2017 SCC Vol. 5 June 21, 2017 Part 4
Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 (6 of 1957) — Supply of food and drinks by club to its members — Consideration of, as sale liable to sales tax: Matter remitted to the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the exact relationship between the Club and its members. [Fateh Maidan Club v. CTO, (2017) 5 SCC 638]
Bihar Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules, 2001 — R. 26 — Noti. dt. 24-3-2001 fixing royalty at higher rate for certain areas, while said areas identified on 26-12-2001: Any legislation or instrument having force of law, if clarificatory, declaratory or explanatory in nature and purport, will have retrospective operation especially in the absence of any indication to the contrary as to retrospectivity either in parent Act or Rules or notifications involved. [State of Bihar v. Ramesh Prasad Verma, [(2017) 5 SCC 665]
Central Excise Rules, 1944 — S. 96-ZP r/w S. 3-A(4) of Excise Act, 1944: Whether an assessee who chooses once to pay duty in terms of R. 96-ZP(3) could be compelled to pay duty calculated in accordance with the said Rule for all times to come without any regard to the actual production, opined, requires examination. Matter referred to larger Bench. [Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 598]
Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — General principles — Wilful disobedience/Contumacious conduct — Wilful disobedience — Determination of: Directions explicit in judgment or “are plainly evident” can be considered for purpose of deciding wilful disobedience of court order. [Mazdoor Sangh v. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC, (2017) 5 SCC 506]
Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary — High Courts — Letters Patent Appeal: No LPA lies against order passed by Single Judge of High Court in exercise of criminal jurisdiction. [Ram Kishan Fauji v. State of Haryana, (2017) 5 SCC 533]
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 438 — Anticipatory bail — Grant of: [Prassanna Venkardari Agrahar v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 5 SCC 648]
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 — Ss. 16(1)(a) or (b) and 2-A — Entitlement to exemption under 1952 Act — Mutually exclusive nature of exemptions available under S. 16(1)(a) and S. 16(1)(b): Appellant was not exempted under S. 16(1)(a) of 1952 Act since it is running 29 schools and junior colleges and employing around 1151 employees and in terms of S. 2-A all such schools and colleges would be treated as part of same establishment. [Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sanstha v. Provident Fund Commr., (2017) 5 SCC 579]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Ss. 15(2)(a), 8, 30 and Sch. Class I (as amended by Act 39 of 2005 w.e.f. 9-9-2005) — Prospective effect of amended provisions: Right to succession under S. 15(2)(a) of category of heirs included by amendment of 2005 to Class I to Sch. viz. “son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter and daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a predeceased daughter” would be available with prospective effect. [Karunanidhi v. Seetharama Naidu, (2017) 5 SCC 483]
Income Tax Act, 1961 — S. 115-A r/w Expln. 2 to S. 9(1)(vii) — Technical service — What is — “Offer of facility” and “provision of service”— Difference between, explained: Technical services denote services catering to the special needs of the person using them and not a facility provided to all. [Director of Income Tax v. A.P. Moller Maersk, (2017) 5 SCC 651]
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 — S. 91 — Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court to decide “service dispute” between cooperative society and its employees: Cooperative Court does not have jurisdiction to decide service disputes between employees and management of cooperative society. [Maharashtra State Coop. Housing Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange, (2017) 5 SCC 623]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302 and 498-A: Where there was no witness, failure of husband to explain how both unnatural deaths took place in his house, going against him, hence, reversal of conviction by High Court, not proper. Conviction restored. [State of Maharashtra v. Nisar Ramzan Sayyed, (2017) 5 SCC 673]
Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302/149 and 326/149 — Common object — Inference of: Common object of unlawful assembly can be gathered from nature of assembly, arms used by them and behaviour of assembly at or before scene of occurrence. Inference must be deduced from facts and circumstances of case. [Kattukulangara Madhavan v. Majeed, (2017) 5 SCC 568]
Rent Control and Eviction — Bona Fide Requirement of Landlord — Freedom of landlord to determine best use of the premises: [Mehmooda Gulshan v. Javaid Hussain Mungloo, (2017) 5 SCC 683]
Rent Control and Eviction — Eviction Petition/Suit — Abuse of Process of Court/Law/Fraud on Court: It is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. [Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar, (2017) 5 SCC 496]
Rent Control and Eviction — Generally — Eviction matters — Balancing of interests of both sides — Freedom of landlord to determine best use of premises: Legislations made to deal with landlord-tenant disputes were pro tenant as courts tend to bend towards tenant to do justice to him. Courts cannot be overzealous and forget their duty towards landlord. [Nidhi v. Ram Kripal Sharma, (2017) 5 SCC 640]
Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 — S. 15-T and Ss. 11(4), 11-B, 11-D, 12(3) and 15-I and S. 11(1) — Nature of, and extent of jurisdiction of SAT as judicial tribunal: An administrative circular issued by SEBI under S. 11(1) of SEBI Act cannot be the subject-matter of appeal under S. 15-T. [National Securities Depository Ltd. v. SEBI, (2017) 5 SCC 517]
Service Law — Appointment — Cancellation/Refusal of appointment: Directions of High Court remitting matter to employer to comply properly with principles of natural justice, affirmed. [Indian Institute of Information Technology v. Dr Anurika Vaish, (2017) 5 SCC 660]
Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (1 of 1959) — Ss. 2(n)(v) and (vi) — Supply of food or drinks to its members by club — Consideration of, as sale: Matter remitted to the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the exact relationship between the parties in the matter of supply of food or drinks to its members by the club. [Cosmopolitan Club v. State of T.N., (2017) 5 SCC 635]
