Legal Reference Library

In a batch of appeals from different states, the Supreme Court ruled that a manufacturing company was not entitled to refund of commercial taxes if benefits under the law are not passed on to the ultimate consumer. Otherwise, there would be unjust enrichment, the court stated while hearing the appeals, led by Commissioner of Central Excise vs Addision & Co. Manufacturers had claimed refunds on taxes paid, invoking discounts such as those on excise and turnover tax. The authorities issued notices asking the firm to show that the duty had not been passed on to buyers.

Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the revision petition filed against the order of the Addition Sessions Judge, the Court said that it is duty of the lawyer to make a balance between client’s interest and administration of justice The Petitioner had preferred an application under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code (Power to summon material witness, or examine present person) to recall a witness in a rape case on the ground that the accused was not given an opportunity to take cross examination of three witnesses. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the witnesses were already cross-examined and the power under Section 311 could not be used to harass a witness in a rape case. In the Revision Petition, the Council was asked to place on record the questions he wanted to ask the witnesses. Repeated adjournments were sought by the Petitioner, but still he did not place the document before the Court. The State Council, Mr. S.K. Yadav, submitted tha...

Tournier v. National Provincial and Union Bank of England The United Kingdom Court of Appeal in 1923 determined that the duty of confidentiality owed by a bank to its clients was not absolute. Rather, it was qualified by four caveats: disclosure compelled by law; public duty to disclose; interests of bank require disclosure; disclosure is made with express or implied consent of customer. The matter arose after the Defendant learned of Plaintiff using his income for purposes other than paying off the debt owed to it. Pursuant to enquiries by Defendant, certain information regarding Plaintiff’s account was divulged to other parties. Though the Court expressed qualifications to confidentiality, it nonetheless was unequivocal that “it is an implied term of a banker’s contract with his customer that the banker shall not disclose the account, transactions relating”. The Court ordered trial afresh, with the jury made aware of the legal duties of the bank.

Many persons are unaware of life insurance which comes free with their credit/debit cards but the banks that issue them have a responsibility to fulfil their duty towards its customers. If they fail to get the promised amount from the insurance company, the banks will be guilty of deficiency in service. The National Consumer Commission held so in its judgment last week, HDFC Bank vs Pooja Kapoor. The bank had issued a gold card to Pankaj Kapoor and wife Pooja with the benefit of insurance for Rs 5 lakh in case of accidental death. The bank's arrangement was with New India Assurance. Pankaj died in an accident, but the widow did not claim the insurance benefit for a long time, though the condition in the policy prescribed a 30-day limit. She was not aware of the benefit when the bank account was closed due to the death. The bank did not tell her either. Later, she learned about the insurance and she approached the bank. It referred the claim to the insurer, which rejected it on ...

Valuation of goods for Customs duty should be done only at the time and place of importation and it should not be based on the bill of lading but on goods arriving in India. The Supreme Court rejected the argument of the Commissioner of Customs that the quantity mentioned in the bill of lading should be the basis of payment of duty, not the quantity actually received in this country. The Customs appellate tribunal had upheld the view of the Customs authorities, but the Supreme Court said that the tribunal had "lost sight of the first principles". It stated in its judgment, in Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals vs Commissioner of Customs, that the tribunal was wrong in holding that a levy in the context of import duty can only be on imported goods, that is, on goods brought into India from a place outside of India. Till that is done, there is no charge to tax. Explaining the law further, the judgment stated that the taxable event in the case of imported goods is "impor...