Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [November 21 - November 27]

Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Includes A Presumption That There Exists A Legally Enforceable Debt Or Liability : Supreme CourtJain P. Jose vs Santhosh | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 979 | SLP(Crl) 5241 OF 2016 The Supreme Court reiterated that the presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability.In this case, the Trial Court dismissed a cheque bounce complaint on the ground that the complainant was not able to adduce sufficient evidence that he was in a position to advance a loan of Rs. 9 lakhs to the accused. The Kerala High Court upheld the Trial Court order relying on a decision in John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham (2014) 2 SCC 236.Contract Can Be Said To Be 'Concluded' Only When Parties Are Ad Idem On All Essential Terms : Supreme CourtKarnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs JSW Energy Limited | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 981 | CA 8714 OF 2022 The Supreme Court observed that a contract can be said to be concluded only when parties are ad idem on all the essential terms of the contract.The three judges bench of the Apex Court observed thus while partly allowing the appeal filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited against the Karnataka High Court that had set aside orders passed by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission.Supreme Court Directs State Electricity Regulatory Commissions To Frame Regulations For Determination Of Tariff Within 3 MonthsTATA Power Company Limited Transmission vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 987 | CAIn a judgment pronounced on Wednesday, the Supreme Court directed all State Electricity Regulatory Commissions to frame regulations under 181 of the Electricity Act 2003 on the terms and conditions for determination of tariff within three months.The Court further directed that while framing these guidelines on the determination of tariff, the Commission shall follow the principles prescribed under Section 61 of the Electricity Act 2003, which also include the National Electricity policy and the National Tariff Policy. Where the State Commissions have already framed such regulations, they shall be amended to include provisions for criteria for choosing the modalities to determine the tariff, in case they are not included.Section 260A IT Act -Appeal Only Lies Before High Court Within Whose Jurisdiction The Assessing Officer Is Situated: Supreme CourtCommissioner of Income Tax - I vs Balak Capital Pvt Ltd | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 982 | SLP(C) 7019/2017The Supreme Court reiterated that an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against orders of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal lies only before the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the assessing officer is located.As per Section 260A of IT Act, an appeal shall lie to the High Court from every order passed in appeal by the Appellate Tribunal before the date of establishment of the National Tax Tribunal, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.Period During Which The Interest Is Payable U/Sec 39(5)(a) ESI Act Cannot Be Reduced : Supreme CourtRegional Director/ Recovery Officer vs Nitinbhai Vallabhai Panchasara | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 983 | SLP(C) 16380/2022The Supreme Court observed that ESI Court has no authority to restrict the period during which the interest is payable under Section 39(5)(a) of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948Section 39(5)(a) provides that if any contribution payable under this Act is not paid by the principal employer on the date on which such contribution has become due, he shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum or at such higher rate as may be specified in the regulations till the date of its actual payment.Discourages Trial Courts In Granting Bail' : SC Sets Aside Adverse Remarks By Rajasthan HC Against A Sessions JudgeSarita Swami vs State of Rajasthan | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 985 | CrA 2019/2022The Supreme Court set aside some observations made by Rajasthan High Court against a Trial Court judge who had passed a bail order." Such an approach which discourages the trial Courts in granting bail resulting in huge volume of litigation before the High Court and this Court.", the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka said.High Courts Are Not Subordinate ; But SC Judgments Has To Be Dealt With Due Respect : Supreme CourtRamachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. vs State of Telangana | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 986 | SLP(Crl) 10356/2022The Supreme Court observed that its judgments have to be dealt with 'due respect' even though High Courts are not subordinate to it.The judgments of this Court are binding on everyone under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath observed.TRS MLAs Poaching Case : Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction Allowing SIT Probe To Continue, Asks HC To Decide Plea For CBI InvestigationRamachandra...

Supreme Court Weekly Roundup [November 21 - November 27]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags