Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Deemed University Covered Under Prevention Of Corruption Act : SC [State of Gujarat V. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah]Supreme Court held that a 'deemed university' will come under the ambit of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Bench of Justices N V Ramana, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Ajay Rastogi set aside a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat, which had allowed the discharge of trustees of a deemed university, from prosecution in a corruption case. The Apex Court observed that the High Court was in fact incorrect in holding that a "Deemed University" is excluded from the ambit of the term "University" under Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.Article 30 Doesn't Prevent State From Imposing Reasonable Regulations To Make Administration Of Minority Institutions Transparent : SC [Christian Medical College Vellore Association V. Union of India & Ors.]Supreme Court has upheld the validity of National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admissions to medical and dental courses. Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Vineet Saran and M R Shah further re-stated principles governing minority educational institutions under Article 30 of the Constitution, noting that the right conferred on religious and linguistic minorities to administer educational institutions of their choice is not an "absolute right" and is not free of "regulation" from the State.SC Explains Scope Of Remand Under Order XLI Rule 23A CPC; Appellate Courts Must Not Pass Orders Of Remand In A Routine Manner [Shivakumar & Ors. V. Sharanabasappa & Ors.]Elucidating powers of "Remand" under the Civil Procedure Code 1908 vis-à-vis Order 41 Rule 23A, Supreme Court held that that re-trial should not be ordered in a routine manner and neither should the Appellate Court pass orders of remand in a routine manner. Bench of Justices A M Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hemant Gupta observed that the Appellate Court should ordinarily determine the suit finally when the evidence available is sufficient to dispose of the matter.Tax Authorities Can't Give Their Own Interpretations To Legislative Provisions On Basis of Perception Of Trade Practices : SC [Commercial Taxes Officer V. M/S Bombay Machinery Store]While observing that Tax Administration Authorities cannot give their own interpretation to legislative provisions basis their perception of "trade practices", Supreme Court answered the question as to when inter-state movement is to be treated as "terminated" under Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act 1956? Bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose held that there exists no concept of 'constructive delivery' of goods under the Act, and that the inter-state movement of goods will terminate only when the actual physical delivery is taken interpreted Section 6(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act.A Citizen Must Have Some Standing Or Knowledge Before Questioning Capability & Integrity Of A Judge: SC Holds 3 People Guilty of Contempt For Making Scandalous Allegations Against Judges [In Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors]The Supreme Court has held that a citizen must have some standing or knowledge before questioning the capability of or integrity of a Judge of the Highest Court and cautioned that the right to criticise Judgements delivered by any court, including the Supreme Court, does not encompass the right to question the "bona fides" of a judge or to raise questions with regard to their competence. A bench of Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose made these observations while holding Vijay Kurle (State President, Maharashtra & Goa, Indian Bar Association), Rashid Khan Pathan (National Secretary, Human Rights Security Council) & Nilesh Ojha (National President, Indian Bar Association) guilty of contempt.Non-Participation In Arbitral Proceedings Results In Waiver Of Right To Raise Objections On Jurisdiction After Award : SC [Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd. V. Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd]The Supreme Court has held that the non participation of a party in arbitral proceedings shall result in "Waiver of Right" to raise objections on jurisdiction after award has been passed. A bench of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran noted that technicalities surrounding the "venue" and 'place" may not neccesarily be relevant in domestic arbitrations as they are in international commercial arbitrations, due to uniformity in application of the substantive and curial laws.Payments To Non-Residents For Income Accrued In India Liable To TDS : SC Upholds Liability Of 96 Cricket WC Governing Body [PILCOM V. C.I.T. West Bengal-VII]Supreme Court has held that payments made to non-resident Sports Associations in the instant case were liable to Tax Deduction at source in terms of Section 194E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the represented income which accrued or arose, was deemed to have accrued or arisen in India. A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Vineet Saran therefore held that Pak-Indo-Lanka joint management Committee (PILCOM), set up for purposes of conducting the...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Sanya Talwar

[Week commencing April 27 to May 2, 2020]

Tags