Supreme Court Monthly Digest: August 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 336 To LL 2021 SC 408]

1. Possible Apprehension Of Breach Of 'Law And Order ' Cannot Be A Ground For Preventive Detention[Case: Banka Sneha Sheela v. State of Telangana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 336]A Bench comprising Justice RF Nariman and Justice Hrishikesh Roy observed that a possible apprehension of breach of law and order cannot be a ground to detain a person under Preventive Detention Laws. It opined that mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects 'law and order' but before it can be said to affect 'public order', it must affect the community or the public at large. "A Preventive Detention Order can only be passed if his activities adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order", the bench observed while quashing a detention order passed against a person under Telangana Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. "There can be no doubt that for 'public order' to be disturbed, there must in turn be public disorder. Mere contravention of law such as indulging in cheating or criminal breach of trust certainly affects 'law and order' but before it can be said to affect 'public order', it must affect the community or the public at large", the Bench further added. 2. Entity Which Misuses Status Under Section 12AA Income Tax Act Not Entitled To Retain It[Case: Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) v. Batanagar Education and Research Trust; Citation: LL 2021 SC 337]An entity which is misusing the status conferred upon it by Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act is not entitled to retain and enjoy said status, the Supreme Court observed while upholding the cancellation of a registration of Trust. Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act deals with the procedure for the registration of a charitable trust, which is entitled to tax benefits. In this case, Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) cancelled registration of the Trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the Trust had received bogus donation from School of Human Genetics and Population Health. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Trust. The Calcutta High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Trust and set aside the cancellation order.A Bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Ajay Rastogi noted that the answers given to the questionnaire by the Managing Trustee of the Trust show the extent of misuse of the status enjoyed by the Trust by virtue of registration under Section 12AA of the Act. "These answers also show that donations were received by way of cheques out of which substantial money was ploughed back or returned to the donors in cash. The facts thus clearly show that those were bogus donations and that the registration conferred upon it under Sections 12AA and 80G of the Act was completely being misused by the Trust. An entity which is misusing the status conferred upon it by Section 12AA of the Act is not entitled to retain and enjoy said status. The authorities were therefore, right and justified in cancelling the registration under Sections 12AA and 80G of the Act.", the Court observed while setting aside the High Court order. 3. 'Avoid Unnecessary Remarks On Counsel's Conduct': Supreme Court Expunges Remarks Made Against Lawyer By Uttarakhand High Court[Case: Neeraj Garg v. Sarita Rani; Citation: LL 2021 SC 338]The Supreme Court observed that judges should avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court. The bench comprising Justices RF Nariman and Hrishikesh Roy observed thus while ordering expunction of certain remarks made against a lawyer by the Uttarakhand High Court in an order passed by it. The lawyer, with 17 year standing, had approached the Apex Court seeking expunction of some adverse remarks made against him in a judgment. He contended that he should not be made to suffer adverse comments on his conduct as a lawyer only because the concerned Judge may not appreciate the efforts made by the Counsel, on behalf of his client."While it is of fundamental importance in the realm of administration of justice to allow the judges to discharge their functions freely and fearlessly and without interference by anyone, it is equally important for the judges to be exercising restraint and avoid unnecessary remarks on the conduct of the counsel which may have no bearing on the adjudication of the dispute before the Court.", the Court stated. 4. 'Heavy Unexplained Bank Transactions': Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement Penalty Imposed On Judicial Officer[Case: Rajinder Goel v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Citation: LL 2021 SC 339]The Supreme Court upheld an order directing compulsory retirement of a Judicial Officer in Haryana. In this case, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a judicial officer after preliminary enquiry against him revealed that there were "heavy unexplained bank transactions". The Inquiring...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: August 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 336 To LL 2021 SC 408]

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: August 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 336 To LL 2021 SC 408]

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers