising this power under Section 319 CrPC requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/adding-additional-accused-s-319-crpc-strong-evidence-complicity-required-sc/

Rejecting the plea of an accused facing trial to produce certain pages of police diary obtained by him through RTI for the purpose of contradicting the police officer, the Supreme Court in Balakram vs State of Uttarakhand, has reiterated that the accused cannot claim unfettered right to inspect the case diary. The three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra held that right of the accused to cross-examine the police officer with reference to the entries in the police diary is very much limited in extent, and even that limited scope arises only when the court uses the entries to contradict the police officer or when the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory. The High Court of Uttarakhand had allowed an accused’s plea to use the case diary to contradict the police. This application was filed by the accused after the completion of examination in the police officer. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/adding-additional-accused-s-319-crpc-strong-evidence-complicity-re

The Bombay High Court in Smt. Anita Maria Dias & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. has refused to quash an FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, even though the complainant and the respondents claimed to have “settled matters amicably”. A bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice PD Naik was hearing a writ petition filed by one Anita Dias seeking quashing of FIR filed against her by Manoj Yeole, a resident of Baner, Pune. Anita’s lawyer V. Kamble had placed reliance on an affidavit wherein Yeole had stated that he had no objection if his FIR dated August 2, 2012, against Anita was quashed. In the said affidavit, Yeole says all the misunderstandings had been cleared and that he wished to withdraw the criminal complaint filed by him against some of the accused.

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Rampali vs The State Govt of NCT of Delhi, has reiterated that nomination is not a Will in law and in the absence of any Will, only legal heirs (as per the Hindu Succession Act) shall be entitled to inherit the property of the deceased. In the present case, an appeal was filed to revoke the trial court’s order of dismissal of Rampali’s (deceased’s sister) succession certificate. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/nomination-doesnt-amount-will-law-delhi-hc-read-judgment/

Setting aside a Kerala High Court order, the Supreme Court, in Valiyavalappil Sarojakshan vs Sumalsankar Gaikevada, has held that merely because a landlord has taken possession on the basis of an order for eviction granted on one ground, that does not mean that the surviving grounds have become non-est. The landlord had approached the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of tenant under Section 11(4) (iii) and Section 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The landlord, aggrieved by the Rent Control Court declining eviction under Section 11(4) (iii), approached the appellate authority. However, he also took possession of the buildings on the strength of order passed by the Rent Control Court on the other ground. Later, the appellate authority ordered eviction under Section 11(4)(iii) also, which was challenged by the tenant before the high court. For all practical purposes and legal consequences, the said grounds do survive to be considered under la

Setting aside a judgment of Bombay High Court which had held that it is not necessary for a ‘defendant’ to first admit the ownership of the ‘plaintiff’ before raising a plea of adverse possession, the Supreme Court, in Dagadabai vs Abbas, has held that a person claiming adverse possession must necessarily first admit the ownership of the true owner over the property to the knowledge of the true owner. A bench comprising Justice RK Agrawal and Justice AM Sapre also observed that the true owner has to be made a party to the suit to enable the court to decide the plea of adverse possession between the two rival claimants. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/person-claiming-adverse-possession-must-first-admit-ownership-true-owner-sc/

In Soma Saha Sen -Vs- State of West Bengal & Ors., an imprisoned developer wanted to sell property to the willing buyers by executing a registered sale deed. Several prayers were made before the jail authority regarding the same but it did not yield any result. The prisoner’s wife then approached the Calcutta High Court. On hearing the matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi maintained – “Right to carry on trade and profession including right to convey property in course of such business is an essential fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and the same do not stand eclipsed by the continuing incarceration of a prisoner. Hence, I am of the opinion that incarceration of the husband of the petitioner shall not disentitle him from executing sale deeds to convey flats in favour of intending purchasers in accordance with law.” The judge further interpreted prison as being the temporary home of the inmate- “When a prisoner is incarcerated in a correc

The Supreme Court in Manti Devi vs. Kishun Sah, has held that no decree can be reversed or substantially varied in appeal or revision on account of misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties. In the instant case, the High Court had found that the plaintiffs had jointly petitioned to be the landlord and it is found that they are not “landlord” for the purposes of the suit in question, then jointly they have no causes of action. Setting aside the decree, the High Court further held that it materially affects the merit of the case and is accordingly not saved by Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/decree-cant-reversed-account-misjoinderrejoinder-sc/

The Central Information Commission, in the case of Balendra Kumar vs Ministry of Labour and Employment, held that when information is being sought by the applicant, non-traceability of the file cannot be used as an excuse to deny the information sought. The complainant had sought details regarding certain specified files; however, the same was denied to him by the CIPO, on account of the file being missing. It was the claim of the respondent authorities that the file could not be traced despite their best efforts. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/non-traceability-file-cannot-defence-deny-information-cic-read-order/

The Supreme Court, in Kinnari Mullick vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani, has held that Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, does not empower the court to relegate the parties before the Arbitral Tribunal after having set aside the arbitral award in question. A three judge bench of the apex court headed by Justice Dipak Misra held that the limited discretion available to the court under Section 34(4) can be exercised only upon a written application made in that behalf by a party to the arbitration proceedings and the court cannot exercise this limited power of deferring the proceedings before it suo motu. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/courts-cant-relegate-parties-arbitral-tribunal-set-aside-award-sc-read-judgment/

The Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, vs Equinox Solution Pvt Ltd, has held that Section 50 (2) of the Income Tax Act will not apply to a case where the entire running business with assets and liabilities is sold by the assessee in one go, as such sale cannot be considered as “short-term capital assets”. Dismissing the Revenue’s appeal against a Gujarat High Court ruling, the bench held that provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business, and not when the entire business, as a running concern, is sold by the assessee. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/sale-entire-business-running-concern-cant-considered-short-term-capital-assets-sc-read-judgment/

Supreme Court of India has observed that freedom of expression includes right to be informed and right to know and feeling of protection of expansive connectivity. A three Judge Bench of Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar and Mohan Shantanagoudar made the above observation in Sabu Mathew George Vs Union of India which is filed for the proper implementation of Pre-Natal Diagnostics Technique (PNDT) Act and ban the online sex determination advertisements flooded the internet which is  violative of Pre-Natal Diagnostics Technique (PNDT) Act. The Court had already given many directions to the search engines like google and yahoo to take effective steps to stop the online ads.

The Supreme Court, in Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited vs Datawind Innovations Private Limited, has held that when there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an arbitration agreement stating that the courts at a particular place alone would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising under the agreement, it would oust all other courts’ jurisdiction in the matter, even in a case where no part of cause of action arises at that place. In the instant case, the arbitration agreement had fixed the seat of arbitration in Mumbai, and there was a clause stating that the courts at Mumbai alone would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising under the agreement. A Section 9 petition was filed before the Delhi High Court contending that no part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, only the courts of three territories could have jurisdiction in the matter, namely, Delhi and Chennai (from and to where goods were supplied), and Amritsar (which is the registered office of

The Supreme Court, in Steel Authority of India Ltd vs Designated Authority, Directorate General Of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties & Ors, has observed that the following conditions must be satisfied before admitting an appeal under Section 130 E (b) of the Customs Act against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): 1) The question raised or arising must have a direct and/or proximate nexus to the question of determination of the applicable rate of duty or to the determination of the value of the goods for the purposes of assessment of duty. This is a sine qua non for the admission of the appeal before this Court under Section 130 E (b) of the Act. 2) The question raised must involve a substantial question of law, which has not been answered or, on which, there is a conflict of decisions necessitating a resolution. 3) If the tribunal, on consideration of the material and relevant facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible concl

In Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v. Unitech Limited, Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that foreign arbitral award can be enforced in India pertaining to put options, exit at assured return, and guarantee arrangements and the provisions of FEMA and related regulations cannot be claimed as defense by Indian parties. In this matter, an investor Cruz City (Mauritius Company) sought to enforce a foreign arbitral award against Unitech (an Indian company) and its wholly owned subsidiary Burley Holdings Ltd.. (a Mauritius company). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/no-defense-can-claimed-fema-enforcement-foreign-arbitral-awards-enforcing-put-options-delhi-hc/

In Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited Vs. Central Coalfields Limited, the Jharkhand High Court said Bank Guarantee furnished by an independent juristic entity couldnot have been invoked for realization of the outstanding dues of a separate juristic entity. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent CCL and the petitioner as well on the scope of interference in the matters of irrevocable and unconditional Bank Guarantee, do not leave any scope of doubt, so far as the principles relating to interference in invocation of Bank Guarantee are concerned. The law relating to invocation of such bank guarantees is by now well settled. When in the course of commercial dealings an unconditional bank guarantee is given or accepted, the beneficiary is entitled to realize such a bank guarantee in terms thereof irrespective of any pending disputes. The bank giving such a guarantee is bound to honour it as per its terms irrespective of any dispute raised by its custo

Supreme Court of India in M/s McDowell v. CIT Karnataka held that to ascertain the actual accumulated loses to be set off in the hands of the assesssee first adjust the income that is accruing to it on account of waiver of interest by financial institutions. The Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan was considering an appeal against the Judgment of Karnataka High Court whereby the appeal of Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) was allowed setting aside the order to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) which had granted the benefit of provisions of Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant-assessee. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/waiver-interest-treated-income-hands-assesssee-says-sc-amalgamation-matter/

IN Praneet v. State of Punjab and Ors., High Court of Punjab and Haryana writ petition has been preferred seeking to challenge findings of inquiry report and for writ in nature of certiorari to quash impugned order by which punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed by Respondent No. 1. On basis of irregularities in voter list pertaining to village Mubarak which includes delay in sending record to office of State Election Commission, amongst another charge, Petitioner was served with a Memo. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply and brought factual aspect of matter to notice of authorities. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner at instance of State Election Commission, and Commissioner, Jalandhar was appointed as an Inquiry Officer who submitted his report to Chief Secretary. Petitioner submitted that, punishment has been imposed after an inordinate delay of five years on completion of inquiry. Questions that requires to be decided

In Rajiv Bhatia v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors., High Court of Himachal Pradesh pursuant to award passed by Arbitrator in favour of Respondent/decree holder, an execution petition was filed before Court below. Petitioner primarily raised two objections; one with regard to territorial jurisdiction of Arbitrator and other with regard to amounts paid by him from time to time having not been accounted and reflected in statement of accounts by Respondent. Objections filed by Petitioner, have been dismissed and warrants of attachment of his property have been issued. Moot question in present case is whether by referring the matter for arbitration at Chennai, has Respondent violated territorial jurisdiction and conferred the same to an authority, which practically had no jurisdictional authority to adjudicate such claim. Clause 23(c) of Loan agreement provides that "venue of Arbitration proceedings shall be at Chennai. The court held that There is a difference between venue and seat a

In Prism Cement Ltd. V.  C.C.E. & S.T., Bhopal, the matter before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was Appellant is engaged in manufacture of cement. For manufacturing of cement, Appellant requires electricity which is used at various stages of production for conversion of raw material into final products for which Appellant entered into an agreement with Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company (Vidyut Company) for supply of electricity to Appellant’s manufacturing plant. Appellant also engaged Contractor for undertaking entire work of erection of dedicated Transmission line from Sitpura Sub-station to Appellant’s manufacturing factory. Appellant availed Cenvat Credit of main components of transmission line like towers or pylons made up of MS duly galvanized, aluminum conductors, insulators and was other hardware like clamp, vibration dampers, cable connectors, etc. Revenue authorities were of view that, availment of Cenvat Credit of cement, cables

In a significant judgment Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD. held that provision of limitation in the Consumer Protection Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer. The Bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and PC Pant held that in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/consumer-protection-bar-limitation-cannot-strictly-construed-disadvantage-consumer-sc/

The Gujarat High Court, in Harshad Manubhai Malavaiya vs State Of Gujarat, held that husband is not liable for a cheque issued by the wife in her personal capacity. In the instant matter, Justice JB Pardiwala examined the question whether the petitioner can be made vicariously liable under Section 138 for the cheque dishonoured which were issued by his wife in personal capacity. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/husband-not-liable-cheque-issued-wife-gujarat-hc/

In Ganesh Chandra Paul v. Maya Paul and Ors., the High Court of Calcutta held that Supreme Court in case of Sheodhari Rai & Ors. v. Suraj Prasad Singh, and a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Jugal Kishore Kundu & Ors. v. Narayan Chandra Kundu, observed that it is settled law that, a Court cannot make a new case, not made out by parties in their pleadings and, as such, in absence of any pleading or defence set up by opposite parties that, Petitioner in his application did not describe suit land correctly, Appellate Court below committed a patent error of law in dismissing Petitioner's pre-emption case under Section 8 of Act. In present case, undisputedly neither in written statement filed before trial Judge, nor in Memorandum of Appeal filed before Appellate Court below, opposite parties set up any defence to claim of Petitioner in application under Section 8 of Act that, suit land has not been correctly described. Even from order passed by trial Judge, it

In Vinod Kumar Saboo v. Sudarshan Vishwanath Malpani and Ors before the Bombay High Court, the Appellant-Original Defendant has filed Appeal and prayed to quash and set aside impugned Judgment passed by Single Judge. In facts of present case, Appellant and Respondents formed and signed a partnership deed and purchased a membership card of NSEI Limited in name of partnership firm i.e."Money Mint". During year 1998-1999, disputes and differences arose between them. On 2nd August, 2000, they signed an arrangement. Claim and counter-claim made through correspondences. On 1st August, 2004, Respondents filed Suit for recovery/claim of Rs. 40 lakhs and has taken out Summons for Judgment. On 16th August, 2005, Single Judge passed impugned order and thereby directed to deposit full amount of Rs. 40 lakhs. Being aggrieved, Appellant has filed present Appeal. Apex Court in, State Bank of Hyderabad v. Rabo Bank  has held that, in cases where Defendant has raised a triable issue or a re

The Calcutta High Court, in M/s Kesoram Industries Limited vs Allahabad Bank, has decided that state/ national consumer redressal forums have the trappings of courts and are adjudicatory bodies, and issues in a suit decided by them attract the principles of res judicata. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/res-judicata-bars-action-issues-decided-consumer-forums-calcutta-hc/

In Aakash Enterprises V. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, the  Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Appellant imported various automobile parts under cover of Bill of Entry on declared value. Such goods were cleared from Customs after paying customs duty. Subsequently, Appellants premises were put to search along with his residential premises, two shops and godown and goods imported vide above Bill of Entry was put to seizure on doubt of under valuation. Some other goods lying in the premises were also seized. Thereafter, statements of partner of importer firm were recorded along with statement of other persons. During course of investigations, Appellant took categorical stand that, goods other than one imported vide Bill of Entry dated 29th August, 2013 are locally procured goods and as such cannot be put to seizure. Transaction value declared by importer stand rejected by Commissioner on sole ground that, NIDB data for contemporaneous imports reflects higher value

In Kanchan Alok v. CPIO, National Insurance Company Limited, the Commission observed that Issues raised in RTI application related to rules/guidelines primarily relating to transfer related papers to insurer post sanction of claim in vehicle theft case which ought to be suo motu disclosed as per Section 4 of RTI Act, 2005. Though Respondent submitted that all such information has been disseminated, it is essential that vital and critical information pertaining to rules for insurance claims should be widely disseminated and displayed on the website for the benefit of all concerned. The Central Information Commission observed that, there is complete negligence and laxity in public authority in dealing with RTI applications. It is abundantly clear that, such matters are being ignored and set aside without application of mind which reflects disrespect towards Right to Information Act, 2005 itself. Commission expressed its displeasure on casual and callous approach adopted by Respondent i

A Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in M/s Aditya Biotech Vs State of Madhya Pradesh has held the fundamental right of a firm to run a business cannot be taken away without following due process of law. The State Farmer Welfare and Agriculture Department cancelled a license of the petitioner firm based in Indore for violation of provisions of Seeds (Control) Order 1983. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/right-firm-run-business-cannot-taken-away-without-following-due-process-law-mp-hc-read-order/

Quashing a criminal case lodged against a doctor, the Supreme Court in Dr. Sou Jayshree Ujwal Ingole Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. has held that an ‘error in judgment’ by a doctor does not make him guilty of criminal negligence under Section 304-A IPC. The allegation against the doctor was that after having called for a physician, she did not wait in the hospital and did not attend upon the patient (who was admitted on account of injuries suffered in a road accident), especially when the patient was suffering from haemophilia. As the physician did not turn up, the patient died. The brother of the deceased had lodged complaints against the doctors. The petition seeking to quash the complaint was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/error-judgment-doctor-not-criminal-negligence-sc-read-judgment/

The Madras High Court, in Principal of Commissioner of Income Tax vs M/s Managed Information Services Private Limited, has held that the test to determine whether or not a particular expenditure incurred by an assessee be allowed under Section 37 of Income Tax Act is to ascertain whether or not the expenditure in issue is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business i.e., incurred on account of commercial expediency of the assessee. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/legal-fee-expense-allowed-income-tax-act-incurred-commercial-expediency-madras-hc-read-judgment/

In Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, involving the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) entered into by the Government and the Adani Enterprises, where the Power Generating Company had pleaded that the rise in price of coal consequent to change in Indonesian law would be a force majeure event which would entitle the respondents to claim compensatory tariff, the the Supreme Court bench of P.C. Ghose and R.F. Nariman, JJ held that the change in the Indonesian Law was neither the fundamental basis of the contract dislodged nor was any frustrating event and that alternative modes of performance were available, albeit at a higher price. Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2017/04/11/change-in-indonesian-law-is-not-a-force-majeure-event-power-generating-companies-not-entitled-to-compensatory-tariff/

The Supreme Court (SC) of India in National Securities Depository Ltd. v. SEBI has ruled that any action taken by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) in its administrative and legislative capacity cannot be appealed at the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT). This means that one cannot approach SAT against a circular passed by Sebi since SAT has jurisdiction only over orders and directions passed by the capital markets regulator in a quasi-judicial capacity.

The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Shri. Abhay Shantilal Jain, vs The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Jamner Tal, Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon, has held that re-payment of loan amount will not have any adverse effect on a criminal prosecution. The bench of Justice SS Shinde and Justice KK Sonawane was hearing an application filed under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of an FIR registered against members of a cooperative credit society. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/mere-repayment-money-cant-ground-quashing-cheating-case-bombay-hc/

The Supreme Court, in the matter of  Shaji. J. Kodankandath vs Union of India, remained adamant on its unwillingness to entertain a Public Interest Litigation that alleged that political organizations were resorting to hartals despite several judicial pronouncements banning strikes and bandh calls. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/right-protest-valuable-right-sc-rejects-plea-declare-hartals-unconstitutional/

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that gratuity is a property within the meaning of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and as such, it is a constitutional right which cannot be taken away except by the authority of law. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/gratuity-constitutional-right-cant-taken-away-employee-chhattisgarh-hc/

The Supreme Court, in Bhagirath Agarwal vs M/s Simplex Concrete & Piles (I) Pvt. Ltd, has held that once the court permits the tenant to pay arrears of rent in installments, there is no discretion available with the court to deny interest of the same to the landlord. A bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R Banumathi set aside the order of the trial court that denied interest for the arrears of rent payable to the landlord and allowed the tenants to pay the arrears in installments. Referring to Section 17(2A) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956, the bench said whenever payment of rent, including arrears, is permitted to be paid in installments, the statute contemplates that the beneficiary shall be granted interest This is irrespective of the justification or explanation, if any, available for the non-payment, the bench added. The court also observed that though under Section 34, the said amount can be set off, in case the landlord has refused to provi