Skip to main content
High courts not to go into facts
In a tenancy dispute, the issue whether the landlord genuinely requires his property for his personal use is a question of fact and it should be decided on evidence by the trial court. The high court cannot go into the evidence and take its own decision on questions of facts unless law was involved, the Supreme Court ruled last week in the case, Kalpesh Shah vs Manhar Auto Stores.
A lower court had ordered eviction of the tenant, but the Bombay High Court reversed it, analysing the facts of the case. The Supreme Court stated that the high court wrongly interfered with the finding of facts by the court below.

 Tax benefit for charitable trusts
The Supreme Court has held that a charitable institution established for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste will not be eligible for income tax exemption under Section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act. But if such an institution based on religious tenets serves other communities as well, it can avail of the benefit, the court stated in its judgment, Commissioner of IT vs Dawoodi Bohara Jamat. The Jamat in this case is a public trust registered under the MP Public Trusts Act.
It applied for registration before the commissioner to avail of the exemption. But it was denied as it was a religious trust. On appeal, the high court stated that it was eligible for the benefit. The appeal of the revenue authorities was dismissed and the Supreme Court explained that certain activities of a trust may contain the elements of both religion and charity. Jamat was based on religious tenets of Koran, but its activities are not exclusively for a particular community. So it would be eligible for tax benefit.

 Article referred: http://smartinvestor.business-standard.com/market/Econnews-235293-Econnewsdet-Tenants_stall_Sarfaesi_action.htm#.U1AxlPmSzl9

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more