Legal Reference Library

In the opinion of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this question was no more res integra and had been settled by a large number of judicial pronouncements. The Hon’ble Court referred to the judgment rendered in the case of # K.N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592 and followed subsequently in the case of # D.F.O. v. Ram Sanehi Singh, (1973) 3 SCC 864 wherein it was observed that it was unable to hold that merely becausesource of the right which the Respondent claims was initially in a contract, for obtaining relief against any arbitrary and unlawful action on the part of a public authority, he must resort to a suit and not to a petition by way of a writ. It observed that in view of the judgment rendered in the case of K.N. Guruswamy (Supra), there can be no doubt that the petition was maintainable, even if the right to relief arose out of an alleged breach of contract, where the action challenged was of a public authority invested with statutory power. The Apex Court in AB...

Equity follows the law. Equity does not override the law. Where a law prevails, equity has no role to play. # Case Laws on Equity # 1. Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank, (2007) 2 SCC 230 When there is a conflict between law and equity, it is the law which has to prevail, in accordance with the Latin maxim ‘dura lex sed lex‘, which means ‘the law is hard, but it is the law’. Equity can only supplement the law, but it cannot supplant or override it. # 2. Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa, AIR 1963 SC 1633 What is administered in Courts is justice according to law, and considerations of fair play and equity however important they may be, must yield to clear and express provisions of the law. # 3. Council for Indian School Certificate Examination v. Isha Mittal, (2000) 7 SCC 521 Considerations of equity cannot prevail and do not permit a High Court to pass an order contrary to the law. # 4. P.M. Latha v. State of Kerala, (2003) 3 SCC 541 Equity and law a...

Supreme Court of India in M/s McDowell v. CIT Karnataka held that to ascertain the actual accumulated loses to be set off in the hands of the assesssee first adjust the income that is accruing to it on account of waiver of interest by financial institutions. The Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan was considering an appeal against the Judgment of Karnataka High Court whereby the appeal of Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) was allowed setting aside the order to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal(ITAT) which had granted the benefit of provisions of Section 72A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to the appellant-assessee. In the instant matter, M/s Hindustan Polymers Ltd. (HPL) had become a sick industrial company and was amalgamated with appellant-assesssee company i.e. M/s McDowell and Company Ltd. Since HPL was a sick industrial undertaking it owed a lot of money to banks and financial institutions. The interest was claimed as expenditure by HPL in its return and by the virtue ...

High Court of Punjab and Haryana Praneet v. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/PH/0142/2017 24.03.2017 Service Court can interfere with departmental authority’s decision, if inquiry is not conducted in a fair manner by following rules of natural justice Ratio: Inquiry has to be conducted in a fair manner by following rules of natural justice Instant writ petition has been preferred seeking to challenge findings of inquiry report and for writ in nature of certiorari to quash impugned order by which punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect has been imposed by Respondent No. 1. On basis of irregularities in voter list pertaining to village Mubarak which includes delay in sending record to office of State Election Commission, amongst another charge, Petitioner was served with a Memo. Petitioner submitted a detailed reply and brought factual aspect of matter to notice of authorities. Thereafter, a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner at instance of State ...

High Court of Himachal Pradesh Rajiv Bhatia v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors. MANU/HP/0106/2017 23.03.2017 Arbitration “Venue of Arbitration proceedings” need not essentially be a place where “seat of arbitration” is located” In facts of present case, pursuant to award passed by Arbitrator in favour of Respondent/decree holder, an execution petition was filed before Court below. Petitioner primarily raised two objections; one with regard to territorial jurisdiction of Arbitrator and other with regard to amounts paid by him from time to time having not been accounted and reflected in statement of accounts by Respondent. Objections filed by Petitioner, have been dismissed and warrants of attachment of his property have been issued. Moot question in present case is whether by referring the matter for arbitration at Chennai, has Respondent violated territorial jurisdiction and conferred the same to an authority, which practically had no jurisdictional authority to adjudicate such ...

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Prism Cement Ltd. V.  C.C.E. & S.T., Bhopal MANU/CE/0218/2017 24.03.2017 Excise Immovability of goods is not a criteria for denying credit Appellant is engaged in manufacture of cement. For manufacturing of cement, Appellant requires electricity which is used at various stages of production for conversion of raw material into final products for which Appellant entered into an agreement with Madhya Pradesh Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company (Vidyut Company) for supply of electricity to Appellant’s manufacturing plant. Appellant also engaged Contractor for undertaking entire work of erection of dedicated Transmission line from Sitpura Sub-station to Appellant’s manufacturing factory. Appellant availed Cenvat Credit of main components of transmission line like towers or pylons made up of MS duly galvanized, aluminum conductors, insulators and was other hardware like clamp, vibration dampers, cable connectors, etc. Re...

In a significant judgment Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. HINDUSTAN SAFETY GLASS WORKS LTD. held that provision of limitation in the Consumer Protection Act cannot be strictly construed to disadvantage a consumer. The Bench comprising Justices Madan B Lokur and PC Pant held that in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the supplier of services or goods.