Law Articles – Faria & Co.

Subject land was designated as a Panchayat Ghar however, later it was re-assigned for residential use and allotments were made to allottees including appellants (writ petitioners in High Court)u/s.122-C, Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land ReformsAct. Proceedings for cancellation of the allotments were initiated based on the report of the Lekhpal which was undisputedly after13 years from the date of allotment. Since, there is no limitation fixed for initiation of the proceedings under the aforesaid Act,whether such initiation of the proceedings can be at any length of time or at any point of time where no limitation is prescribed.Whether any fraud was committed by the writ petitioners or was attributed to them under the show cause notices.

Held: This Court had an occasion to consider similar issue namely
the exercise of suo moto power u/sub-section (4) of s.50-B of Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950
in Ibrahimpatnam Taluk Vyavasaya Coolie Sangham v. K. Suresh
Reddy [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 698, wherein it was held that suo moto
power should be exercised within a reasonable period even in case of
fraud and within a reasonable time from the date of discovery of fraud
and it depends on facts and circumstances of each case – Further,
in sub-section (4) of s.50-B, AP Act, the expression “the collector
may, suo moto at any time;” is occurring while such expression is
conspicuously absent in sub-section (6) of s.122-(C) of UPZALR

Act – Furthermore, the report or the communication of the Lekhpal
forwarded to the Tehsildar does not even suggest or indicate any
fraud having occurred or alleged against writ petitioners – However,
the Tehsildar in the report submitted to the District Magistrate, on
the basis of certain presumed irregularities concluded that allotment
was irregular and approval of allotment was on the basis of forged
signature of Sub-District Magistrate – Although, the basis of such
conclusion namely signature of the Sub-District Magistrate having
been forged was not specified – No allegation of whatsoever nature
was attributed to the allottees of they having forged the signature/s
– In the facts and circumstances of the present case, no fraud was
attributed to the writ petitioners in show cause notices – Impugned
order of the High Court; the order passed by the Additional Collector
which held that proceedings for cancellation could be started at any
time as well as the order passed by the Additional Commissioner,
(Administration) Moradabad Division are unsustainable and set
aside. [Paras 13, 15-17, 19]

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 287 : 2024 INSC 430

Matter pertains to the right of the legal heir of Hindu widow to enforceher right of succession in the unpartitioned Joint Hindu Familyproperty by virtue of s. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14(1) – Property of a female
Hindu to be her absolute property – Right of the legal heir
of Hindu widow to enforce her right of succession in the
unpartitioned joint hindu family property by virtue of s.14(1),
when neither the widow nor her legal heir in possession of
the suit land:
Held: For establishing full ownership on the undivided joint family
estate u/s. 14(1), the Hindu female must not only be possessed
of the property but she must have acquired the property and such
acquisition must be either by way of inheritance or devise, or at
a partition or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance
or by gift or be her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by
prescription – On going through the pleadings in the Revenue
suit for partition filed by legal heir, it is clear that that the widow
or the legal heir himself were never in possession of the suit
property – As a matter of fact, the suit was filed by pleading that
the suit property was a joint Hindu family property and appellantbeneficiary of the unpartitioned estate by way of Will, had consented
to give half share of the suit property to the legal heir on his
demand – This assertion was denied by appellant – Widow was
never in possession of the suit property because the civil suit
was filed by her claiming the relief of title as well as possession
and the same was dismissed and she was held only entitled to
receive maintenance from the undivided estate – This finding of
the civil Court was never challenged – Since, widow was never
in possession of the suit property, as a necessary corollary the

Revenue suit for partition claiming absolute ownership u/s. 14(1)
could not be maintained by her adopted son, plaintiff by virtue
of inheritance – Thus, the impugned judgments restoring the
judgment and decree of the Revenue Court that the plaintiff being
the sole legal heir of the widow has coparcenary rights over the
lands belonging to widow’s husband, cannot be sustained and
are set aside

[2024] 6 S.C.R. 298 : 2024 INSC 428

Electricity Company Loses Tax Dispute Over Government Grants and Subsidies

Supreme Court of IndiaWrit Petition (Civil) No. 1613 of 1992

Facts of the Case

The case involved a dispute between an electricity company and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal over the deductibility of government grants and subsidies from taxable income. The company had received grants and subsidies from the government to help develop its infrastructure. The company deducted these grants and subsidies from its taxable income. The tax authority ruled that the company should not have deducted the grants and subsidies. The company appealed the decision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the tax authority’s decision.

Issue

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the company was entitled to deduct the government grants and subsidies from its taxable income.

Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court held that the company was not entitled to deduct the government grants and subsidies from its taxable income. The Court found that the grants and subsidies were not revenue receipts but were capital receipts. Capital receipts are not deductible from taxable income.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reasoned that the grants and subsidies were given to the company to help it develop its infrastructure. The infrastructure was a capital asset of the company. Capital assets are not deductible from taxable income. The Court also found that the grants and subsidies were not revenue receipts because they were not given to the company in exchange for goods or services.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case is important because it clarifies the law on the deductibility of government grants and subsidies from taxable income. The decision is also important because it has implications for other types of capital receipts, such as loans and contributions.

Alpha G184 Owners Association vs M/S Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court of India has held that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) erred in adjourning sine die the complaints filed by the Alpha G184 Owners Association against M/S Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. The Court held that the pendency of a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the registration of the Association under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, did not make the complaints not maintainable before the NCDRC.

The Association had filed the complaints alleging that the respondent had failed to construct and complete the promised flats within the timeline agreed upon, and had failed to pay compensation for the delay caused. The respondent had challenged the registration of the Association before the High Court, alleging that the Association’s aims and objectives were not in conformity with the HRRS Act. The High Court had stayed the proceedings before the NCDRC, but had not stayed the operation of the Association’s registration.

The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC had erred in adjourning the complaints sine die. The Court held that the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court did not make the complaints not maintainable before the NCDRC. The Court also held that the NCDRC could have proceeded with the complaints even if the Association’s registration was eventually cancelled.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a victory for the Association and for consumers in general. The decision sends a clear message that the NCDRC will not be deterred from hearing complaints against builders who have failed to deliver on their promises. The decision also reaffirms the importance of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, in protecting the interests of consumers.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a welcome development for consumers in India. The decision will help to ensure that builders who fail to deliver on their promises are held accountable. The decision will also help to protect the interests of consumers and to promote consumerism in India.

April 1, 2022

Supreme Court has provided two weeks time to the Central government to reconsider afresh the demand made by the civil services aspirants who were unable to appear for their Main exam in January after falling ill with COVID-19.

Delhi High Court has affirmed an order passed by the single judge excusing Iranian woman from producing her estranged Indian husband before the authorities to produce her Overseas Citizen of India card application, holding that presence of both spouses for the purpose of processing an OCI card application is not mandatory

Delhi High Court has granted interim injunction in favour of liquor brand Magic Moments to restrain another company from selling or manufacturing alcohol under the name Evening Moment

Delhi High Court has ruled that the action of income tax authorities to deny the benefit of immunity from penalty under Section 270AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 to the assessee on grounds that penalty initiated under Section 270A for misreporting of income is arbitrary since the authorities failed to specify the limb under which the penalty proceedings were initiated.

Allahabad High Court has issued a contempt notice to the man who wrote a letter alleging that in the District Court, all the Officers, Judges and employees are not honest and that they have murdered the Indian Constitution.

Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that marriage expenses can be claimed by an unmarried daughter from her parents under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

Calcutta High Court has dismissed an appeal on the ground of maintainability by holding that the question with regard to the eligibility of exemption notification is related to the rate of duty.

Gujarat High Court has observed that devoid of a positive act by the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 cannot be sustained.

Gujarat High Court has held that the dealer must not be forced to pay a hefty price for the termination of the GST registration for the chartered accountant’s mistake.

Gujarat High Court has observed that simpliciter FIR registration by itself cannot have any nexus with the breach of maintenance of public order, while quashing detention order passed u/s 3 (2) of the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.

April 6, 2022

Supreme Court has issued notice in a writ petition that seeks to change the term of 3 years fixed by a notification issued by the Ministry for the members of the National Company Law Tribunal as 5 years. The Notification was issued in exercise of the powers conferred by section 408 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Delhi High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation that challenges the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar card to avail free ration under the National Food Security Act, 2013.

Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by a specially-abled tennis player that seeks to participate as a substitute player in the Deaflympics to be held at Brazil in May 2022. The Court has ruled that there is no vested right to claim that appellant should form part of the contingent in the event.

Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a plea that challenges the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission LT Grade Teacher (Arts) Recruitment process 2020.

Bombay High Court has held that the authority under the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 can pass order of externment directing externment of a person from area larger than the one of his illegal activities can be made.

Rajya Sabha has passed the Delhi Municipal Corporation Amendment Bill, 2022, that seeks amend the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and unify South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC), North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) into the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

News Broadcasting and Digital Standards Authority (NBDSA) has observed that a show aired by Zee News against Shehla Rashid, Scholar of Jawaharlal Nehru University lacked objectivity, impartiality. The Authority has directed to remove the video of the impugned broadcast from their website, YouTube and all other links.

Competition Commission of India has directed the Director General (DG) to investigate and determine whether the conduct of Zomato and Swiggy are anti-competitive in terms of Section 3(1) and Section 3(4) of the Competition Act, 2002.

Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling, Maharashtra has observed that no legislative intent to tax water for general purposes and holds Tertiary Treated Water (TTW) eligible for GST exemption.

Authority of Advance Ruling (AAR ), Maharashtra has observed that professional, technical, and business services with regard to mining operations attract 18% goods and services tax (GST).

April 8, 2022

Delhi High Court has granted interim protection from arrest to Ajay Singh, SpiceJet Promoter in an alleged fraud case with regard to transfer of airline’s shares to some individuals.

Allahabad High Court has ruled that if an authority, conferred with discretionary powers by a statute, avoids or does not take into account relevant considerations to the purpose of the statute in question, then its action would be held invalid.

Madras High Court has observed that it is compulsory for the teachers, who did not possess the minimum qualification of pass in Teacher Eligibility Test prior to Right to Education Act, 2009 to acquire the same within the period of nine years otherwise they would not be entitled to continue their service in the schools/educational institutions.

Karnataka High Court has observed that an accused charged under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not get a right to default bail under Section 167(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 merely because the charge sheet filed by the Police after investigation sans Forensic Science Laboratory Division report.

Madhya Pradesh High Court has struck down Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of Madhya Pradesh State Services Examination Rules, 2015 that barred meritorious candidates from reserved categories to secure birth as unreserved candidates during preliminary and main examinations, as unconstitutional.

Manipur High Court has held that Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a complaint which involves an offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, if made by a third party and not by the public servant.

Delhi Court has denied bail to Shifa-Ur-Rehman, President of Jamia Millia Islamia Alumni Association in connection with the Delhi riots larger conspiracy case.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal( ITAT ), New Delhi has observed that received interest on enhanced compensation does not comes under income from other sources under section 56 and not attracts Tax Deduction at Source under section 194A of the income tax act, 1961

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore has observed that a consignment note is enough to prove transportation for customs house agent.

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi has observed that an independent contractor is not liable to pay service tax while conducting the activity of toll collection on behalf of National Highways Authority of India.

April 11, 2022

Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional legality of the recent amendments made in the Finance Act, 2020 with regard to the new provisions regarding the registration of charitable and religious trusts under the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delhi High Court has held that Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not lay an embargo in proceeding during the pendency of insolvency proceedings with arbitral proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.

Bombay High Court has granted relief for DHFL promoter Dheeraj Wadhawan, allowing him treatment for a certain period at a private hospital while setting aside the order of trial Court to shift him to the State run JJ Hospital.

Bombay High Court has held that remedy under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 lies elsewhere and the petitioners cannot file Writ Petitions under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1949 on the ground of exceptional circumstances.

Allahabad High Court has observed the father is entitled to visitation rights to meet his child by allowing a Habeas Corpus plea filed by a father seeking visitation rights to meet his son presently living with his mother.

Allahabad High Court has observed that the Learning Driving License and Voter I.D. Card should not be taken into account while determining the age of a juvenile.

Allahabad High Court has held the discovery of the material object/crime weapon at the disclosure of the accused is important under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence.

Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed seeking directions to the Union Government to implement the recommendation of one man judicial committee to resolve anomalies in the implementation of One Rank One Pension to all the pension drawing persons.

Gujarat High Court has dismissed anticipatory bail to a man accused of forcefully converting religion of 37 Hindu families and 100 Hindus for offences under Sections 4 of Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act, 2003 and Section 120B, 153(B)(1)(c), 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Gujarat High Court has upheld the order of the trial court in acquitting the Respondent accused of offences under Sections 8(C), 20(B), 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.

April 12, 2022

Delhi High Court has observed that the exemption under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can’t be denied to a charitable entity merely because the advertisement for the scholarship to poor students was published in a single news paper.

Delhi High Court has dismissed the appeals against Moser Baer, filed by the income tax department in the light of the liquidation proceedings pending before the National Company Law Tribunal.

Delhi High Court has observed that the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at the stage of issue of notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Delhi High Court has upheld the factual findings that the merit-cum scholarship/financial assistance provided by Hamdard National Foundation was not confined to students of a particular religious community, and exemption under Section 11 of Income Tax Act, 1961 can’t be denied to it.

Delhi High Court has dismissed a bunch of pleas challenging the minimum age criteria of 6 years for admission in class 1 for the academic year 2022-23 in Kendriya Vidyalayas.

Delhi High Court has dismissed Red Bull AG’s application for interim injunction against PepsiCo India, holding that prima facie, the latter’s tagline, stimulates mind, energizes body, on their energy drink, Sting, does not infringe the former’s Trademark in tagline, vitalize body and mind.

Delhi High Court has held that the Passport Rules, 1980 as they require a Transgender person to produce Gender Re-assignment certificate Surgery, is prima facie violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bombay High Court has observed that the Court under Section 27 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not have the jurisdiction to consider the validity of the reasons set out by the arbitral tribunal in its order permitting the examination of a witness.

Kerala High Court has observed that the High Court cannot waive the statutory mandate of pre-deposit merely on the plea of financial hardships.

Delhi Court has dismissed the bail plea moved by Sharjeel Imam in connection with a case alleging larger conspiracy into the Delhi riots of 2020, involving charges under Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

April 13, 2022

Delhi High Court has ruled that when the agreement between the parties provides for compulsory mediation, the time spent in the mediation process shall be excluded from the limitation period for invoking arbitration process.

Delhi High Court has held that it is not necessary that a notice issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should quantify the amounts that are claimed before the Arbitral Tribunal by the claimant.

Delhi High Court has held that partial quashing or part quashing of First Information Report only qua the accused with whom the complainant has compromised or settled the matter can be permissible.

Delhi High Court has observed that a mere apprehension communicated by the prosecution that the accused may flee the course of justice, cannot be the sole determinative factor for denying benefit of Section 445 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Delhi High Court has observed that the Medical Assessment & Rating Board (MARB) is an authority entrusted with an essential task of regulating medical education in India. Therefore, it is expected to at least prima facie show some justification for its decisions.

Bombay High Court has held that acceptance of tax invoices by the opposite party, comprising a reference to arbitration, doesn’t lead to the presumption that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.

Allahabad High Court has ruled that while investigating Kidnapping cases, the police authorities must first assess the victim girl’s age so that in case it is found that she is major and has taken any step for her life, then no one should be unnecessarily put to any harassment.

Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that any acquisition for public use made by the government cannot be disputed by land owner. The Court has held that land was acquired for public use and vests in the State and the same is being utilized for allotment of plots.

Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the decision of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission to permit non B.Ed. candidates to apply for the post of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade by amending Recruitment Rules during selection process.

Appellate Authority of Advance Ruling, Maharashtra has observed that the renting of immovable property to the social justice department is exempt from Goods and Services Tax and Tax Deducted at Source.