Finance Act, 1994 – Section 65(105) (zzq), Section 65(105)(zzzh), Section 67, Section 93– Eligibility to Service Tax – service tax is to be levied in respect of 'taxable services' and for purpose of arriving of gross amount charged, unless value of some goods or materials is specifically included by Legislature, that cannot be added – Notifications in questions are exemption notifications which have been issued under Section 93 of Act – exemption under Section 93 of Act, can only be granted in respect of those activities which Parliament is competent to levy service tax and covered by Section 65 (105)(zzq) and Section 65(105)(zzzh) of Chapter V of Act under which such notifications were issued – view taken by Full Bench of CESTAT in judgment is correct. [Commissioner Of Service Tax & Others Versus M/S. Bhayana Builders (P) Ltd. & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri & The Honourable Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Dt: 19-02-2018, CDJ 2018 SC 140]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 22 Rule 10, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 41 Rule 21, Section 100, Section 151 – Jurisdiction – High Court was under legal obligation to frame substantial question at time of admission of appeal after hearing Appellant or his counsel under Section 100 (4) of CPC, but High Court did it while passing final judgment in its concluding para – High Court failed to follow procedure prescribed under Section 100 of CPC while allowing second appeal and committed jurisdictional error – Judgment of High Court is set aside and case is remanded to High Court for deciding second appeal afresh. [Surat Singh (Dead) Versus Siri Bhagwan & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal & The Honourable Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dt: 19-02-2018, CDJ 2018 SC 139]
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Examination – Right to Information – – information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically – Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing – Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by UPSC, which will not be in public interest – if case is made out where Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, Court is certainly entitled to so – If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced – direction has been issued without considering these parameters – order of High Court is set aside. [Union Public Service Commission & Others Versus Angesh Kumar & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel &The Honourable Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Dt: 20-02-2018, CDJ 2018 SC 138]
Letters Patent Act - Clause 15 – Land Acquisition Act – Validity of Order – Single Judge correctly held that Appellant, after dismissal of Appeal kept quiet for about nine long years, without taking any steps to find out as to what happened to his property – Appellant being aware of award enquiry, cannot be allowed to challenge award by filing Writ Petition with unexplained delay – order passed by Single Judge does not warrant interference. [Parasurama Vaidyanathan Versus State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development, Chennai & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice K.K. Sasidharan & The Honourable Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan, Dt: 15-02-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 1665]
Letters Patent – Clause 15 – Donation of Lands – Appellant has not produced sale deed for reason, if it would have been produced, Court would have known real market value of alternative land – other land offered by Appellant/Trust is Commercial Class and not fit for agricultural purpose – first Respondent, vide letter already rejected offer made by Appellant/Trust stating that since offered land is adjoining to other property of Trust, there is possibility that it may use pathway in future – when Appellant is having land on northern side as evidenced from rough sketch produced by Appellant/Trust, it is not clear why purchased in another District and that too dry lands. [M. Nanjappa Chettiar Memorial Trust, Rep. By Its Managing Trustee, N. Marudhachalam Versus The Director Of Land Reforms, Land Reforms Department, Chennai & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice K.K. Sasidharan & The Honourable Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan, Dt: 15-02-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 1664]
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, Act 2002 – Section 14, Section 14 (1)(c) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 –Section 238 – Stay of Proceedings---proceedings initiated by secured creditor under SARFAESI Act, have been included under Section 14(1)(c) of Act – lien created over property would not divest ownership of corporate debtor over said property – Even claims of secured creditors are barred under Section 14 (1)(c) of Act, as it includes even proceedings of recovery of any property in possession of corporate debtor by its owner or lessor – Apart from wide language of Section 14 of Act, Section 238 of 2016 Code gives overriding effect to provisions of Act for any statute or any instrument having force of statute – all further proceedings is stayed pursuant to earlier orders in suit and adjourn suit. [Falcon Tyres Limited, Karnataka Versus Geodis Overseas Private Limited (India), Rep By Its Director, Chennai & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Subramanian, Dt: 15-02-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 1661]
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 437A - Appeal against conviction - benefit of doubt, in circumstances, ought to be given to Appellant - Appellant was acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC - judgment of Trial Court and order on sentence was hereby set aside - Appellant shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case - Appellant will fulfil requirements of Section 437A Cr PC to satisfaction of Trial Court at earliest. [Naval Kishore @ Bobby Versus State, The Honourable Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar & The Honourable Mr. Justice I.S. Mehta, Dt: 13-02-2018, CDJ 2018 DHC 051]
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 18 -Constitution of India - Article 226 - Possession - Joint Receivers - Joint Receivers not being in actual physical possession of suit premises, on date of institution of proceedings, by bank, before Tribunal, it cannot be said that, such proceedings stand vitiated due to absence of leave of Court appointing Receiver - sale conducted by Recovery Officer in execution proceedings of Certificate issued by Presiding Officer, does not stand vitiated - Recovery Officer, Presiding Officer and Appellate Tribunal before whom issue of custodia legis was raised did not decide same - They ought to have decided same - However, all of them proceeded not to grant any relief to Petitioner - Petitioner has failed on issue of custodia legis in course of hearing of writ petition - remanding matter would not subserve ends of justice - no relief can be granted to Petitioner. [Haji Hanif Hakam Versus Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Kolkata & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice Debangsu Basak, Dt: 16-02-2018, CDJ 2018 CAL HC 024]
Constitution of India – Article 227 – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32, Section 70-B, Section 85, Section 88-CA – Maharashtra Tenancy Agricultural Land, 1949 – Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1974 – Section 23 – Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 – Section 8 – Maharashtra Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1959 – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Bombay Service Inams (Useful to Community Abolition) Act, 1953 – Right to purchase - Tenancy of predecessors of Respondents does not come to end on date of re-grant of land by Government in favour of Petitioner – No fresh tenancy is created on date of re-grant of land – Existing tenancy as on deem that will continue and tenants are entitle to apply for determination of purchase price of such land based on deemed ownership under section 32-G of 1948 Act – Order passed by Revenue Tribunal based on findings rendered in revenue proceedings declaring predecessor of Respondents as deemed owner – It does not find any infirmity in order passed by Revenue Tribunal. [Kondu Thaku Chavan, (Since) Deceased), Through Legal Heirs: & Others Versus Ashok Shankar Chavan & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice R.D. Dhanuka, Dt: 21-02-2018, CDJ 2018 BHC 251]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 115 – Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 – Jurisdiction – first to third Respondent also invoked remedy provided under Act against order passed by Collector – first to third Respondent already approached Commissioner and availed remedy provided under Act – Trial Court committed error in holding that, it has jurisdiction to entertain Suit – If such Suits are entertained by Civil Courts, it would frustrate very object of having such special legislation with special authorities created to settle disputes and deal with all questions related to it in expeditious manner – order passed by Trial Court cannot be sustained in law. [Tukaram Dhondi Sutar (Since Deceased),] Through Legal Heirs & Others Versus Nana Bhau Tibile & Others, The Honourable Dr(Mrs.) Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, Dt: 21-02-2018, CDJ 2018 BHC 248]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 22 Rule 10, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 41 Rule 21, Section 100, Section 151 – Jurisdiction – High Court was under legal obligation to frame substantial question at time of admission of appeal after hearing Appellant or his counsel under Section 100 (4) of CPC, but High Court did it while passing final judgment in its concluding para – High Court failed to follow procedure prescribed under Section 100 of CPC while allowing second appeal and committed jurisdictional error – Judgment of High Court is set aside and case is remanded to High Court for deciding second appeal afresh. [Surat Singh (Dead) Versus Siri Bhagwan & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice R.K. Agrawal & The Honourable Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dt: 19-02-2018, CDJ 2018 SC 139]
Right to Information Act, 2005 – Examination – Right to Information – – information sought with regard to marks in Civil Services Exam cannot be directed to be furnished mechanically – Situation of exams of other academic bodies may stand on different footing – Furnishing raw marks will cause problems as pleaded by UPSC, which will not be in public interest – if case is made out where Court finds that public interest requires furnishing of information, Court is certainly entitled to so – If rules or practice so require, certainly such rule or practice can be enforced – direction has been issued without considering these parameters – order of High Court is set aside. [Union Public Service Commission & Others Versus Angesh Kumar & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel &The Honourable Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Dt: 20-02-2018, CDJ 2018 SC 138]
Letters Patent Act - Clause 15 – Land Acquisition Act – Validity of Order – Single Judge correctly held that Appellant, after dismissal of Appeal kept quiet for about nine long years, without taking any steps to find out as to what happened to his property – Appellant being aware of award enquiry, cannot be allowed to challenge award by filing Writ Petition with unexplained delay – order passed by Single Judge does not warrant interference. [Parasurama Vaidyanathan Versus State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Secretary, Housing & Urban Development, Chennai & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice K.K. Sasidharan & The Honourable Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan, Dt: 15-02-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 1665]
Letters Patent – Clause 15 – Donation of Lands – Appellant has not produced sale deed for reason, if it would have been produced, Court would have known real market value of alternative land – other land offered by Appellant/Trust is Commercial Class and not fit for agricultural purpose – first Respondent, vide letter already rejected offer made by Appellant/Trust stating that since offered land is adjoining to other property of Trust, there is possibility that it may use pathway in future – when Appellant is having land on northern side as evidenced from rough sketch produced by Appellant/Trust, it is not clear why purchased in another District and that too dry lands. [M. Nanjappa Chettiar Memorial Trust, Rep. By Its Managing Trustee, N. Marudhachalam Versus The Director Of Land Reforms, Land Reforms Department, Chennai & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice K.K. Sasidharan & The Honourable Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan, Dt: 15-02-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 1664]
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, Act 2002 – Section 14, Section 14 (1)(c) – Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 –Section 238 – Stay of Proceedings---proceedings initiated by secured creditor under SARFAESI Act, have been included under Section 14(1)(c) of Act – lien created over property would not divest ownership of corporate debtor over said property – Even claims of secured creditors are barred under Section 14 (1)(c) of Act, as it includes even proceedings of recovery of any property in possession of corporate debtor by its owner or lessor – Apart from wide language of Section 14 of Act, Section 238 of 2016 Code gives overriding effect to provisions of Act for any statute or any instrument having force of statute – all further proceedings is stayed pursuant to earlier orders in suit and adjourn suit. [Falcon Tyres Limited, Karnataka Versus Geodis Overseas Private Limited (India), Rep By Its Director, Chennai & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Subramanian, Dt: 15-02-2018, CDJ 2018 MHC 1661]
Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 437A - Appeal against conviction - benefit of doubt, in circumstances, ought to be given to Appellant - Appellant was acquitted of offence under Section 302 IPC - judgment of Trial Court and order on sentence was hereby set aside - Appellant shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case - Appellant will fulfil requirements of Section 437A Cr PC to satisfaction of Trial Court at earliest. [Naval Kishore @ Bobby Versus State, The Honourable Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar & The Honourable Mr. Justice I.S. Mehta, Dt: 13-02-2018, CDJ 2018 DHC 051]
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 - Section 18 -Constitution of India - Article 226 - Possession - Joint Receivers - Joint Receivers not being in actual physical possession of suit premises, on date of institution of proceedings, by bank, before Tribunal, it cannot be said that, such proceedings stand vitiated due to absence of leave of Court appointing Receiver - sale conducted by Recovery Officer in execution proceedings of Certificate issued by Presiding Officer, does not stand vitiated - Recovery Officer, Presiding Officer and Appellate Tribunal before whom issue of custodia legis was raised did not decide same - They ought to have decided same - However, all of them proceeded not to grant any relief to Petitioner - Petitioner has failed on issue of custodia legis in course of hearing of writ petition - remanding matter would not subserve ends of justice - no relief can be granted to Petitioner. [Haji Hanif Hakam Versus Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Kolkata & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice Debangsu Basak, Dt: 16-02-2018, CDJ 2018 CAL HC 024]
Constitution of India – Article 227 – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32, Section 70-B, Section 85, Section 88-CA – Maharashtra Tenancy Agricultural Land, 1949 – Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1974 – Section 23 – Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 – Section 8 – Maharashtra Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1959 – Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Bombay Service Inams (Useful to Community Abolition) Act, 1953 – Right to purchase - Tenancy of predecessors of Respondents does not come to end on date of re-grant of land by Government in favour of Petitioner – No fresh tenancy is created on date of re-grant of land – Existing tenancy as on deem that will continue and tenants are entitle to apply for determination of purchase price of such land based on deemed ownership under section 32-G of 1948 Act – Order passed by Revenue Tribunal based on findings rendered in revenue proceedings declaring predecessor of Respondents as deemed owner – It does not find any infirmity in order passed by Revenue Tribunal. [Kondu Thaku Chavan, (Since) Deceased), Through Legal Heirs: & Others Versus Ashok Shankar Chavan & Others, The Honourable Mr. Justice R.D. Dhanuka, Dt: 21-02-2018, CDJ 2018 BHC 251]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 115 – Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 – Jurisdiction – first to third Respondent also invoked remedy provided under Act against order passed by Collector – first to third Respondent already approached Commissioner and availed remedy provided under Act – Trial Court committed error in holding that, it has jurisdiction to entertain Suit – If such Suits are entertained by Civil Courts, it would frustrate very object of having such special legislation with special authorities created to settle disputes and deal with all questions related to it in expeditious manner – order passed by Trial Court cannot be sustained in law. [Tukaram Dhondi Sutar (Since Deceased),] Through Legal Heirs & Others Versus Nana Bhau Tibile & Others, The Honourable Dr(Mrs.) Justice Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, Dt: 21-02-2018, CDJ 2018 BHC 248]
