Monthly Archives: October 2017
APEX COURT – LAND ACQUISITION – whether the land has a potential value or not is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and whether it has any proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities such as water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development need to be taken into consideration.- we are of the considered opinion that just, fair and proper market value of the acquired land in question on the date of issuance of Section 4 notification is determined at Rs.45,00,000/- (Forty Five Lacs) per acre in place of Rs.33,00,000/- (Thirty Three Lacs) per acre for the lands described in detail in column 2 of the Award of the Collector dated 19.08.2010 (Annexure P-3) at page 32 of the SLP paper book of C.A.No. 2846/2017 and Rs.35,00,000/- (Thirty Five Lacs) per acre in place of Rs.24,75,000/- (Twenty Four Lacs Seventy Five Thousand) per acre for lands described in detail in 3 column 1 of the said Award. In other words, the appellants are held entitled to receive compensation for the acquired land as described hereunder: S. No. Class of Land Awarded Amount 1. Nehri, Chahi Rs.35 lacs 2. To the depth of 2 acres from Safidon-Jind Road & Safidon Bye Pass Road and Gair-mumkin land Rs.45 lacs – In addition to the aforesaid, the appellants are also held entitled to statutory compensation as provided in the Act and which the Courts below had already awarded to the appellants. We uphold the Award of such compensation. The two rates which we have determined above would apply to entire acquired land of all the appellants.
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2846 OF 2017 Bijender & Ors. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS State of Haryana & Anr. …Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.2847-2848, 2849, 2850, 2851, 2852, 2853- 2872, 2873-2877, 2878-2882, 2883-2887, 2888-2893, … Continue reading
APEX COURT – after Mr. Solanki is released on bail, he shall immediately move out of the State of Gujarat and shall not enter the said State till the completion of remaining evidence, except on the days of hearing when he would be appearing in the court. It will be open to the trial court to add any further conditions, if the circumstances so warrant.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 492 OF 2014 DINUBHAI BOGHABHAI SOLANKI …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. …..RESPONDENT(S) W I T H CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1854 OF 2017 (ARISING … Continue reading
CORPORATE LAWS – BANKING LAWS – APEX COURT – DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEED REGISTRATION COMPULSORY ? – in Veeramachineni Gangadhara Rao v. The Andhra Bank Ltd. And Ors.1 the High Court took the view that the waiver of the rights made by the mortgagor amounts to a contract and unless the said document is registered the mortgage will not take effect. Accordingly, the mortgage 1 (1971) 1 SCC 874 3 was held to be invalid and consequently the sale proceedings including the sale certificate were set aside. = validity of the mortgage on the strength of which the loan was sanctioned and obtained was not raised at any point of time in any of the earlier proceedings. It was so raised for the first time before the High Court. The High Court, in our considered view, therefore, ought not to have gone into the said question at such a belated stage. – The auction purchaser is an innocent third party who, it is stated, has obtained a loan to pay the sale price and is presently servicing the said loan. It is also stated that the auction purchaser is in possession of the property since March 2016 and has spent considerable amount of money in renovating/repairing the premises in question. 7. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the conclusion of the High Court is not tenable in law. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court.
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 17372 of 2017 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.32885 of 2016] STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. …APPELLANTS VERSUS METTA CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO … Continue reading
INCOME TAX LAWS – CORPORATE LAWS – APEX COURT – when income is computed under the head ‘profits and gains of business or profession’, rate of tax payable on the said income is much higher. However, the Legislature provided a simple formula, namely, treating the amounts paid or payable (whether in or out of India) and amount received or deemed to be received in India as mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 44BB as the deemed profits and gains. Thereafter, on such deemed profits and gains 45 (treating the same as income), a concessional flat rate of 10% is charged to tax. The computation of income of the assessee was done under Section 44BB of the Act. However, the amount which was sought to be taxed was reimbursement of cost of tools lost in hole by ONGC. It is, thus, clear that this was not the amount which was covered by sub-section (2) of Section 44BB of the Act as ONGC had lost certain tools belonging to the assessee, and had compensated for the said loss by paying the amount in question. On these facts, conclusion of the High Court is correct. Even otherwise, the tax effect is Rs.15,12,344/-.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4906 OF 2010 SEDCO FOREX INTERNATIONAL INC. THROUGH IT’S CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY MR. NAVIN SARDA …..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEERUT & ANR. …..RESPONDENT(S) W … Continue reading
The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench.= (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was 48 between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. 49 (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. 62. The reference is answered accordingly. Matters be placed before the appropriate Bench.
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 25590 OF 2014 National Insurance Company Limited …Petitioner(s) Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors. …Respondent(s) WITH Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16735 of 2014 Civil … Continue reading
APEX COURT – whether the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (the Commission), in exercise of its inherent powers, could have extended the control period for the 1st respondent Company (Respondent no. 1). The control period is the period during which a particular tariff order operates. = “Conclusions:- (i) When the 1st respondent commissioned its project beyond 13.03.2012, Commission cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction and vary the terms to extend the control period of Tariff Order dated 29.01.2010 in so far as the 1st respondent of the contract-Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between GUVNL and the first respondent; (ii) the earlier order passed by this Court in C.A. No.2315 of 2013 (dated 01.04.2013) has not conclusively decided the substantial question of law inter-se the parties−that is exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the Commission to vary the terms of PPA by extending the control period beyond the stipulated time.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6399 OF 2016 GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SOLAR SEMICONDUCTOR POWER COMPANY (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS … RESPONDENT (S) J U D G … Continue reading
APEX COURT – whether the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court was legal or/and proper and was, therefore, entitled to record its own finding of either affirmance or reversal. – first, there was no motive on the part of the accused persons (appellants) to kill Hariya. Second, the intention was to teach a lesson to Hariya because he had insulted Gaya Prasad in Panchayat on an incident which had occurred in marriage in their community in recent 12 past. Third, Dr. Bharadwaj (PW-14) who performed post mortem did not say in his evidence that injuries caused to Hariya were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to have caused death, and lastly, Hariya survived for 14 days from the date of incident.= factors were rightly taken into consideration for holding the appellants guilty for committing offence falling under Section 304 Part II of IPC. Moreover, we cannot again de novo re-appreciate the evidence. It is not permissible unless the findings of the High Court are wholly perverse or against the evidence.
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1008 OF 2008 Pooranlal & Anr. Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Madhya Pradesh Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) This … Continue reading