Supreme court
UAPA | Blanket Order Barring Disclosure Of Witnesses' Statements Can't Be Passed Without Individual Threat Assessment : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a blanket restriction on the disclosure of witness statements in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”) is impermissible. It emphasized that any order limiting the defence's access to such statements must be based on an individualised assessment, specifically whether a real threat exists to the life or safety of each witness....
Supreme Court Asks Assam Human Rights Commission To Enquire Into Alleged Fake Encounters In State
The Supreme Court today directed the Assam Human Rights Commission (Assam HRC) to conduct an independent and expeditious enquiry into allegations of fake police encounters in the State of Assam.The directions were passed in a petition alleging rampant "fake" encounters in the State as well as non-compliance by state authorities with the directions issued in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra...
Circular Clarifying Previous Notifications On Fiscal Duty Has Retrospective Effect : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently held that a circular/notification issued by the revenue department, clarifying or explaining a fiscal regulation, has to be given retrospective effect.In the facts of the case at hand, the Court held that a Circular dated 17.09.2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) had to be given retrospective effect as it clarified certain...
2025 LiveLaw (SC) 634 | M/S PATANJALI FOODS LIMITED (FORMERLY M/S RUCHI SOYA INDUSTRIES LTD.) Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Click the link below for the report and the judgment : S.27 Customs Act Or Doctrine Of Unjust Enrichment Won't Apply To Refund Of Bank Guarantee : Supreme Court Allows Patanjali's...
S.27 Customs Act Or Doctrine Of Unjust Enrichment Won't Apply To Refund Of Bank Guarantee : Supreme Court Allows Patanjali Plea
The Supreme Court has held that Section 27 of the Customs Act, which requires a person seeking refund of duty to show that the burden was not passed on to the customer, is not applicable when refund is sought of a wrongly invoked bank guarantee.This is because encashment of bank guarantees by the Customs Department cannot be treated as payment of customs duty. Hence, neither Section 27 nor...