Supreme Court Weekly Round up [November 28- December 4]

JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEKSection 45(4) Of Income Tax Act Applicable To Cases Of Subsisting Partners Of A Partnership Transferring The Assets In Favour Of A Retiring Partner: Supreme CourtThe Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mills | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 991A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and M.M. Sundresh held that Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act was applicable to not only the cases of dissolution but also cases of subsisting partners of a partnership, transferring the assets in favour of a retiring partner."Spur Of The Moment", "Took Her Immediately To Hospital": SC Sets Aside Conviction U/s 302 IPC Of A Husband Accused Of Killing WifeJai Karan Yadav vs State (NCT Of Delhi) | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 992 | CrA 2038 OF 2022The Supreme Court set aside murder conviction of a man accused of killing his wife and modified it to conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.This is after the court found that the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment and the accused had taken immediate steps to shift his wife to the hospital.Criminal Proceedings Can Be Quashed When Complaint/FIR Does Not Disclose Any Act/Participation Of Accused In Crime: Supreme CourtRamesh Chandra Gupta vs State of U P | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 993 | SLP(Crl.) 39 of 2022The Supreme Court observed that the criminal proceedings can be quashed when the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered does not disclose any act of the accused or their participation in the commission of crime.In this case, an FIR was lodged against the accused and a charge sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 448, 387 IPC. They approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the FIR/Charge Sheet. As the High Court dismissed it, they approached the Apex Court.'Fake Pharmacists Running Hospitals/Medical Stores Affect Citizens' Health' : Supreme Court Restores PIL Before Patna HCMukesh Kumar vs State of Bihar | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 995 | SLP(C) 8799/2020The Supreme Court observed that it is the duty of Pharmacy Council and State Government to see that the hospitals/medical stores etc., are not run by the fake pharmacist and are run by the registered pharmacist only.Running the hospitals/dispensaries in absence of any registered pharmacist and/or running such hospitals by fake pharmacist and even running the medical stores by fake pharmacist and without even any pharmacist will ultimately affect the health of the citizen, the bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh observed while it restored a Public Interest Litigation before the Patna High Court that raised this issue.Limitation Period U/Section 11B Central Excise Act Applicable To Claims For Rebate Of Duty U/Rule 18 Central Excise Rules : Supreme CourtSansera Engineering Limited vs Deputy Commissioner, Large Tax Payer Unit, Bengaluru | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 997 | CA 8717 OF 2022 The Supreme Court held that while making claim for rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 shall have to be applied and applicable.The bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh approved the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Everest Flavours Ltd. v. Union of India, 2012 (282) ELT 481 and also overruled contrary decisions of Madras High Court, Allahabad High Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court and Rajasthan High Court.Courts Ought To Refrain From Interfering With Findings Of Facts In Departmental Inquiries Unless There Are Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme CourtUnion of India vs Subrata Nath | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 | CA 7939-7940 OF 2022The Supreme Court reiterated that the courts ought to refrain from interfering with findings of facts recorded in a departmental inquiry except in circumstances where such findings are patently perverse or grossly incompatible with the evidence on record, based on no evidence.If principles of natural justice have been violated or the statutory regulations have not been adhered to or there are malafides attributable to the Disciplinary Authority, then the courts can certainly interfere, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli said.Cut-Off Date For Acquiring Qualification For The Post Advertised Is The Last Date Of Application : Supreme CourtHimachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. vs Dharminder Singh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 999 | CA 8828 OF 2022The Supreme Court observed that the cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application.In this case, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. published advertisement on 17.07.2018 inviting application for a post. As per the advertisement, the essential qualification is metric pass and the desirable qualification is ITI diploma in wireman/Electrical trade obtained through Regular Course (not through distance education) from the institutions recognized by the Government of Himachal Pradesh or the National Trade Certificate of ...

Supreme Court Weekly Round up [November 28- December 4]

Deepankar Malviya

Tags