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
Ram Kotumal Issrani vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court: Statement of persons summoned should necessarily be recorded during earthly hours. ED should issue a circular/directions, as to the timings, for recording of statements, when summons under Section 50 of the PMLA (i) A person summoned under Section 50 of the PMLA, should have his statement necessarily recorded during earthly hours, as the investigating agency… Read More ...
M/S LEASE PLAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. M/S RUDRAKSH PHARMA DISTRIBUTOR (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court: Service by email and WhatsApp is sufficient (i) It is clear that the respondents have been duly served by email and WhatsApp. It may be noted that the email address and the mobile number of the respondents is mentioned in the Agreement itself. The affidavit of service affirmed by the authorised representative/legal counsel of the… Read More ...
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 ...