2024 INSC October

State of UP vs Lalita Prasad Vaish 2024 INSC 812 – Constitution – Entry 8 List II Of Seventh Schedule – Industrial Alcohol

Constitution of India- a. Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution is both an industry-based entry and a product-based entry. The words that follow the expression “that is to say” in the Entry are not exhaustive of its contents. It includes the regulation of everything from the raw materials to …

State of UP vs Lalita Prasad Vaish 2024 INSC 812 – Constitution – Entry 8 List II Of Seventh Schedule – Industrial Alcohol Read More »

GLAS Trust Company LLC vs BYJU Raveendran 2024 INSC 811 – IBC – Withdrawal Of CIRP

NCLT Rules – Rule 8 – IBC – Section 12 -CIRP Regulations – Rule 30A – Procedure for the withdrawal of an application filed by creditors under Sections 7, 9, or 10 of the IBC- Before the application under Sections 7, 9 or 10 is admitted by the NCLT: Such cases are squarely covered by …

GLAS Trust Company LLC vs BYJU Raveendran 2024 INSC 811 – IBC – Withdrawal Of CIRP Read More »

Vidyasagar Prasad vs UCO Bank 2024 INSC 810 – IBC – Limitation

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 -Section 238A – Limitation Act 1963- Section 16 –The commencement of a fresh period of limitation from the time of acknowledgement of the debt is part of the statutory scheme. Section 238A of the Code extends the applicability of the provisions of the Limitation Act to the proceedings under the …

Vidyasagar Prasad vs UCO Bank 2024 INSC 810 – IBC – Limitation Read More »

Uma vs State 2024 INSC 809 – Criminal Trial- Circumstantial Evidence – S 106 Evidence Act

Indian Evidence Act 1872 – Section 106– There are two important consequences that play out when an offence is said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the accused is said to have been present. Firstly, the standard of proof expected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence is …

Uma vs State 2024 INSC 809 – Criminal Trial- Circumstantial Evidence – S 106 Evidence Act Read More »

Commmissioner Of GST And Central Excise vs Citibank NA 2024 INSC 808 – Finance Act- Service Act – Taxation

Finance Act, 1994- Section 65(33a) – Service tax is not separately payable on the interchange fee, as service tax has been paid on the MDR. (Para 11) Interpretation Of Statutes– While interpreting a tax provision, one must keep in mind that the legislature ennobles the ease of collection of tax and payment of tax. These …

Commmissioner Of GST And Central Excise vs Citibank NA 2024 INSC 808 – Finance Act- Service Act – Taxation Read More »

HDFC Bank Ltd. vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 807 – Ss 409,420 IPC – Mens Rea

Indian Penal Code 1860 – Section 420 – For bringing out the offence under the ambit of Section 420 IPC, the FIR must disclose the following ingredients: (a) That the appellant-bank had induced anyone since inception; (b) That the said inducement was fraudulent or dishonest; and (c) That mens rea existed at the time of …

HDFC Bank Ltd. vs State Of Bihar 2024 INSC 807 – Ss 409,420 IPC – Mens Rea Read More »

Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 806 – S 432 CrPC – Remission Conditions

Code Of Criminal Procedure 1973- Section 432 of the CrPC [ Section 473(1) BNSS] -(I) The appropriate Government has the power to remit the whole or any part of the punishment of a convict. The remission can be granted either unconditionally or subject to certain conditions; (ii) The decision to grant or not to grant …

Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 806 – S 432 CrPC – Remission Conditions Read More »

Central Warehousing Corporation vs Sidhartha Tiles & Sanitary Pvt. Ltd. 2024 INSC 805- S 11(6) Arbitration Act – Public Premises Act

Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 – Public Premises Act, 1971 – In so far as the dispute relating to this right of renewal is concerned, it depends on the terms of the agreement. The Public Premises Act neither bars nor overlaps with the scope and ambit of proceedings that were initiated under the Arbitration and Conciliation …

Central Warehousing Corporation vs Sidhartha Tiles & Sanitary Pvt. Ltd. 2024 INSC 805- S 11(6) Arbitration Act – Public Premises Act Read More »

SP Pandey vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 804 – Service Law – Armed Forces

Summary: Armed Forces Tribunal allowed Appellant’s OA and quashed the order of Admonition passed against him – In appeal before SC, appellant sought compensation for the wrongful order – Allowing appeal, SC observed: Small excesses like overtaking the vehicle of one’s senior at a railway crossing may be an incident of indiscipline in defense services, …

SP Pandey vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 804 – Service Law – Armed Forces Read More »