Legal News & Views

In N. Harihara Krishnan Vs J. Thomas, the Supreme Court has pronounced a point of law that the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is person specific. It was also clarified that the general concept under Cr.P.C that cognizance was taken against the offence and not against the offender was not appropriate in prosecution under NI Act. The complainant in the case was issued a cheque, which was signed by one Harihara Krishnan. The cheque was drawn allegedly in discharge of balance sale consideration payable by M/s Norton Granites Pvt. Ltd. However, the cheque was in fact drawn on account of another private limited company, M/s Dakshin Granites Pvt.Ltd., in which also Harihara Krishnan was a director. The cheque was dishonoured for want of funds. Under the impression that the cheque was drawn on the account of Norton Granites Pvt. Ltd  presumably because consideration was allegedly due from them), the complaint was filed only arraying Harihara Krishnan as an a

A division bench of the Delhi High Court, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bikram Singh, held that assesse cannot prove the genuineness of the transaction by merely establishing of the identity of the creditors and the fact that the amounts have been transferred through cheque payments. Earlier, the ITAT finding the fact that merely because the payments were through cheques, has held that the transactions were genuine. In the instant case, the department has made additions in respect of loans/advances received from eight persons, on the ground that the Assessee was unable to establish the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the said persons and transactions. Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that the ITAT has ignored the evidence on record and did not even examine the genuineness of the transaction or the financial strength of the creditor as required in law. “Merely because the transaction was by payments through cheque, the IT

In C. Karthikeyan Vs. The Secretary to Government Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and Ors., the Madras High Court while referring to the decisions of B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, held that in the matter of contracts, the Court cannot interfere. However, if there is an element of bias, mala fide, arbitrariness or unreasonableness, the Court can exercise its discretionary power and review the same. In the light of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions cited above, in present case, there is no arbitrariness in imposition of conditions in Clauses 3(4) and 3(5) of the General Conditions or any mala fide intention on part of Respondent authorities to favour a particular person nor any element of bias or unreasonableness in the tender notification, except that imposition of such a condition is only to ensure that the scheme is implemented without any difficulty. Further, though this wr

In John Fowler (India) Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai), the Tribunal held that the AO is not entitled to make an addition to the sale consideration declared by the assessee if the difference between the valuation adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority and that declared by the assessee is less than 10% and directed the AO to adopt the valuation of sale consideration as declared by the assessee. The additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 50C is deleted and as grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

In Liladhar T Khushlani vs. Commissioner of Customs, the assessee filed a rectification application and claimed that it was maintainable as it was filed within six months from the date of service of notice of the order, which was sought to be rectified. However, the learned CESTAT dismissed the said application considering the starting point of limitation of rectification as the date of the order sought to be rectified. The Gujarat High Court had to consider the question whether for the purpose of filing the rectification application, period of limitation of six months would commence from the date of the order, which is sought to be rectified or from the date of receipt of the order sought to be reviewed /rectified by the concerned assessee? Referring to judgements in Vadilal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (197) ELT 160 (Gujarat) and Devang Kamleshbhai Mehta & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. the court held that for purposes of filing a rectification ap

In CIT vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd, The Supreme Court had to consider whether bottling of LPG, as undertaken by the assessee, is a process which amounts to ‘production’ or ‘manufacture’ for the purposes of Sections 80HH, 80-I and 80-IA of the Act?; and if so, whether the assessees are entitled to claim the benefit of deduction under the aforesaid provisions while computing their taxable income? HELD by the Supreme Court: The word ‘production’ has a wider connotation in comparison to ‘manufacture’. Any activity which brings a commercially new product into existence constitutes production. The process of bottling of LPG renders it capable of being marketed as a domestic kitchen fuel and, thereby, makes it a viable commercial product. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid activity would definitely fall within the expression ‘production’. (1) At the outset, it needs to be emphasised that the aforesaid provisions of the Act use both the expressions, namely

In Digipro Import & Export Pvt. Ltd vs. UOI, the Delhi High Court condemned the llegal practice of the Dept of collecting undated cheques from taxpayers after search/ survey without even quantifying the extent of duty evasion. The court said that attempt of the unscrupulous officers is to 'negotiate' the evaded duty by threats and coercion. It is not rule of law but anarchy unleashed by holders of public office. It is an abuse of law which has to be stopped.

In M. Usman Vs. M.P. Muhammed Ali, Kerala High Court the court found that the revision petitioner was working abroad when notice under Sec.138(b) of the NI Act was issued at his residence, but he never evaded from the receipt of notice. Both courts failed to appreciate that position and convicted the accused. Therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mattannur in S.T.C. No.1618/2003 which was modified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Thalassery in Criminal Appeal No.360 of 2005 are set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh consideration. Held: When complainant has the knowledge that the addressee left the place in search of a job outside India and knowing this fact, he sent notice and it was returned as addressee left India, there is no proper service of notice.

In Athul Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, the question before the Supreme Court of India was whether, after framing of charges and taking cognizance, it is open to the Magistrate to direct further investigation either suo motu or on an application filed by the complainant/informant? The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and others, (2017) 4 where after analysing earlier decisions on the point, it has been held that neither the Magistrate suo motu nor on an application filed by the complainant/informant can direct further investigation. Further investigation in a given case may be ordered only on the request of the investigating agency and that too, in circumstances warranting further investigation on the detection of material evidence only to secure fair investigation and trial, the life purpose of the adjudication in hand.

In Ved Prakash Vs. Krishan Kumar Gupta, a suit was filed by the Plaintiff for specific performance of agreement, declaration and also sought permanent prohibitory injunction. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and evaluating the same dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, came to be dismissed by the learned first appellate Court constraining the plaintiffs to file the instant appeal before before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the appellants that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are perverse and, therefore, require to be set aside. The Hon'ble court while dismissing the appeal said that the findings recorded by the learned Courts below regarding “readiness and willingness” of the parties to perform their part of obligation are pure findings of fact and cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercis

In Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has held that The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider, among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the

In Sharmistha Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal, the  Calcutta High Court found that the Magistrate upon receiving the prayer for extension of period of detention from the Investigating Agency had dictated the order to the ASI of Police attached to the General Registrar section and upon giving such dictation had merely affixed the word ‘allowed’ to the said order. The Hon'ble Court held that the step taken by the Magistrate in outsourcing the recording of judicial orders to officers unattached to his Court particularly to a police personnel is an issue of grave concern. It amounts to a gross breach of the constitutional mandate of separation of executive from the judiciary and strikes a fatal blow to the independent functioning of judicial institution and preservation of fairness in administration of criminal justice. Referring to the High Court Criminal (Subordinate Courts) Rules, 1985 (Calcutta) – Rule 183 – the Hon'ble High Court held that the practice of recording orders

In Securities and Exchange Board of India vs Classic Credit Ltd., the Supreme Court In a case relating to Securities and Exchange Board of India Act 1992(SEBI Act), the Supreme Court held that amendment causing change of forum of trial is procedural in nature and not substantive, and takes retrospective effect, affecting even the pending proceedings. The issue revolved around the 2002 amendment brought to Sec.26 of the SEBI Act, which dealt with the forum for trial of SEBI offences. Before the amendment, it was stated that no court inferior to that of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate of First Class should try the offences under the Act. After the amendment of 2002, it was stated that the offences should be tried by a Court of Sessions. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/amendment-changing-forum-trial-can-take-retrospective-effect-affect-pending-proceedings-sc-read-judgment/

In Jai Singh Sisodiya & Ors. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the trial court is not concerned with the proof of allegation at the stage of framing of charges. The court rejected a revision of the co-accused in a bank financial scam of Rs. 10,52,07,724. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in Bhopal had filed chargesheet against the applicants as co-accused, along with principal accused Syyad Sajid Aslam, for an offence under Sections 120-B, 109, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000, and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/proof-allegations-not-concern-trial-court-time-framing-charges-mp-hc/

Answering a matter in reference, a division bench of the High Court of Kerala has ruled that in cases arising out of violation of injunction order, the appropriate forum would be the court of the lowest hierarchy. A division bench presided by Justice V Chitambaresh and Sathish Ninan was considering a matter in reference by a single bench. The necessary facts of the case would be as thus: The plaintiff sought for an order of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit, which was declined by the trial court, but later allowed by the appellate court. Justice V Chitambaresh, who wrote the order under reference, observed that a procedural statute like CPC should not be construed in a literal sense, without understanding the scheme of the statute. The court observed that Order XXXI Rule 2A is a deeming provision, which enables the court seized of the matter to deal with issues arising out of violation of an injunction order by itself, as if passed by the trial court itself. The

In a petition heard by a Single Judge Bench comprising of C.V. Bhadang, J., the decision of the trial court to allow all amendments in the prayer except the prayer with respect to compensation/mesne profits was reversed. The suit had been filed in 1992 against the respondents for a direction to demolish illegal structures in the suit property. While the petitioners contended that future mesne profits are exclusively within the discretion of the trial court and that the court can grant mesne profits even without a specific claim in that regard, the respondents contended that the application for amendment was barred by limitation and the claim can be restricted to a period of three years prior to the amendment. The High Court held that once the substantive amendment had been granted, the trial court could not have refused to allow introduction of a prayer claiming mesne profits. It stated that “the matters about grant of future mesne profits i.e. from the date of filing of the suit t

The Chennai CESTAT in M/s. Sree Annapoorna Gowrishankar Vs. CCE, Coimbatore  held that assesses engaged in providing renting of immovable property services can avail credit of service tax paid on construction services. Appellant-Assessee was engaged in providing renting of immovable property services. The department during the course of audit, noticed that the assesse had availed credit of the service tax paid on construction services. Consequently, it demanded the irregularly availed credit along with interest and also imposed penalties. The order was upheld by the appellate authority on first appeal. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/persons-providing-renting-immovable-property-services-can-avail-credit-tax-paid-construction-services-cestat/10509/

The CESTAT, Chandigarh in Mahalaxmi Distilleries v. CCE, Rohtak, held that the data retrieved from the laptop of the Chartered Accountant (CA) cannot be a sole basis for demand against the assesse especially when an opportunity to cross examination was not granted to the assesse. In the instant case, the department raised demand from the assesse, a manufacture of packaged drinking water, on ground of not paying duty and clearing goods clandestinely. The demand was solely based on the statement given by the appellant and the data retrieved from the Laptop of the Chartered Accountant of the Assessee. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/data-retrieved-laptop-ca-cannot-used-incriminating-material-assessee-cestat/10467/

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.Banumathi, on August 4, gave the Delhi Government three months to work on a pilot project, to see that the domestic workers in Delhi are registered under the Unorganised Workers Social Security Act, 2008, by eliciting cooperation on all the duty holders.   The Government of NCT of Delhi has been directed to file an affidavit as to the progress made in the matter of registration within three months. The bench issued the order in the course of hearing the SLP filed by Shramjeevi Mahila Samiti, filed in 2012. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/sc-directs-delhi-govt-register-domestic-workers-unorganised-workers-social-security-act/

The Calcutta High Court while hearing MALATI SARDAR VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL recently expressed concern over the “dismal failure in the matter of extending effective legal aid/assistance to convicts”, and made it mandatory for Judges across the State to inform convicts of their right to file an appeal and legal aid while disposing of a case. The guidelines were issued by Justice Joymalya Bagchi in an Appeal filed by one Ms. Malati Sardar whose appeal took 6 years to reach the Court due to non-appointment of a lawyer on her behalf. It then issued the following directions: 1. Every Judge while pronouncing a judgment of conviction and sentence shall inform the convict in a language which is understandable to him, his right to prefer appeal against such judgment including his right to avail of legal aid in that regard from the appropriate legal services authority under the Act of 1987. In the event, the appellant expresses his desire to prefer appeal with legal aid, the Judge shall se

The Madhya Pradesh High Court while hearing in HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES PVT. LTD Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, has advised trial courts not to exercise its power to issue non-bailable warrant in a routine and mechanical manner and in the larger interest of justice, try to secure the presence of the accused on the next date of hearing by way of a bailable warrant at the first instance. The petitioner moved the high court for cancellation of the non-bailable warrant issued against him issued by the trial court in a case where he is co-accused. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/mp-hc-advises-trial-courts-not-issue-non-bailable-warrant-first-instance-read-order/

In Erappa v. Somaningappa, the dispute  before the Karnataka High Court related to the sell of a plot. The complainant alleged that Petitioners 1 and 2, fraudulently, by showing another plot had sold the plot in dispute to the complainant for a sum of Rs. 68,000/-. On enquiring about the plot in dispute from the Rehabilitation Office, the complainant came to know that the plot is not standing in the name of the petitioners. The complainant alleged that with the intention to cause financial loss and to cheat the complainant, they have sold the property. As such, the case was registered. The Court perused the averments and documents and found that after the incident took place, there were negotiations and interventions by the elders and well-wishers and the cancellation deed was executed in this behalf. The petitioners also repaid the amount. The matter was settled and the memorandum of settlement under Section 482 of CrPC was submitted. The High Court followed the decision of the Ap

Property Law; Ignatious Vs. Dominic [Kerala High Court, 07-07-2017] Published by Legal India on July 7, 2017 353 SHARES Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – S. 53A – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – S. 28(3) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O. XXI R. 32 & S. 151 – Registration Act, 1908 – Ss. 17(1A) & 49 – Documents of which registration is compulsory – Agreement for Sale of Immovable Property – Part Performance – In order to claim the benefit of part performance, the agreement for sale of immovable property should be registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. Held:- Merely for the reason that Ext.P1 agreement was not registered contrary to Section 17(1A) of Registration Act, it cannot be said that the trial court ceased to have jurisdiction over the subject matter and the decree passed in the suit became a nullity. An unregistered contract for sale could be enforced on the date of suit as no bar was created by Section 17(1A) of Registration Act affecting

In Rakesh Kumar Paul vs State of Assam, Supreme Court of India has held that an accused is entitled to statutory  bail (default bail) under Section 167(2)(a)(2) of Code of Criminal procedure if the police failed to file the charge-sheet within 60 days of his arrest for the offence punishable with ‘imprisonment up to 10 years. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/accused-entitled-default-bail-60-days-offences-punishable-imprisonment-10yrs-rules-sc-21-majority/

In Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs. State Transport Authority, the issue before the Orissa High Court was that the Transport Authority was refusing endorsement and termination of the hypothecation in the certificate of registration as according to the authority the company's trade license has expired. The Court held that, as the power has been vested with the registering authority by the statute prescribing the manner of endorsement and termination of the hypothecation in the certificate of registration, the registering authority has to discharge its duty, without taking into consideration any ancillary or corollary reasons, in consonance with the provisions contained under Section 51 of the Act, 1988 read with Rules, 60 and 61 of the Rules, 1989. As such, the registering authority cannot refuse endorsement of hypothecation and cancellation thereof in the certificate of registration on the grounds not permissible in law. It is apt to refer here the legal maxim “Expressio Unius est

In Kirubananthan K. Vs. PIO, EPFO, Chennai, the Central Information Commission has observes that, employment status of person can be furnished to spouse for purpose of deciding maintenance, if sought under RTI Act, because such information could be an essential component in deciding maintenance issues. If wife is a Petitioner for maintenance, she has a right to know salary details, similarly a husband can defend his interest seeking the salary details and employment status of wife.

In Bidyut Baran Halder Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors., although Petitioner was discharged from service, in a disciplinary proceeding, order of punishment was without any financial implication. The order of punishment does not impose a forfeiture of gratuity. An employee is entitled to gratuity unless it is forfeited in the manner and for the grounds provided for in Section 4(6) of the Act of 1972. The gratuity received under the Act of 1972 is immune from execution of an order of Court. Therefore, a bank cannot approach a Court for the purpose of attaching a gratuity received or receivable by an employee including its own employee for adjustment toward the loan amount. The documents executed by the employee permitting the bank to adjust the pensionary benefits will not allow the bank to obtain an order of attachment from the Court in view of Section 13 of the Act of 1972. The same set of documents, therefore, should not be read to mean that, it would permit the bank to adjust

In State of Goa Vs. Metzi Cardozo and Ors., the High Court of Bombay held that at the stage of framing charge, what is required to be seen is that, whether there is sufficient material on record in the form of evidence which is such if not rebutted would warrant conviction of accused. At stage of framing charge, evidence cannot be gone into meticulously which has been precisely done by the learned Special Judge in the impugned order. All what is required at the stage of framing charge is whether prima facie case is made out and it is not necessary to go into merits of the case. It is not necessary to give reasons while framing the charge. It is immaterial whether a case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence.

In Sanjay Khanderao Wadane Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court said that the evidence of a medical person is merely an opinion which lends corroboration to the direct evidence in the case. It has been observed in various cases of this Court that, where the eye witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. If prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cumulatively, evidence of the prosecution, including time of death, is proved beyond reasonable doubt and same points towards the guilt of the accused, then it may not be appropriate for the Court to wholly reject the case of the prosecution and to determine the time of death with reference to the stomach contents of the deceased.  This Court in a catena of cases has stated the dictum that, medical opinion is admissible in evidence like all other types of evidence and there is no hard-and-fast Rule with r

In PARAMJIT SINGH Vs IOCL, the Delhi High Court The Court was hearing a Petition filed by one Paramjit Singh against the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), which had conducted a recruitment drive for the post of Junior Operator Grade-I in February, 2011. The Petitioner did not get appointed despite the fact that he had obtained the second highest marks in the written examination. He was then informed that this was due to the fact that he had failed to make the cut-off in the interviews, since the interview was of a qualifying nature. The rules of the game cannot be changed after the game is over. The competent authority, if the statutory rules do not restrain, is fully competent to prescribe minimum qualifying marks for written examination as well as for interview, but such prescription must be done at the time of initiation of selection process. The change of criterion of selection in the midst of selection process is not permissible,” Justice V. Kameswar Rao observed.

In Narayanan v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Kadaladi Police Station, the Madras High Court  held that since the petitioner in the bail application which the Court was dealing with had suppressed the information of the dismissal of his previous applications and the respondents had not brought that crucial piece of information to the notice of the Court, the application shall be considered and the petitioner would be granted anticipatory bail. The Court also considered the fact that the respondent had not taken sufficient measures to secure the petitioner which also played a role in the decision it took. The Court thus allowed the petitioner with anticipatory bail taking into consideration the attitude of the respondent along with the facts.

In M/s Enprocon Enterprise Ltd v. M/s Apollo Fiege Integrated Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a matter concerning S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act held that when the signatures on the cheque are not disputed, there is a presumption that it was issued in discharge of a debt or other liability, unless contrary is proved. The petition was filed under S. 482 CrPC for quashing the order of Judicial Magistrate and Additional sessions Judge in a complaint filed by respondent-complainant under Sections 138 and 141 of NI Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that filing of the complaint is just to harass the petitioner. The petitioner was actually forced to issue the cheque due to unlawful conduct on the part of the respondent-complainant. Held: the question as to whether the complainant got issued the cheque from the petitioner by exercising undue influence or it relates to some previous transaction between the parties, was a matter of trial and

The Supreme Court, in Vithal Tukaram Kadam vs Vamanrao Sawalaram Bhosale, has observed that words like “repay”, “return” and “subject to this condition” in an agreement are not commensurate with a deed of absolute sale. A bench, comprising Justice L Nageswara Rao and Justice Navin Sinha, made this observation while setting aside a high court judgment and holding that the deed in question is a mortgage by conditional sale and not a sale with an option to repurchase. The Supreme Court said that question whether a document is a mortgage by conditional sale, or a sale with an option to repurchase, has to be determined in the facts of each case, dependent on the recitals in the document, intention of the parties, coupled with attendant surrounding circumstances. There can be no hard and fast rule for determining the nature of the document devoid of these circumstances. Precedents, in abundance, will not suffice alone, as observed in Pandit Chunchun Jha vs. Sheikh Ebadat Ali and Another,

Reiterating that right to housing is an essential part of right to life which is not merely an animal existence but entitlement to reasonable accommodation, the Delhi High Court in UDAL & ORS vs  DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD AND ORS  has come to the aid of 14 slum dwellers, earlier declared ineligible by the Delhi government for rehabilitation, as it held them entitled for alternate accommodation after being removed for expansion of National Highway-24.

IN Roop Narayan Sahu Vs State of M.P. & others, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that even if a newly-appointed person makes declaration truthfully of having being acquitted in a criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider his antecedents and cannot be compelled to appoint the person. The court rejected an appeal of an aspirant. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/employer-cant-compelled-appoint-person-acquitted-in-criminal-case-mp-hc-read-judgment/

The Supreme Court has asked trial courts to immediately discontinue with the practice of granting regular bail in cases that are pending in higher courts. The apex court said an accused cannot surrender before a trial court and seek regular bail when a higher court has already granted a pre-arrest bail and the matter is pending there. It said that copies of its order be sent to directors of all judicial academies in the country for bringing to the notice of all judicial officers exercising criminal jurisdiction in their respective states. Article referred: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/dont-grant-bail-if-higher-courts-gives-pre-arrest-relief-supreme-court-4794597/

In M/s. Balaji Builders Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhubaneswar, the division bench of the Orissa High Court ruled that where the appellant itself was in the business of purchasing and developing the land and also constructing houses thereon and selling the same and where within a period of about six months, it entered into an agreement with another developer for development, sale of land and constructed building thereon, the profit from sale of such property is “business income” and not “capital gain”.

In M/S OM CONSTRUCTION Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, the Madhya Pradesh High Court while referring to the Supreme Court judgment in M/s Kulja Industries Limited Vs Chief Gen. Manager, BSNL & Ors. has held that the blacklisting of a contractor cannot be done for an indefinite period. The petitioner firm had challenged the order of the engineer-in-chief of MP state public works department that rejected an appeal against its blacklisting. The firm was awarded contract for road construction, but due to certain disputes, including paucity of funds with the respondents leading to slow process of construction, the contract was terminated and the firm was blacklisted. The petitioner argued blacklisting could not be done for an indefinite period. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/contractor-cant-blacklisted-indefinite-time-mp-hc-read-order/

The Supreme Court, in J Vasanthi vs N Ramani Kanthammal, has observed that proper valuation of the suit property stands on a different footing than applicability of a particular provision of an Act under which court fee is payable and the defendantcan raise the plea of jurisdiction in the latter case. The high court, in the instant case, had upheld the trial court order wherein it held that the court fee is required to be paid on the sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/proper-valuation-of-suit-property-stands-different-footing-applicability-particular-provision-court-fee-act-sc-read-judgment/

In M.C. MEHTA VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS., the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that henceforth vehicle owners who don’t have a valid pollution certificate will not be able to renew the insurance of their vehicles. A bench led by Justice Madan B Lokur issued a direction to all insurance companies to ensure polluting vehicles stay off the roads. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/no-insurance-renewal-without-valid-pollution-certificate-sc/