Legal Reference Library

1) Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore & Another 2) A. Trehan vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and Another 3) Regional Director, ESI Corporation vs. Francis De Costa 4) P. Asokan vs. Western Indian Plywoods Ltd., Cannanore 5) Bharagath Engineering vs. R. Ranganayaki and Another 6) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hamida Khatoon and Others IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8155 OF 2014 Dhropadabai and Others Appellant(s) Versus M/s. Technocraft Toolings Respondent(s) The labour Court framed two principalcssues, namely, whether the accident had occurred during course of employment of the deceased-employee, and whether the legal heirs were entitled for grant of compensation amounting to Rs.3 lacs along with 50% penalty and interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the total amount of compensation from the date of accident till realization of compensation amount as per law. once an emp...

1) Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited v. Rajvir Industries Limited and others 2) Rallis India Limited v. Poduru Vidya Bhushan and others 3) Pulsive Technologies P. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat 4) Modi Cements Ltd. vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5295 OF 2014) HMT Watches Ltd. ... Appellant Versus M.A. Abida & Anr. … Respondents A high court cannot go into the factual aspects of a dispute over stop-payment of cheques and they should be tested during the trial, the Supreme Court stated in the judgment, HMT Watches Ltd vs M A Abida. The latter was a re-distribution stockist of the firm and she issued 57 cheques which bounced. The company filed complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act. She argued that the cheques were given as security and therefore there was no liability, the main ingredient in Section 138 of the Act. Moreover, the cheques...

1) UPC-600 (Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits, Sixth Edition) published by International Chambers of Commerce 2) Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC 557, Popat Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510 3) Sopan Sukhdeo Sable v. Asst. Charity Commissioner, (2004) 3 SCC 137 4) R.D. Harbottle (Mercantile) Ltd. v. National Westminster Bank, (1977) 3 WLR 752 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3103 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9689 of 2014) M/S. MILLENIUM WIRES (P) LTD. ...APPELLANT  :versus: THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS “Banks must be allowed to honour their guarantees without interference except in clear cases of notice of fraud to the bank. The merchants take risk which are not to be imposed on the banks. Such interference will deter trust in international commerce.” (1) The Court must be slow in granting an order...

1. Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and Anr. v. Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel and others[(2012) 10 SCC 517] [Para 4] 2. Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy and others v. V. Narayana Reddy and others[(1976) 3 SCC 252] [Para 18] 3. Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa[(2013) 10 SCC 705] [Para 19] 4. Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi[(2007) 12 SCC 496] [Para 20] 5. CREF Finance Ltd. v. Shree Shanthi Homes (P) Ltd.[(2005) 7 SCC 467] [Para 21] 6. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.[(2014) 2 SCC 1] [Para 23]  2015 STPL(Web) 243 SC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER Appellants VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS Respondents Criminal Appeal No.781 of 2012-Decided on 19-3-2015.  23. ...............Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.[(2014) 2 SCC 1] in this regard. The larger Bench had posed the following two questions:- "(i) Whether the immediate non-registration of FIR leads to scope for manipulation by the police whi...

Cited: 1) CIT Vs. Graphite India Ltd. reported in (1996) 221 ITR 420 (Cal). 2) Hindusthan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 159 ITR 673, Calcutta HC 3) Asiatic Oxygen Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 190 ITR 328 (Cal) 4) CIT Madras Vs. Gajapathy Naidu reported in (1964) 53 ITR 114 (SC) 5) CIT Madhya Pradesh Nagpur and Bhandara Vs. Swadeshi Cotton and Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. reported in (1964) 53 ITR 135 (SC) 6) Delhi Tourism and T.D.C Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2006) 285 ITR (Delhi) 7) CIT Vs. Indian Mica Supply Co. P. Ltd. reported in (1970) 77 ITR 20 (SC) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction ( Income Tax) Original Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Girish Chandra Gupta  & The Hon’ble Justice Arindam Sinha Income Tax Appeal no. 265 of 2009 M/s Binani Cement Ltd., Kolkata Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata Central-I & Anr.  The following question of law was framed when the appeal was admitted. “Whet...

While deciding on the issue of rejection of claim on the ground of inordinate delay and laches in an industrial dispute, the bench of Sanjay Karol, J. held that delay in raising the dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication is not erroneous and it also does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer. The Court relying on Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, (2014) 10 SCC 301, stated that the workman is entitled for reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits from the date of raising the industrial dispute. Giving reasons, the Court observed that it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. It further stated that the Labour Court is statutorily duty bound to answer the points of dispute referred to it by deciding the same on merits of the case, an...

Supreme Court of United Kingdom: The appeal before the Court relates to accessory liability (joint liability) in tort. The Court discussed in detail the test of liability and stated that the defendant will be jointly liable for the tortious acts of the principal if defendant (i) assists or furthers in the commission of the tort, (ii) acts in pursuance of a common design and (iii) such assistance must be substantial rather than minimal. The Court allowed the appeal with 3:2 majority and by a leading judgment Lord Toulson held that the conduct element of accessory liability was not established in the instant case. As per the facts, respondent operates a fish farm in Malta and was transporting tuna in fish cages when its vessel was attacked by a ship, named the “Steve Irwin”. One of the fish cages was rammed and divers from the “Steve Irwin” forced it open and released the fish. This incident was carried out by the Sea Shepherd Conversation Society (“SSCS”) as part of a campaign, calle...

2015 STPL(Web) 216 SC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (ANIL R. DAVE AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.) VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY Appellants VERSUS GUJARAT COOPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED AND OTHERS Respondents The Supreme Court today laid down a slew of guidelines on removal of an office bearer in a cooperative society including that a motion of no confidence against a person "shall" be moved only after two years of his assuming the office. The guidelines were issued in a verdict by which the apex court dismissed an appeal of Vipulbhai M Chaudhary, former chairman of the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation that markets its products under the Amul brand, against his ouster from the office following the passage of no confidence motion in the society. The bench comprising Justices A R Dave and Kurian Joseph upheld the decision of the Gujarat High Court and issued guidelines to regulate removal of elected members from cooperative societies as the states h...

1) Lucknow Development Authority vs. M. K. Gupta [1994 (1) SCC 243] 2) Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa [2004 (8) SCC 733 3) New Horizons Ltd vs. Union of India [1995 (1) SCC 478) Faqir Chand Gulati vs Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2008 A joint venture is frequently defined as an association of two or more persons formed to carry out a single business enterprise for profit. More specifically, it is in association of persons with intent, by way of contract, express or implied, to engage in and carry out a single business venture for joint profit, for which purpose such persons combine their property, money, effects, skill, and knowledge, without creating a partnership, a corporation or other business entity, pursuant to an agreement that there shall be a community of interest among the parties as to the purpose of the undertaking, and that each joint venturer must stand in the relation of principal, as well as agent, as to ...

 It was held that AO is not precluded from taxing the right person merely on the ground that a wrong person is taxable 1) C.H. Acthaiya 218 ITR 239 (SC) 2) Murugesa Naicker Mansion 244 ITR 461 (SC) ................................................................................................................................. Even if contract is awarded to the Joint Venture, the income is assessable only in the hands of the person which has executed the work CIT vs. M/s SMSL-UANRCL (JV) (Bombay High Court) The High Court had to consider whether the entire income earned by the joint venture company is liable to be taxed in the hand of one of the members of the assessee company without appreciating the fact that the contract was awarded to the assessee company and not to the individual member of the assessee company. It also had to consider the impact of C.H. Acthaiya 218 ITR 239 (SC) and Murugesa Naicker Mansion 244 ITR 461 (SC) wherein it was held that AO is not preclude...

1.  CIT v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers' Assn., (1980) 121 ITR - Supreme Court - defined of "charitable purpose" & "activity for profit" 2. Dharmadeepti v. CIT [(1978) 3 SCC 499 : 1978 SCC (Tax) 193 3. Privy Council in the Tribune case [AIR 1939 PC 208 : In Re the Trustees of the Tribune, (1939) 7 ITR 415 4. Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust case [(1976) 1 SCC 254 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 14 : (1975) 101 ITR 234] 5. Indian Chamber of Commerce case [(1976) 1 SCC 324 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 41 : (1975) 101 ITR 796] 6. Aditanar Educational Institution v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (1997) 224 ITR 310 7. American Hotel & Lodging Assn. Educational Institute v. CBDT, (2008) 301 ITR 86 8. Oxford University Press [(2001) 3 SCC 359 : (2001) 247 ITR 658] 9.  Municipal Corpn. of Delhi v. Children Book Trust and Safdarjung Enclave Educational Society, (1992) 3 SCC 390 10. S.RM.M.CT.M. Tiruppani Trust v. Commissioner of...

2014 STPL(Web) 532 SC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) SINGH RAM (D) THR. L.RS. Appellants VERSUS SHEO RAM & ORS. Respondents Civil Appeal No.5198 of 2008 with Civil Appeal No. 7941 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 26861 of 2008, Civil Appeal No. 1113 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7942 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 2097 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7943 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 6355 of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 5562 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 22604 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7947 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 23963 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 8551 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7948 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 25422 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 7951 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 34380 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 7953 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 1274 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 7954 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 1275 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 7955 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 19048 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 7956-58 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 772-...