Supreme Court of India

13,887 judgments

Year:
Showing 2020 — 1117 judgments found

FIRM RAJASTHAN UDYOG v. HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD

24 Apr 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran

An Arbitration Award fixing only the price of land cannot be executed as a decree for specific performance of sale when the underlying agreement grants an option to purchase and the suit for specific performance is withdrawn.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Arbitration Award Specific Performance Execution of Award Fixation of Price

Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

24 Apr 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the appellant company does not qualify as a mutual concern due to lack of identity between contributors and beneficiaries and discretionary contributions, rendering its surplus income taxable under the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant doctrine of mutuality income tax exemption mutual concern commerciality

Yum! Restaurants (Marketing) Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

24 Apr 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court held that the assessee company did not qualify as a mutual concern due to contributions from non-members and discretionary control by the parent company, rendering its surplus taxable under the Income Tax Act.

tax appeal_dismissed Significant doctrine of mutuality income tax exemption mutual concern commerciality

Union of India v. Exide Industries Limited

24 Apr 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Hemant Gupta; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of clause (f) of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowing deduction for leave encashment payments only on actual payment, overruling the mercantile system for this purpose.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 43B Income Tax Act leave encashment liability constitutional validity Article 14

Union of India v. Exide Industries Limited

24 Apr 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Hemant Gupta; Dinesh Maheshwari
Cites 6 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of clause (f) of Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowing deductions for leave encashment liabilities only on actual payment, overruling the High Court's decision and affirming legislative power to regulate tax deductions prospectively.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 43B Income Tax Act leave encashment liability constitutional validity Article 14

Arvind Singh v. State of Maharashtra

24 Apr 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Indu Malhotra; Hemant Gupta
Cites 4 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence of appellants for kidnapping and murder of a minor, affirming the applicability of last seen theory, common intention, and ransom demand under Sections 364A and 302 IPC.

criminal appeal_dismissed Significant kidnapping murder Section 364A IPC Section 302 IPC

Aneesh Kumar V.S. v. State of Kerala

24 Apr 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the Kerala High Court Full Bench ruling that the first Ranked List for police sub-inspector recruitment expired on 1.6.2016, barring appellants from claiming vacancies reported thereafter.

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant Kerala Public Service Commission Ranked List Non-Joining Duty vacancies Rule 13 Kerala PSC Rules

Union of India & Anr v. U.A.E. Exchange Centre

24 Apr 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Ajay Rastogi

The Supreme Court held that liaison offices performing only preparatory or auxiliary activities under RBI permission do not constitute a permanent establishment under the India-UAE DTAA, and thus no income is taxable in India from such offices.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Permanent Establishment Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement Preparatory or Auxiliary Activities Income Tax Act Section 90

Basir Ahmed Sisodiya v. The Income Tax Officer

24 Apr 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court set aside the addition of Rs. 2,26,000 as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act after the assessee proved the genuineness of the credits through affidavits and statements of unregistered dealers.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Section 68 Income Tax Act cash credits unexplained credits books of account

Basir Ahmed Sisodiya v. The Income Tax Officer

24 Apr 2020 · A.M. Khanwilkar; Dinesh Maheshwari
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court set aside an addition of Rs. 2,26,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act after subsequent evidence established the genuineness of alleged cash credits initially treated as bogus.

tax appeal_allowed Significant Income Tax Act, 1961 Section 68 cash credits unexplained credits

Ashish Seth v. Sumit Mittal

24 Apr 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; M. R. Shah · 2020 INSC 361

The Supreme Court held the Mittal Group and TFIPL liable for contempt for willful non-compliance of a settlement incorporated in its order, granting them two months to fulfill their obligations while dismissing the counter contempt petitions by the Seth Group.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Memorandum of Settlement Contempt of Court External Development Charges License Renewal

Maximal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashish Seth

24 Apr 2020 · Ashok Bhushan; M. R. Shah

The Supreme Court held the Mittal Group liable for contempt for willful non-compliance of a court-approved settlement, granting them time to fulfill obligations including payment of development charges and license renewals, while dismissing their contempt petitions against the Seth Group.

civil appeal_allowed Significant Memorandum of Settlement Contempt of Court External Development Charges License Renewal

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2020 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NO.2908 OF 2019] xxxx v. xxxx & ORS. .

24 Apr 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC as the 498A complaint was time-barred and the allegations under 406 IPC were unsustainable, holding the criminal complaint to be an abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Stridhan Limitation

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2020 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NO.2908 OF 2019] xxxx v. xxxx & ORS. .

24 Apr 2020 · Uday Umesh Lalit; Vineet Saran

The Supreme Court quashed the FIR under Sections 498A and 406 IPC in a matrimonial dispute, holding the complaint time-barred and the criminal proceedings an abuse of process.

criminal appeal_allowed Significant Section 498A IPC Section 406 IPC Stridhan Limitation

Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa

24 Apr 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Hemant Gupta; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the contested Will was not genuine due to suspicious circumstances and discrepancies, dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Will Indian Succession Act Proof of Will Attesting Witness

Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa

24 Apr 2020 · A. M. Khanwilkar; Hemant Gupta; Dinesh Maheshwari

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the contested Will was not genuine due to suspicious circumstances, dismissing the plaintiffs' appeal for declaration of ownership based on that Will.

civil appeal_dismissed Significant Will Indian Succession Act Proof of Will Section 63 Indian Succession Act

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India v. Alimenta S.A.

22 Apr 2020 · Arun Mishra; M.R. Shah; B.R. Gavai
Cites 0 · Cited by 2

The Supreme Court held that a contract expressly providing for cancellation upon lawful government export prohibition becomes void under Section 32 of the Indian Contract Act, rendering a foreign arbitration award for damages unenforceable as against Indian public policy.

civil appeal_allowed Significant foreign award enforcement public policy contract frustration Indian Contract Act Section 32

National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India v. Alimenta S.A.

22 Apr 2020 · Arun Mishra; M. R. Shah; B. R. Gavai

The Supreme Court held that a contract voided by lawful government export prohibition under an express contractual clause cannot give rise to damages, and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award ignoring this is against public policy and unenforceable.

civil appeal_allowed Significant foreign award enforcement public policy contract frustration contingent contract

West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

22 Apr 2020 · Arun Mishra; Indira Banerjee; Vineet Saran; M. R. Shah; Anir...

The Supreme Court held that the State Government has the power to fix a sugarcane price above the Central minimum price without repugnancy, resolving conflicting precedents on legislative competence under the Concurrent List.

constitutional other Significant Sugarcane price fixation State Advised Price (SAP) Essential Commodities Act, 1955 Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966

Union of India v. M/s V.V.F Limited

22 Apr 2020 · Arun Mishra; M. R. Shah; B. R. Gavai
Cites 1 · Cited by 0

The Supreme Court upheld the Government's power to amend excise duty exemption notifications in public interest, ruling that promissory estoppel does not bar such statutory modifications in fiscal matters.

administrative appeal_allowed Significant Central Excise Act Section 5A exemption notification promissory estoppel