Judgements Uploaded By Users In Category: Other Laws
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
The Mumbai Tribunal has held that Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 S. 132 : Professional communications-Advocate-Client Privilege-Summoning of Advocates-Investigating Officer cannot directly summon a lawyer appearing for a party to elicit facts of the case-Privileged communication protected under S. 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023-Summons valid only if it falls within statutory exceptions and approved by a superior officer-No need for… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 S. 92 : Limitation–Co-Operative Housing Society- Recovery of maintenance charges – Continuous cause of action – Claim not time-barred - Section 92 is a special provision of limitation which overrides the Limitation Act - Orders of the Co-operative Court and Appellate Court were set aside and the dispute was allowed--… Read More ...
The Delhi Tribunal has held that Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) Act, 2015 . S. 10(3) :Assessment – Charge of tax Undisclosed foreign asset – Asset ceased before 1.7.2015 – Not taxable-Penalty – Non-disclosure of asset – Ceased before AY 2012–13-Penalty not leviable-Doctrine of election/approbate and reprobate-Once proceedings under the IT Act are consciously chosen, the Revenue cannot subsequently… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that Tax cannot be imposed by inference or by trying to probe into the intention of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter (i) The assessments undertaken for the three years were already held to be invalid because of being time barred, in view of Section 19 of the Assam General… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that S. 255 : Income tax Appellate Tribunal–Additional premises for the functioning of Court Rooms–Interim order of the High Court dated 28th June, 2000 allotting the premises to ITAT for the functioning of additional five court rooms is affirmed [S. 254, Art. 226] The ITAT Bar Association Mumbai has filed a PIL before the Bombay High… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that Sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. Payment of price is essential, even if it is payable in the future. A sale deed executed without the payment of price is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is void. “54. “Sale” defined.—“Sale” is a transfer of ownership… Read More ...
The Delhi High Court has held that Restrictive covenants in employment contracts which operate after cessation of employment are unenforceable (i) It is now well settled that post-service restrictive covenants in employment contracts, which operate after cessation of employment, are unenforceable under Indian law. (ii) The doctrine of restraint of trade, as embodied under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,… Read More ...
The SUPREME COURT has held that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. S. 7: Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process-Limitation-Acknowledgement of debt-Balance sheet entries-Validity of acknowledgment under S. 18 of the Limitation Act even where name of creditor is not specifically mentioned-Liberal interpretation-Prior financial statements and cash flow disclosures may be relied on- Substantive jural relationship and continuing liability inferred- COVID-19 extension-Applicability… Read More ...
The SUPREME COURT has held that Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (BNSS) S. 35 : When police may arrest without warrant-Notice by Investigating Agency-Inquiry-Electronic communication-Liberty of individual involved-Cannot be served via WhatsApp or electronic communication-Standing order must follow CrPC/BNSS modes only -Application to modify earlier order rejected-State must ensure personal service-Application dismissed. [S. 2(i), 2(k), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6),39, 63, 64(2),… Read More ...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 S. 9 : Eviction of tenants-Partnership firm-Tenancy created in individual capacity-Non-joinder of firm or other partners immaterial-Landlord’s bona fide need proved-Tenant cannot dictate choice of premises-Writ not maintainable-Petition dismissed. [S. 2(i),21, Succession Act, 1956, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Order 14 Rule 5, 30 CPC, Ss. 2(i), 21, Art. 226]… Read More ...