These judgements are uploaded by our esteemed readers. If you have a judgement on an important topic that you would like to share with others, please use this form to upload it
Cardinal Energy and Infra Structure Private Ltd. v. Subramanya Construction and Development Co. Ltd. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: The issue before the Bombay High Court was whether an Arbitral Tribunal can implead parties who were non-signatories to the Arbitration Agreement, without such a power being expressly endowed upon it by the Referral Court at the time of reference of the disputes to arbitration. After noting the judgements of the Delhi High Court in… Read More ...
PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VERSUS UCO BANK (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Exceptions when a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be entertained in spite of availability of an alternative remedy (1) The Supreme Court has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It… Read More ...
Pankaj Kailash Agarwal v. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Requiring an assessee to pay more tax by denying deduction under Section 80-IC of the Act would be a case of ‘genuine hardship’ for the purpose of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The power to condone the delay has been conferred to enable the authorities to do substantial justice and the authorities are expected to… Read More ...
PATHAPATI SUBBA REDDY (DIED) BY L.Rs. VERSUS THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LA) (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Condonation of delay On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the limitation law and the law laid down by the Supreme Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself;… Read More ...
ANNAPURNA B. UPPIN VERSUS MALSIDDAPPA (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: (i) Once there was a registered partnership deed, there is no further document placed on record by the complainant-respondent No.1 regarding dissolution of the said registered deed which continued till the time when the investment was made by the complainant respondent No.1 on 21.05.2002 and hence the complainant respondent No.1 would be deemed to be… Read More ...
MUNJAL BCU CENTRE OF INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP V/s. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS, CHANDIGARH (P&H High Court)
P&H High Court: (i) The submission of the Department that communication of the notice electronically would also include communication of notice by placing it on e-portal and that as the assessee had submitted his form himself on the said e-portal, a presumption can be drawn that he was having knowledge of the notice/reminders which were placed on the… Read More ...
PCIT v. Ojjus Medicare Pvt. Ltd & Ors (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court : S. 153C : Assessment - Income of any other person - Search – Block period - The period of the “relevant assessment year” is to be calculated, to the date of receipt of the books of accounts, documents or assets seized by the jurisdictional AO of the non-searched person- Block periods would have to be… Read More ...
UNION OF INDIA VERSUS JAHANGIR BYRAMJI JEEJEEBHOY (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: (i) It hardly matters whether a litigant is a private party or a State or Union of India when it comes to condoning the gross delay of more than 12 years. If the litigant chooses to approach the court long after the lapse of the time prescribed under the relevant provisions of the law, then… Read More ...
PURNI DEVI vs. BABU RAM (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: S. 14(2) of the Limitation Act: Time spent bonafidely and diligently and in good faith before the wrong forum is bound to be excluded when computing limitation before the Court having competent jurisdiction Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act carves out an exception excluding the period of limitation when the proceedings are being pursued with… Read More ...
Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited VERSUS Zee Entertainment Enterprises Limited (Supreme Court)
Supreme Court: Tests to be satisfied before grant of interim injunctions/ stay orders (i) The three-fold test of establishing (i) a prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss or harm, for the grant of interim relief, is well-established in the jurisprudence of this Court. This test is equally applicable to the grant of… Read More ...