Category: Allied Laws

Archive for the ‘Allied Laws’ Category


Nagappa Mallappa Bandi v. Shivraj AIR 2006 Karnataka 229 Editor Note: The principle will also apply to profession of Chartered Accountant

Advocates act , 1961
S,7 :Professional ethics party cannot conduct case himself without discharging his counsel on record.

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer Noida & Anr. v Mange Ram Sharma (D) through LRs. & Anr. and Dr. Anupama Bisaria & Ors. [I.A Nos.4-6 of 2012 In A No.10535 of 2011 dt 4-05 -2012 (SC)]

New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA)

Residential premises – Professional activities -Housing Co -operative Societies – Apex Court directs that only lawyers, doctors and architects if staying in their residential flat can conduct professional activities in that flat using 25% of Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – No other commercial activity allowed in a residential flat-Review petition was dismissed . [ Contempt of Courts Act ,1971 ]

Gaiv Dinshaw Irani & Ors. v. Tehmtan Irani & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 2326

Indian Succession Act , 1925

S.213: Statutory tenancy – Can be bequeathed by Will – Unless it is specifically barred by some provision – Powers of Appellate Court – Subsequent events – Wherever subsequent events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on the moulding of the relief occur, the court is not precluded from taking a ‘cautious cognisance’ of the subsequent changes of fact and law to mould the relief. [ S. CPC 96, Registration Act , 1908 , S. 5 ]

B.N. Magon v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation. AIR 2015(NOC) 875 (Delhi)325

Delhi Municipal Corporation Act of 1957,
S. 2(3):Professional activity carried on in residential premises by lawyer – Levy of Property Tax – Activity of such kind cannot be termed as professional establishment and premises cannot be termed as business building within purview of Bye-law 9(b) – Levy of property tax on such premises – Not proper.[ S481, 116A(f) ]

Ramdas Sattur v. Rameshchandra Shah AIR 2009 (NOC) 2058 (Bom.) (HC)

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act ,1960
S.30 :Nominee – Nominee does not become ‘owner’ of property after death of member – Not competent to enter into ‘Agreement of Sale’ of property to the exclusion of legal heirs.[ Companies Act 1956 , S. 109A ]

Ramesh Motiram Ramchandi v. UOI 2007 (216) ELT 192 (Bom)(HC)

Central Excise Act, 1944
Appellate Tribunal -Tribunal must be manned by person of proven integrity and any doubt about person’s integrity should be considered for disqualification- Vigilance clearance- Order of Admirative Tribunal is up held . [ CESTAT ]

G. L. Sultania & Anr v. SEBI & Ors AIR 2007 SC 2172

Securities and Exchange Board of India Act , 1992
S.15Z: Valuation of shares- Valuation of shares is a technical and complex problem which can be appropriately left to the consideration of experts in the field of accountancy.[ Companies Act , 1956 , S. 4(1)]

Kedarnath Agarwal (dead) & Anr.v Dhanraji Devi (dead) by lrs & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 76 Editorial : The Bombay High Court has followed the above principle in the case of Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri vs. UOI & Anr (2006) 286 ITR 428 (Bom) (HC)

Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of letting ,Rent and Eviction) Act ,1972

S.21: Subsequent event should be considered by courts-It is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between parties – Test laid down:

Anitha Rajan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer Thrissur District & Ors AIR 2010 Kerala 153

Kerala Stamp Act, 1959

S.31:Power of Attorney executed out of India – Adjudication of stamp duty- The original of power of attorney was executed at Dubai in the presence of the Vice Counsel in the Indian Consulate at Dubai and is attested by him on Indian non-judicial stamp paper of the value of Rs.150/ is held to be valid . [ S.18 , Indian Stamp Act ,1959 S.31 ]

CCE, Mumbai v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. 2015 (315) ELT 161 (SC)

Central Excise Act, 1944.
Precedent – Judicial discipline – Conflicting decisions by CESTAT Benches – Appropriate Course for the second Bench is to refer the matter to the Larger Bench- Court directed the President to constitute a larger bench of three Members to decide the issue.