Tag: Supreme Court Judgment

Supreme Court Rules Customs Duty Drawback Circular Has Retrospective Effect
7Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules Customs Duty Drawback Circular Has Retrospective Effect

The Supreme Court held that Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. dated 17.09.2010, which clarified the entitlement of merchant exporters to claim 1% All Industry Rate (AIR) customs duty drawback irrespective of availing CENVAT benefits, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Circular must be applied retrospectively, ensuring uniform benefits from 2008 onwards. The judgment emphasized that clarificatory circulars, which resolve ambiguities in existing notifications without creating new rights, operate retrospectively to align with the legislative intent. The High Court's order denying retrospective application was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., a merchant exporter of Soyabean Meal (SBM), claimed All Industr...
Read More
Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case
7Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case

The Supreme Court clarified that for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints need not reproduce statutory language verbatim. Substantive allegations demonstrating a director's responsibility for company affairs suffice. The Court emphasized substance over form, ruling that technical pleading deficiencies don't invalidate proceedings if the complaint, read holistically, establishes the director's operational role. The judgment reinstated criminal proceedings against the director, overturning the High Court's quashing order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a complaint filed by HDFC Bank against M/s R Square Shri Sai Baba Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, including Mrs. Ranjana Sharma (Respondent No. 2), for dishonor of a cheque worth ₹6...
Read More
Breaking Down the Supreme Court Judgment on DTH Services & Tax Dispute
7Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Breaking Down the Supreme Court Judgment on DTH Services & Tax Dispute

The Supreme Court ruled that states have the legislative competence to levy entertainment tax on DTH services under Entry 62, List II (State List) of the Constitution, as the tax is on the "entertainment" aspect, not the broadcasting service. The Court upheld the "aspect doctrine", allowing simultaneous taxation by states (on entertainment) and the Centre (on broadcasting services under Entry 97, List I), provided the levies target distinct aspects of the same transaction. It rejected arguments of legislative overlap, emphasizing the pith and substance of state laws as valid exercises of taxing power. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple civil appeals and writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of state laws imposing entertainment tax on Direct-to-Home (DTH) broad...
Read More
Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh to Follow Central Rules for Forest Officers Performance Reports
4Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Directs Madhya Pradesh to Follow Central Rules for Forest Officers Performance Reports

The Supreme Court quashed the Madhya Pradesh Government Order (G.O.) dated 29th June 2024, which allowed IAS officers to evaluate Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers' Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR). Reaffirming its 2000 ruling, the Court held that IFS officers up to the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator must be assessed by their departmental superiors, not IAS officers, to maintain service hierarchy and accountability under the All-India Services (Confidential Rolls) Rules, 1970. The State was directed to amend its rules within one month to comply with this mandate. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a challenge to the Madhya Pradesh Government Order (G.O.) dated 29th June 2024, which mandated that Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers – specifically Distric...
Read More
Big Win for Judges: Supreme Court Reduces Experience Needed for Higher Judicial Posts
4Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Big Win for Judges: Supreme Court Reduces Experience Needed for Higher Judicial Posts

The Supreme Court modified judicial service rules, increasing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota for District Judge promotions from 10% to 25%. It reduced the required experience for LDCE eligibility to 3 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and mandated 10% accelerated promotions for Civil Judges (Junior Division). The Court also reinstated a 3-year minimum Bar practice requirement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) aspirants, counting from provisional enrollment. Vacancies under LDCE will be filled via regular promotion if unfilled. States must amend rules within three months to comply. The judgment aims to incentivize merit while ensuring judicial efficiency. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a series of interlocutory applications (IAs) filed in t...
Read More
Tender Scam Verdict: Supreme Court Explains Difference Between Forgery & Corruption in Govt Tenders
3Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Tender Scam Verdict: Supreme Court Explains Difference Between Forgery & Corruption in Govt Tenders

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, upholding charges under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust) and 468 IPC (forgery for cheating) against the appellant, a PWD engineer, for allegedly manipulating tender documents. However, it quashed charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, holding no evidence of 'criminal misconduct' or pecuniary advantage. The Court clarified that discharge pleas require examining only prima facie evidence in the chargesheet, without assessing credibility at this stage. The ruling reaffirms the distinction between procedural irregularities and corrupt intent under anti-corruption laws Facts Of The Case: The case involved K.H. Kamaladini, an Executive Engineer in Goa's Public Works Department, accused of manipulating 19 short tender notices for 847...
Read More
No Double Benefits: Supreme Court Clarifies Double Deduction Rules Under Income Tax Act
3Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Double Benefits: Supreme Court Clarifies Double Deduction Rules Under Income Tax Act

The Supreme Court ruled that Section 80-IA(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, bars double deductions on the same profits under both Sections 80-IA and 80-HHC. It held that while deductions can be computed separately under different provisions, the total deduction cannot exceed the eligible profits of the business. The Court upheld the Bombay High Court’s interpretation, clarifying that Section 80-IA(9) restricts the allowability—not computation—of deductions, ensuring taxpayers do not claim overlapping benefits under Chapter VI-A. Facts Of The Case: The case involved Shital Fibers Limited, which filed its income tax return for the Assessment Year 2002-03, declaring a taxable income of ₹46,99,293 and claiming deductions under Sections 80-HHC (export profits) and 80-IA (industrial undertaking...
Read More
Govt Employee Loses Promotion Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Downgraded Designation After 40 Years
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Govt Employee Loses Promotion Battle: Supreme Court Upholds Downgraded Designation After 40 Years

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding that the appellant (a 1976 appointee) was validly redesignated from Junior Field Officer (Group B) to Carpet Training Officer (Group C) in 1978, and subsequent regularization in 2006 as CTO didn't entitle him to Handicrafts Promotion Officer status or its promotion channel. The Court ruled that cadre classification and scheme-specific redesignation were within the government's administrative discretion, and the appellant's acceptance of earlier CAT orders (without challenging the CTO designation) precluded belated claims for HPO benefits under Article 14 Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rampat Azad, was appointed as a Junior Field Officer (JFO - Group B) in 1976 at the Carpet Weaving Training Centre, Varanasi, under the All-India Handicr...
Read More
Technical Flaws Sink Conviction: Supreme Court Rules Bank Fraud Trial Violated Accused Rights
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Technical Flaws Sink Conviction: Supreme Court Rules Bank Fraud Trial Violated Accused Rights

The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, holding that (1) Appellant No. 3's juvenility under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 invalidated his conviction, and (2) the trial court's failure to properly examine all appellants under Section 313 CrPC – by not putting material incriminating evidence to them – vitiated the trial, causing irreversible prejudice given the 40-year case delay. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a 1982-83 bank fraud where accused persons, including appellants Ramji Prasad Jaiswal and his two sons Ashok Kumar Jaiswal and Bal Mukund Jaiswal, allegedly conspired with SBI branch manager Ajay Kumar Srivastava (since deceased) to fraudulently obtain ₹13.29 lakh using fake transport receipts from their non-existent firm 'Rohtas Carriers'. The CBI registere...
Read More
Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection
2Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Joint Family Property Disputes Need Evidence, Not Quick Rejection

The Supreme Court ruled that Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be invoked to reject a partition suit based on the Benami Act when plaint averments describe properties as joint family assets. Whether properties are benami or fall under exceptions (Section 2(9)(A)) requires evidence. Section 4’s bar applies only to proven benami transactions, not disputed claims requiring trial. Facts Of The Case: The dispute involved a family partition suit (Regular Suit No. 630A/2018) filed by Vidya Devi Gupta (mother) and Sudeep Gupta (younger son) against Sandeep Gupta (elder son), his wife Shaifali Gupta, and their children, along with subsequent property purchasers Deepak Lalchandani and Surya Prakash Mishra. The plaintiffs claimed that multiple properties acquired in individual family members’ names – in...
Read More