Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (16th-22nd October)

Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 895-918]Chain Singh v. State of Chattisgarh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 895M/S Triveni Glass Limited v Commissioner of Trade Tax UP 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 896Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 897Supriyo v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900M. Hemalatha Devi & Ors V. B. Udayasri 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 902Mohamed Ibrahim v. Managing Director 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 903Priyanka Kumari V. Shailendra Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 904M/S Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College Of Visual Arts v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 905Yamini Manohar v. TKD Keerthi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 906Abhishek Sharma v. State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 907Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 908M/S Chennai Metro Rail Ltd. v. M/S Transtonnelstroy Afcons JV 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 909Initiatives For Inclusion Foundation v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 910Assessing Officer Circle (International Taxation) New Delhi v. M/s Nestle SA 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 911Dasanglu Pul vs Lupalam Kri 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 912Surinder Pal Singh v. Vijaya Bank 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 913Tottempudi Salalith v State Bank Of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 914Paranagouda v. State of Karnataka 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 915Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 916Dr.Balram Singh vs Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 917Tamil Nadu And Puducherry Paper Cup Manufactures Association v. State Of Tamil Nadu, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 918Judgments/Orders'No Immediate Threat To Mother's Life; No Foetal Abnormality': Supreme Court Rejects Married Woman's Plea To Abort 26-Week PregnancyCase Title: X v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 840The Supreme Court today (16.10.2023) rejected the plea of a married woman to abort her third pregnancy which has crossed 26-week on the ground that she was suffering from postpartum psychosis after her previous delivery in September 2022. The order was passed by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra.Decide Remission Applications Without Delay: Supreme Court To Chhattisgarh GovtCase title: Chain Singh v. State of ChattisgarhCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 895In a recent ruling by the Supreme Court of India, a case involving the belated grant of permanent remission, the Court urged the Chhattisgarh State Government to ensure that such cases are considered without unnecessary delays, following the government's policy. The Court noted that the petitioner was released and the Secretary had tendered his apology for belated remission.U.P. Trade Tax Act | ‘Tinted Glass’ To Be Taxed As “Goods Or Wares Made Of Glass”, As it is Different from ‘Plain Glass’: Supreme CourtCase Title: M/S Triveni Glass Limited v COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX, U.P.Case No.: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 896The Supreme Court has held that ‘Tinted Glass Sheet’ is different from ‘Plain Glass sheet’ and is thus liable to be taxed as “goods or wares made of glass” under Entry 4 of Notification No.5784 dated 07.09.1981, issued by State Government. Accordingly, the manufacturer of Tinted Glass is liable to pay tax @15% on such goods.The Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar, observed that, “There is no vagueness in the notification dated 07.09.1981 and the entry No. 4 is clear and unambiguous namely it has brought within the sweep “all goods and wares made of glass” eligible to tax but not including “plain glass panes” and the exemption being the creation of the statute itself, it has to be construed strictly and even if there is any vagueness in the exemption clause must go to the benefit of the revenue.”Practice Of Conferring Senior Designation On Advocates Not Arbitrary Or Unreasonable: Supreme Court Rejects ChallengeCase Details: Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 897The Supreme Court on Monday (October 16) upheld the practice of designating senior advocates, affirming the constitutional validity of Sections 16 and 23(5) of the Advocates Act, 1961.Supreme Court Refuses To Recognize Same-Sex Marriages, Asks Union Govt To Form Committee To Determine Rights Of Queer UnionsCase Title: Supriyo v. Union of India | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1011 of 2022Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 900The Supreme Court on 17.10.2023 refused to grant legal recognition for queer marriages in India saying that it is a matter for the legislature to decide. However, all the judges on the bench agreed that the Union of India, as per its earlier statement, shall constitute a committee to examine the rights and entitlements of persons in queer union, without legal recognition of their relationship as a "marriage".The Court also unanimously held that that queer couples have a right to cohabit without any threat of violence, coercion of interference; but refrained from passing any directions to formally recognize such relationships as marriages.Marriage Equality Case | No Right For Queer Couples To Adopt Children, Supreme...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up (16th-22nd October)

Suraj Parmar

Tags