Tag: Statutory Interpretation

Supreme Court Rules: High Court Cannot Grant Anticipatory Bail if FIR Discloses SC/ST Act Offence
6Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: High Court Cannot Grant Anticipatory Bail if FIR Discloses SC/ST Act Offence

The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the SC/ST Act creates a statutory bar against granting anticipatory bail when a prima facie case under the Act is made out from the FIR. The court's role at this stage is limited to verifying the FIR's averments and cannot extend to a mini-trial or appreciation of evidence. The High Court erred in disregarding this bar. Facts Of The Case: The complainant, belonging to the "Mang" Scheduled Caste community, lodged an FIR alleging that on 25.11.2024, the accused, Rajkumar Jain and others, confronted him outside his home. The accused were angered because the complainant had not voted for their candidate in the recent assembly elections. They verbally abused the complainant using the casteist slur "Mangtyano," beat him with an iron rod, and threatened...
Read More
Supreme Court Relief for Companies: Tax Exemption for Vehicles Confined to Plant Premises
1Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Relief for Companies: Tax Exemption for Vehicles Confined to Plant Premises

The Supreme Court ruled that motor vehicle tax under the Andhra Pradesh Act is leviable only if a vehicle is used or kept for use in a "public place." It held that restricted industrial premises, inaccessible to the public, do not constitute a public place. Consequently, vehicles operating exclusively within such enclosed areas are not liable for the tax, and a rule creating a presumption of 'use' must be read in harmony with this charging section. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Tarachand Logistic Solutions Limited, was awarded a contract to operate within the enclosed central dispatch yard of the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant (RINL). Pursuant to this, it deployed 36 registered motor vehicles which, from April 1, 2021, were confined solely to operating inside this restricted premises,...
Read More
Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders
30Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Who Gets Paid First? Supreme Court Reopens Case on Priority Between Employee Provident Fund and Secured Lenders

The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court to determine the priority of charges between the EPFO, under Section 11(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952, and secured creditors, including Axis Bank, under Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The core legal issue for fresh adjudication is the conflict between the statutory first charge of EPFO dues and the primacy claimed by secured creditors. Facts Of The Case: M/s Acropetal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. defaulted on its Employees' Provident Fund (EPF) dues from July 2013. The EPFO determined a liability and, upon learning the company's properties were to be auctioned by various banks, invoked its priority under the EPF Act. The EPFO specifically asserted a first charge over the 'Attibele property' being auctioned by Axis B...
Read More
Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ensures Consumer Rights Are Enforced : No More Paper Decrees

This judgment addresses an anomaly in Section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended in 2002, which inadvertently limited enforcement to "interim orders" only. The Supreme Court applied purposive interpretation to read "any order" in place of "interim order," thereby allowing enforcement of final orders as decrees under CPC Order XXI for the period 2003–2020. It also clarified that appeals against execution orders lie only to the State Commission, with no further appeal. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Palm Groves Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., comprising flat purchasers, filed a consumer complaint against the respondent builder, M/s Magar Girme and Gaikwad Associates, alleging deficient services and seeking execution of a conveyance deed for the common areas. The Distr...
Read More
Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Backs Landowners: Slum Authority Can’t Acquire Land Without Notice

The Supreme Court affirmed the landowner's preferential right to redevelop a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. It held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must issue a specific notice inviting the owner to submit a redevelopment scheme before any acquisition under Section 14 can be initiated. The 2018 Amendment to the Act did not dilute this mandatory requirement, and acquisition proceedings commenced without such notice were declared illegal. Facts Of The Case: The case concerns a plot of land in Bandra, Mumbai, owned by the Basilica of Our Lady of the Mount (Church Trust). A portion of this land had been encroached by hutments since the 1930s and was declared a slum area in 1978. The slum dwellers formed the Shri Kadeshwari Cooperative Housing Soci...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property
26Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies Slum Laws: Landlords Get First Right to Redevelop Their Property

This Supreme Court judgement affirms that landowners possess a preferential right to redevelop their property declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area under the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971. The Court held that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority must formally invite the landowner to submit a rehabilitation scheme. The power of the State to acquire the land under Section 14 of the Act is subject to this preferential right and cannot be exercised before this right is legally extinguished. Facts Of The Case: The case concerned a land dispute in Mumbai, where Indian Cork Mills Private Limited (ICM) was the owner of a plot that had been encroached upon by slum dwellers. A portion of the land was declared a slum area in 1979, and later, in 2011, the entire plot was declared a Slum Reh...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules :Landowners Can’t Get Uniform Compensation for Power Lines
20Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules :Landowners Can’t Get Uniform Compensation for Power Lines

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment for failing to properly assess compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It emphasized that compensation must be determined based on location-specific evidence and remanded the cases. The Court also highlighted the absence of a statutory appeal mechanism against orders of the District Judge and referred the issue to the Law Commission for examination. Facts Of The Case: A power transmission project titled "400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System-PPP-1" was initiated by HVPNL in Haryana. Jhajjar KT Transco Private Limited (JKTPL) was awarded the project, which sub-contracted the erection work to Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. The 100 km-long transmission line passed through land in four districts, including Sonepat and Jha...
Read More
Supreme Court Ruling: Port Tariffs Must Be Set By Experts, Not Arbitrators
14Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Ruling: Port Tariffs Must Be Set By Experts, Not Arbitrators

The Supreme Court held that tariff fixation for port facilities is a technical and expert-driven function, best adjudicated by specialized bodies like TAMP. It emphasized that contractual agreements cannot override statutory tariff-setting mechanisms under the Major Port Authorities Act, 2021. The Court remanded the matter to TAMP for fresh determination, underscoring the need for expert appraisal of tariff revisions and compliance with natural justice. Facts Of The Case: A bilateral agreement was executed in 1985 between Paradip Port Trust (now Authority) and Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. (PPL), then a public sector unit, for the exclusive use of a captive fertilizer berth. The agreement stipulated a tariff schedule, with a clause for future mutual enhancement. In 1993, the Port unilaterally...
Read More
Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153
11Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Income Tax Ruling: Supreme Court Divided on Limitation Period Under Sections 144C & 153

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the interplay between Sections 144C and 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The key legal question was whether the detailed procedure and timelines under Section 144C for eligible assessees operate within or in addition to the limitation period prescribed under Sections 153 for passing assessment orders. The divergence of opinion led to the matter being referred to a larger bench for final determination. Facts Of The Case: The case involved several foreign companies, including Shelf Drilling Ron Tappmeyer Ltd., engaged in oil exploration in India. For Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2018-19, the companies filed returns declaring losses. Their cases were selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officers passed draft assessment orders ...
Read More
Supreme Court Rules: Private Schools Can Sue in Civil Court to Recover Unpaid Fees
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Private Schools Can Sue in Civil Court to Recover Unpaid Fees

The Supreme Court held that the civil courts retain jurisdiction to adjudicate fee recovery suits filed by unaided private schools, as there is no express or implied ouster of jurisdiction under the Haryana School Education Act and Rules. The statutory remedy before the Fee and Fund Regulatory Committee is available only to parents/students to challenge excessive fees, not to schools for recovery. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Apeejay School, an unaided private institution, filed suits for recovery of fees against students and their parents. The dispute arose from a fee hike implemented by the school for the academic year 2009-10, which the respondents refused to pay, continuing instead to remit only the pre-hike amount. The school's suits were initially decreed by the trial court. W...
Read More