High Courts
Direct Tax Cases Monthly Round Up: April 2024
Delhi High Court Income Tax Addition Made Towards Unsubstantiated Share Capital Is Eligible For Section 80-IC Deduction: Delhi High Court Case Title: Valley Iron & Steel Co.Ltd Versus PCIT The Delhi High Court has held that income tax additions made towards unsubstantiated share capital are eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act. Delhi...
Investigating Officer Not Obliged To Exclusively Act On Expert's Opinion While Investigating Medical Negligence Cases: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court held that the investigating officer is not obliged to act exclusively based on the opinion of the 'District Level Expert Panel' and 'State Level Apex Body' for criminal investigation.Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the investigating office could take additional expert opinion from any other source if he wishes to do so to complete the investigation. “ The Doctors cannot have any objection against the processes now put in place by the Government of Kerala through...
Reengagement Of Casual Labourer Cannot Ordered By Court If He Was Engaged In Temporary Scheme: Orrisa High Court
The Orrisa High Court (“High Court”) division bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh andJustice M.S. Raman held that upon the expiry of a temporary scheme, the reengagement of a casual labourer cannot be ordered by the court. Brief Facts: The Petitioner, a workman, worked under the management of Horticulturist, Bhubaneswar on a Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) basis from 01.07.1984 to 28.02.1990 under a verbal agreement. Claiming illegal termination of his service, he initiated an...
Upon Attaining Permanency Daily-Wage Workmen Must Be Treated On Equal Footing With Regularly Appointed Workmen: Orrisa High Court
The Orrisa High Court single bench of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel held that in accordance with Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, daily-wage workmen who have completed a specific tenure are entitled to permanency. It further noted that once permanency is granted, these workmen are also entitled to additional benefits such as pensions and higher pay scales which are available for regularly appointed workmen. Thereby, the bench directed the Forest Department to assess the services...
Writ Is Not Maintainable Against Private Companies, Orrisa High Court Suggests Workmen To Pursue Matter In Appropriate Forum
The Orrisa High Court single bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra dismissed a writ petition against private companies based on the reason that private companies do not classify as the State, as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The employees were set at liberty to pursue the matter in an appropriate forum. Brief Facts: All Odisha Bharati Infratel Contractual Technicians Union filed a writ petition before the High Court of Odisha (“High Court”), representing a...
Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 And Central Excise Act, 1944 Lack Provision To Allow Cash Refund Of Cess Lying In Cenvat Credit Balance: CESTAT
The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and Central Excise Act, 1944 lacks provision to allow cash refund of cesses lying in cenvat credit balance.The bench of Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that there is no error when Commissioner (Appeals) has held that there is no provision in the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 or in Central Excise Act, 1944 to allow cash refund of...
Application For Compassionate Appointment Can Be Made By A Minor Under Tamil Nadu Compassionate Appointment Rules, 2023: Madras High Court
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold has held that application for compassionate appointment can be made by a minor under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023. However appointment to such an applicant can be given only once they attain the age of majority. Background Facts The...
Candidate In Final Selection List Does Not Have An Indefeasible Right To Appointment : Delhi High Court Reiterates
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Shashi Bhushan Vs. University of Delhi has held that a candidate even in the final selection list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment. Background Facts Dr. Shashi Bhushan (Petitioner) participated in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography, Kalindi College, University of Delhi...
ID Act |Right To Claim Interest Is Pre-Existing Right Only If Explicitly Provided In Contract Of Employment Or Service Conditions: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held that the right to claim interest could be considered a pre-existing right or benefit only if explicitly determined in the contract of employment or in the resolutions governing service conditions. However, it held that neither the contract of employment nor the service conditions of the Workman outlined the payment of interest on delayed service benefits. Furthermore, the bench held that an application...
Delhi High Court Denies Parole To Convicted Terrorist Feroz Ahmed Bhatt Citing Security Concerns, Permits One-Time VC With Parents
The Delhi High Court has declined parole to Feroz Ahmed Bhatt, a convicted terrorist who has served over two decades in prison and had applied for temporary release to travel to Jammu and Kashmir.The court cited concerns that his presence in the region could pose a threat to broader security interests. Despite the convict's request for parole to visit his parents and marry, the court ruled against it. Instead, the court directed the jail superintendent to facilitate a one-time video call between...
Allegations Against Arbitral Tribunal Without Any Basis Is Contrary To Letter And Spirit Of Arbitral Process: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that making allegations against the Arbitral Tribunal without any basis is contrary to the letter and spirit of the arbitral process. Brief Facts: The matter pertained to an Engineering, Procurement, and Construction agreement (EPC) made between the NHAI and M/S Kcc Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. (“Respondent”). Dispute arose between parties and an Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on 23rd December 2021, with a six-month ...
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court Monthly Digest: April 2024 [Citations 70 - 97]
Nominal Index:UT Of J&K Vs Shabir Ahmad Dar 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 70National Insurance Co. Vs Rakesh Kumar Sharma 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 71LYCEUM PUBLIC SCHOOL Vs UT OF J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 72Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Dr. Karan Singh 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 73Abdul Qayoom Ganaie Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 74Ghar Singh vs University of Jammu & Ors 2024 LiveLaw...