costs imposed - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process

30Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Prosecution Without Confirmed Penalty is Abuse of Process

The Supreme Court quashed the prosecution under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holding that its continuation after a conclusive settlement order granting immunity from penalty was an abuse of process. The Revenue's action was in blatant disregard of its own binding circulars which mandated prosecution only after penalty confirmation by the ITAT. Facts Of The Case: A search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted at the appellant's residence on 24.04.2016, leading to the seizure of unaccounted cash. Based on this, the Revenue initiated prosecution u/s 276C(1) for the Assessment Year 2017-2018, alleging a wilful attempt to evade tax. The appellant's petition before the High Court to quash these proceedings was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed an...

Supreme Court Reins In Judicial Intervention in Arbitration After Appointment

This Supreme Court judgment holds that a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement has no legal right to be present in the arbitral proceedings as the award would not bind them, violating the confidentiality mandate under Section 42A. Furthermore, a court becomes functus officio after appointing an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and cannot entertain subsequent applications for intervention or issue ancillary directions. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an oral family settlement between Pawan Gupta (PG) and Kamal Gupta (KG), later recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding/Family Settlement Deed (MoU/FSD) dated 09.07.2019, which was not signed by KG’s son, Rahul Gupta (RG). PG initiated proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Arbitra...

Courts Can’t Settle Political Scores: Supreme Court’s Big Ruling on Govt. Advertisements

The Supreme Court ruled that naming government welfare schemes after political leaders is not prohibited by law. It clarified that the Common Cause judgments primarily regulate the use of photographs in government advertisements, not the naming of schemes themselves, thereby setting aside the interim order of the High Court. Facts Of The Case: The State of Tamil Nadu government launched a welfare initiative named the "Ungaludan Stalin" (Your's Stalin) scheme. Its stated objective was to bridge the gap between citizens and existing government programs by organizing camps and dispatching volunteers to help people understand and access their entitled benefits. An opposition Member of Parliament filed a complaint with the Election Commission of India (ECI), alleging the scheme's name and ass...