Legal News & Views

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court has upheld election of Mr. Mohammed Sadique from a constituency reserved for Scheduled Castes in Punjab by setting aside the High Court judgment which had invalidated the same. Dismissing the Election petition which was allowed by the High Court, the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant has reiterated that a person can change his religion and faith but not the caste, to which he belongs, as caste has linkage to birth. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/person-can-change-religion-faith-not-caste-belongs-caste-linkage-birth-sc/

The Himachal Pradesh High Court in a recent judgment said that the private institutions cannot be permitted to operate like money minting institutions, the innocent people of this State cannot be allowed to be duped any further, observed the High Court of Himachal Pradesh which directed the Government to investigate all the private Educational institutions in the state and to ensure that no one is allowed to charge fee towards building fund, infrastructure fund, development fund etc. Note: This judgment has all the trappings of a landmark one provided there is a political will behind it and may become a precedent for other states. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/pvt-educational-institutions-cannot-allowed-create-business-empires-charging-exorbitant-fees-himachal-pradesh-hc/

The Supreme Court M.K. Indrajeet Sinhji Cotton Pvt Ltd. Vs. Narmada Cotto Coop. Spg. Mills Ld. & Ors has held that Registrar of Cooperative Societies has no jurisdiction to decide whether the suit is tenable for want of notice or not. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices S.A. Bobde and Amitava Roy observed that that a question whether a suit is tenable under Section 167 of the Co-operative Societies Act for want of notice under the said provision is a question within the exclusive competence of a Civil Court. A company was refused permission to continue the suit filed by it before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies on the ground that the suit is not tenable because notice of its institution required by Section 167 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Though the Single Bench of the High Court quashed the order of Registrar, the Division Bench on appeal restored that order. The company approached Apex Court. Article referred: h...

Every Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 has to follow the principles of Natural Justice in conducting their enquiry, said the Court. Kerala High Court in L.S Shibu v Air India Limited &others has held that every internal complaints committee constituted under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 has to follow the principles of natural justice in conducting their enquiry. A complaint alleging sexual harassment was leveled against the petitioner.The copy of the enquiry report was not given to the petitioner. The respondent Air India took a contention that when a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner based on the report , he could have right to challenge /defend himself in the disciplinary proceedings initiated subsequently. In other words , the respondents contended that report ...

Dilip Manhar Parekh vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) The demolition of a structure does not amount to a "transfer". It is not correct to contend that Vania Silk Mills 191 ITR 647 (SC) is overruled by Grace Collis 248 ITR 323 (SC). Lower authorities cannot refuse to apply binding High Court judgements on the basis that the High Court has not considered a Supreme Court judgement

CIT vs. Ramaniyam Homes P Ltd (Madras High Court) The High Court had to consider whether the amount representing the principal loan amount waived by the bank under the one time settlement scheme which the assessee received during the course of its business is exigible to tax. The department contended that the waiver of principal amount constituted income falling under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act being the benefit arising for the business. HELD by the High Court accepting the department’s contention.

In a recent judgment in M/s Boorugu Mahadev & Sons Vs Sirigiri Narasing Rao, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified that It is also now a settled principle of law that the concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by Rent control laws has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. Indeed, ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used. In rent control legislation, the landlord can be said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right, as distinguished from for and on behalf of someone else to evict the tenant and then to retain control, hold and use the premises for himself. What may suffice and hold good as proof of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation probably may or may not be enough to successfully sustain a claim for ownership in a title suit. (vide Sheela & Ors. vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002)