Category: Allied Laws

Archive for the ‘Allied Laws’ Category


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.

New Medical (Agartala) Pvt. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-VI, Agartala & Ors. (2015) 82 VST 238 (Tripura) (HC).

Tripura Value Added Tax Act 2004,
S.71:Appellate Tribunal – Registrar cannot refuse to accept the appeal though not maintainable – Order of Non-Maintainability to be passed by the Tribunal itself and not the registrar even if the petition was prima facie not maintainable.

Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & Ors AIR 2013 SC 58/ (2013) 4 SCC 465

Evidence Act ,1872
S.3 : Natural Justice – Right of cross examination – Is integral part of Natural justice though not provided under the statute – Affidavit of own is not evidence with in meaning of S. 3 of the Evidence Act , 1872 .

Vimaleshwar Nagappa Shet v. Noor Ahmed Sheriff & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 2057

Code of Civil Procedure , 1908
S.96: Concession made by counsel on facts – Binds his client – No appeal lies from a decree passed by the court with the consent of the parties. [Constitution of India , 1949, Art .136 ]

New Medical (Agartala) Pvt. Ltd. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Charge-VI, Agartala & Ors. (2015) 82 VST 238 (Tripura) (HC).

Tripura Value Added Tax Act 2004,
S.71:Appellate Tribunal – Registrar cannot refuse to accept the appeal though not maintainable – Order of Non-Maintainability to be passed by the Tribunal itself and not the registrar even if the petition was prima facie not maintainable.