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

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...