Supreme Court

Here u will get all latest & landmark judgements of Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Allows Business Expense Deduction for Firm in “Lull Period” Between Contracts
2Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Business Expense Deduction for Firm in “Lull Period” Between Contracts

The Supreme Court held that a temporary lull in business activities does not amount to cessation of business. The absence of a permanent establishment or a subsisting contract is not determinative; continuous business efforts, such as correspondence and bidding, suffice to constitute "carrying on business" for claiming deductions under Sections 37 and 71 and carry-forward of depreciation under Section 32(2) of the Income Tax Act. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Pride Foramer S.A., a French non-resident company engaged in oil drilling, was awarded a 10-year contract by ONGC in 1983, which concluded in 1993. A subsequent drilling contract was awarded only in October 1998, formalized in January 1999. During the interregnum assessment years (1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-2000), the comp...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: “Vacancies Can Increase After Advertisement” – Quashes Illegal Terminations from 2008
2Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: “Vacancies Can Increase After Advertisement” – Quashes Illegal Terminations from 2008

The Supreme Court held that appointments made in excess of originally advertised vacancies are permissible under the rules if filled from a valid waiting list within a reasonable period, typically the recruitment year or the succeeding year. Terminations based solely on the "excess vacancy" ground were found unjustified when such appointments align with the recruitment rule's intent and the advertisement's stipulation that vacancy numbers were subject to change. Facts Of The Case: The case involved four appellants who were appointed to Class IV posts in the District Judgeship of Ambedkar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, in 2001 against an advertisement that notified twelve vacancies but included a rider that the number of posts could increase or decrease. In 2008, their services were te...
Read More
Supreme Court to Re-examine If Ayurveda, Homeopathy Doctors Should Retire at Same Age as MBBS Doctors
2Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court to Re-examine If Ayurveda, Homeopathy Doctors Should Retire at Same Age as MBBS Doctors

The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question of whether MBBS (allopathic) and AYUSH (indigenous system) doctors can be treated equally for service conditions like retirement age and pay. The Court noted divergent precedents on whether classification based on educational qualification and differing job functions violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a batch of Special Leave Petitions concerning the service conditions of doctors, specifically whether practitioners of allopathy (MBBS doctors) and those of indigenous systems like Ayurveda, Homeopathy, and Unani (AYUSH doctors) can be treated equally, particularly regarding retirement age. The legal dispute stems from varying retirement ages set by different states for the...
Read More
Supreme Court Protects Religious Freedom: Quashes Multiple UP Conversion FIRs
2Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Protects Religious Freedom: Quashes Multiple UP Conversion FIRs

This Supreme Court judgment quashed multiple FIRs under the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, holding that the unamended Section 4 restricted lodging of complaints only to aggrieved persons or their relatives. The Court found the subsequent FIRs were impermissible as they pertained to the same incident, violated the principle against multiplicity of proceedings, and were an abuse of process. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a batch of petitions and appeals concerning six FIRs registered under the Indian Penal Code and the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. The primary FIR (No. 224/2022) was lodged on 15.04.2022 at the instance of Himanshu Dixit, a Vice President of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, alleging mass reli...
Read More
Directly Approaching High Court Barred When Tribunal Exists, Rules Supreme Court
1Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Directly Approaching High Court Barred When Tribunal Exists, Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court upheld the principle that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT) is the designated court of first instance for service disputes, including recruitment matters. The High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked when an effective statutory alternative remedy exists, barring exceptional constitutional circumstances not present in this case. Facts Of The Case: The State of Karnataka issued a recruitment notification in March 2022 for 15,000 Graduate Primary Teacher posts. Following examinations, a provisional select list was published in November 2022. This list excluded certain married women candidates who had applied under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category because they submitted caste and income certificates in their fathers' n...
Read More
Supreme Court Reins in High Court’s Suo Motu CBI Inquiry in Recruitment Case
1Jan By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reins in High Court’s Suo Motu CBI Inquiry in Recruitment Case

This Supreme Court ruling clarified that High Courts cannot direct a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe merely on "doubt" or "assumption." Such an extraordinary power under Article 226 must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where material prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, ensuring investigative credibility and protecting fundamental rights. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from writ petitions filed before the Allahabad High Court challenging the 2020 recruitment process for Class-III posts in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council and Assembly Secretariats. The petitioners, unsuccessful candidates, alleged the selection was arbitrary, unfair, and involved favoritism by the private external agency conducting the exams. They soug...
Read More
Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: An Agreement to Sell Does Not Transfer Ownership Under Muslim Law

The Supreme Court affirmed that an agreement to sell does not transfer title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. Property remains part of the deceased's matruka (estate) until a registered sale deed is executed. Inheritance under Muslim law applies to the entire estate, with the widow entitled to a one-fourth share as a sharer, absent descendants. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a dispute over the inheritance of Chand Khan's property between his widow, Zoharbee (appellant), and his brother, Imam Khan (respondent). Chand Khan died issueless, leaving behind two plots of land. Zoharbee claimed the entire property as matruka (estate) and, under Muslim law, sought a three-fourths share as the surviving spouse. Imam Khan contended that one plot had been transferred v...
Read More
Supreme Court: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: No Absorption for Waitlisted Candidate After Recruitment Process Ends

The Supreme Court held that a candidate in the reserved panel (waitlist) has no vested right to appointment once the selected candidates join their posts. A legal concession made before a tribunal cannot bind the authorities if it contravenes statutory recruitment rules or extends the life of a waitlist indefinitely. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 1997 recruitment drive by All India Radio, Eastern Zone, for three Technician posts reserved for Scheduled Castes. The respondent, Subit Kumar Das, was placed at Serial No. 1 in the Reserved Panel (waitlist). All three selected candidates joined their posts, so the waitlist was not operated. In 1999, during litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the appellants (Union of India) gave a statement that the r...
Read More
Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Will, Mutation & Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Allows Title Suit to Proceed to Trial

The Supreme Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC on grounds of limitation when seeking possession based on title, as the limitation period is 12 years under Article 65. The determination of adverse possession is a mixed question of law and fact requiring trial, not a threshold dismissal. Facts Of The Case: The plaintiffs, claiming to be natural heirs of Kartar Kaur through the sisters of the original landowner Ronak Singh, filed a suit for declaration of ownership, possession, and injunction. Their claim stemmed from a 1975 decree that set aside a prior gift made by Kartar Kaur and declared her the owner. Following Kartar Kaur's death in 1983, the defendants set up a 1976 will in their favour, initiating prolonged mutation proceedings wh...
Read More
Supreme Court Boosts Accident Compensation: Key Takeaways on Salary & Tax Calculation
31Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Boosts Accident Compensation: Key Takeaways on Salary & Tax Calculation

The Supreme Court clarified that for computing compensation in motor accident claims, the deceased's income includes all allowances, regardless of taxability. Future prospects for a permanent employee below 40 are to be added at 50%. Income tax deduction, if applicable, must be calculated as per the actual tax slab rates for the relevant year. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a motor accident claim filed by the dependents of a 27-year-old engineer employed with the Power Grid Corporation of India, who died in an accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of approximately ₹88.20 lakhs. This computation included his full monthly salary of ₹53,367 (comprising basic pay, DA, and other allowances), applied a multiplier of 18, added 50% for future prospe...
Read More