Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

EPF Contribution Payable On 'Basic Wages' Camouflaged As Allowances [The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II) WB V. Vivekananda Vidyamandir] The Supreme Court held that, in order that the amount goes beyond the 'basic wages' for the purposes of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, it has to be shown by the employer that the workman concerned had become eligible to get this extra amount beyond the normal work which he was otherwise required to put in. Deduction Under Section 80HH Income Tax Act Should Be From 'Gross Profits & Gains' Instead Of 'Net Income' [M/S Vijay Industries V. Commissioner of IT] A three judges' bench of the Supreme Court held that deduction under Section 80HH of the Income Tax Act 1961 should be based on gross profits and income instead of the net income from profits and gains computed as per Sections 28 to 44B of the Act. Claim Under Section 70 Contract Act Cannot Be Raised When Parties Are Governed By Contract [MTNL V. Tata Telecommunications Ltd.] The Supreme Court bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran explained that claim of quantum meruit under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act cannot be raised when parties are otherwise governed by contract. This is because Section 70 occurs in Chapter V of the Contract Act which deals with "certain relations resembling those created by contract". Section 70 deals with obligation of a person enjoying benefit of a non-gratuitous act to compensate the person giving the benefit. Sale Of Minor's Property By Guardian Can Be Avoided Only By Filing Suit To Set Aside Deed Within Period Under Art.60 Limitation Act [Murugan V. KesavaGounder] The Supreme Court held that a sale of minor's property by guardian can be avoided only by filing a suit to set aside the deed within the period of limitation prescribed under Article 60 of the Limitation Act, which is three years from the date of attaining majority by the minor. The Difference Between In Country Adoption And Inter-Country Adoption Cannot Be Lost Sight Of [Union of India V. Ankur Gupta] The Supreme Court observed that even if the common seniority list has to be utilised for the purpose of in country adoption and inter-country adoption, the difference between in country adoption and inter-country adoption cannot be lost sight of or given a go by. Confession Recorded Under TADA Not Admissible In The Trial For Offence Under Other Enactments [State of Gujarat V. Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya] The Supreme Court held that the confessional statement of the accused recorded under the provisions of TADA would not be admissible against the accused in the trial for offences under other enactments, especially when the Designated Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence under TADA for lack of a valid sanction. A Person Added As Accused U/s 319 CrPC Can Be Tried Only For An Offence In Respect Of Which All The Accused Could Be Tried Together [Sunil Kumar Gupta V. State of UP] The Supreme Court observed that, though under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a person can be added as an accused not only for the same offence for which the accused is tried but for "any offence"; but that offence shall be such that in respect of which all the accused could be tried together. The Poems Written By A Death Convict Helped Him To Save From The Gallows [Dhyaneshwar Suresh Borkar V. State of Maharshtra] The Supreme Court commuted death penalty of a kidnap cum murder convict, who was just 22 years of age at the time of occurrence. The bench comprising of Justice AK Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah, particularly took note of the poems written by Dnyaneshwar while he was in jail and observed that these poems show that he has realised his mistake and has reformed. State Cannot Prohibit Transportation Of Legally Excavated Sand Beyond Its Borders [State of Gujarat V. JayeshbhaiKanjibhaiKalathiya] The Supreme Court held that it is constitutionally impermissible for a state to restrict the movement of the sand legally excavated within the territory of India. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Justice MR Shah upheld the Gujarat High Court judgment that had struck down the Rules brought in by the State of Gujarat prohibiting the movement of sand beyond the border of the State. Subsequent Acquittal Won't Help: SC Dismisses Plea Of 'Lawyer' Whose Enrollment Was Cancelled For Suppressing Facts About Criminal Case [Anand Kumar Sharma V. BCI] The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of a man who was not allowed to enroll as a lawyer on the ground that his earlier enrolment was cancelled for suppression of facts and relevant material. Anand Kumar Sharma, who got enrolled as an advocate in the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh in July, 1988, was removed from the ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round Up

Ashok Kini

Tags