Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the purchase tax, as imposed by s.5A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 or s.7A of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, is a tax in the nature of manufacture or consignment tax or an inter-state levy, and thus, ultra vires the legislative powers of the state legislature; whether the purchase of goods by the appellants from dealers exempted from payment of tax by virtue of notifications or exemptions issued under the Kerala Act or Tamil Nadu Act is a purchase “which is liable to tax” within the
Issue for Consideration In ‡M. Hakeem and Anr.’s case, this Court held that while exercising powers u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a Court hearing the petition had no power to “modify” the Award, of two judges and three judges of this Court have either modified or accepted modification of the arbitral awards. In view of the divergent and contrasting judicial opinions as regards the power of the court u/s.34 to modify an arbitral award, the matter has been placed before the Constitution
1334 : 2025 INSC 512 Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 2061 of 2025) 16 April 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna, CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the s.482, CrPC application filed by the appellants – Eventually, FIR registered by respondent No.2 against the appellants after dismissal of the criminal complaint holding that the matter is of civil nature – Application for quashing of FIR and chargesheet filed by the appellants, dismissed by High Court – Challenge to: Held:
2237 : 2025 INSC 437 State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others (Civil Appeal No. 4800 of 2025) 03 April 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration The issues before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were: I. Whether the recruitment process irregularities and fraud. II. Whether the decision of the Hon’ble High Court to annul the entire selection is justifiable or whether only tainted appointments should be invalidated, preserving untainted selections. Headnotes† Constitution of India, Arts.14 & 16 –
1277 : 2025 INSC 408 Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel and Others (Civil Appeal No. 3998 of 2024) 27 March 2025 [Sanjiv Khanna,* CJI and Sanjay Kumar, J.] Issue for Consideration The issue relates to the applicability of the “theory of deduction” for in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – ss.26, 23, 27, 28, 105(3) – Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – ss.11, 15, 23-25 – Madhya Pradesh Preparation and Revision of Market Value Guideline Rules, 2018 – Theory
Issue for Consideration Law governing the arbitration agreement in the present case. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.11(6) – International Commercial Arbitration – Petitioner is a company incorporated in Bogota, Colombia – Respondent is in Gujarat, India – International Exclusive Distributor Agreement executed between parties for distribution of medical products in Colombia – Disputes emerged – Petition u/s.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for appointment of an arbitral panel in terms
Issue for Consideration Challenge to the constitutional validity and the right of the authorized officers to arrest under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). Headnotes† Customs Act, 1962 – Finance Act, 2012 – Finance Act, 2019 – ss.104(4), 104(6) – Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – ss.69, 70, 132 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.4, 5, 50; Chapter XII – Constitution of India – Articles 246-A, 21 22(1), 32, 226 – Om Prakash case held that the
Issue for Consideration Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against an order passed by the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council (MSEFC) in exercise of power under Section 18 of Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and if yes, under what circumstances. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 – s.18 – Existence of the statutory remedy and Writ jurisdiction of the High
Issue for Consideration Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return home. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125(4) – Disqualification under, when not attracted – Wife’s right to maintenance u/s.125, CrPC – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.9 – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the enforceability of the ex-parte awards against the employer-State Government and the principal of the medical college, when the employer objected the authenticity of the arbitration agreement relied on by Act, 1996 – Ex-parte arbitral awards – Enforcement by employee, when denial of the authenticity of the arbitration agreement by employer – Service dispute by the employee against the State Government and the government hospital where he was employed as regards age of