Month: July 2009

Archive for July, 2009


COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 8, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

Under Article 217(2) (b) “right to practice” is the prerequisite constitutional requirement of the eligibility criteria and not “actual practice”. There is a basic difference between “eligibility” and “suitability”. The process of judging the fitness of a person to be appointed as a High Court Judge falls in the realm of “suitability” and is governed by Article 217(1). “Eligibility” is an objective factor and falls within the scope of judicial review. However, the question as to who should be elevated, which essentially involves the aspect of “suitability” and evaluation of the worth and merit of a person, stands excluded from the purview of judicial review.

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 6, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

In view of the retraction of the statement and the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Solanki V/s. UOI 2008 (16) Scale 31, the retracted confession can be relied upon only if there is independent and cogent evidence to corroborate the confession

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: July 5, 2009 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:

The reliance on UOI v. Dharamendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 and the contention that the law on penalty had “drastically changed” and that penalty becomes “automatically leviable” whenever an addition is made in quantum proceedings which attains finality is “to state the least, absolutely absurd”. S. 271 (1) (c) can be imposed only if there is concealment of income or furnishing incorrect particulars and not for an unacceptable plea for exemption of tax-liability.