(1)
HOTEL ASHOKA (INDIAN TOUR. DEV. CORP. LTD.) .....Appellant Vs.
RESPONDENT(S): ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
03/02/2012
Sales Tax – Duty-Free Shops – Taxation of Sales – Appellant, operating duty-free shops at Bengaluru International Airport, challenged the imposition of sales tax by the State of Karnataka – Contended sales were in the course of import/export and occurred outside customs frontiers of India – Supreme Court held sales at duty-free shops occurred before goods crossed customs frontiers, thus ...
(2)
BANGALORE CITY COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. .....Appellant Vs.
RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
02/02/2012
Land Acquisition – Public Purpose – Housing Societies – Acquisition of land for a cooperative housing society – Requirement of approval of the housing scheme by the State Government before initiation of acquisition proceedings – Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) Act and Land Acquisition Act mandates such approval – Supreme Court held acquisition invalid as appellant failed to show ...
(3)
CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
RESPONDENT(S): UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
02/02/2012
Constitutional Law – Allocation of Natural Resources – Fair and Transparent Process – Petition filed under Article 32 challenging the allocation of 2G spectrum by the DoT – Allegations of arbitrary and unconstitutional actions – Supreme Court held that natural resources must be allocated through a fair and transparent process – DoT’s actions in allocating spectrum licenses without au...
(4)
MARKIO TADO .....Appellant Vs.
RESPONDENT(S): TAKAM SORANG AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
02/02/2012
Election Law – Booth Capturing – Allegation of Booth Capturing – Appellant declared elected in the election to Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly – Respondent filed election petition alleging booth capturing at 8 polling stations – High Court directed the production of voters' counterfoils for verification – Supreme Court held that production of such records should be sparingl...
(5)
NAND KUMAR VERMA .....Appellant Vs.
RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
01/02/2012
Judicial Service – Reversion and Compulsory Retirement – Appellant, a judicial officer, challenged the High Court’s decision to revert and compulsorily retire him – Appellant’s explanation for alleged misconduct in granting bail accepted by the High Court, but later reversion and compulsory retirement initiated on same grounds – Supreme Court held reversion unjustified as charges were ...
(6)
ROY FERNANDES .....Appellant Vs.
RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
01/02/2012
Criminal Law – Unlawful Assembly – Conviction under Section 149 IPC – Appellant convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC – Supreme Court examines whether the assembly had a common object of murder or knew murder was likely – Evidence showed the common object was to prevent fence erection, not murder – Conviction under Section 302/149 IPC set aside, while convict...
(7)
IMTIYAZ AHMAD .....Appellant Vs.
RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
01/02/2012
Criminal Procedure – Delay in Investigation and Trial – High Court Stay Orders – Appellant challenged prolonged delays in criminal proceedings due to repeated stay orders by the High Court – Supreme Court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases where stay orders are issued – Highlighted that stay orders should be used sparingly and disposed of preferably within six months ...
(8)
JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
RESPONDENT(S): AMARLAL V. JUMANI AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
01/02/2012
Criminal Law – Negotiable Instruments Act – Compounding of Offences – Appellants contended that the approval of a scheme under Section 391 of the Companies Act should result in the automatic compounding of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Supreme Court held that compounding requires explicit consent of the complainant and cannot be deemed or assumed under any ...
(9)
LEE KUN HEE AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
RESPONDENT(S): STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
01/02/2012
Criminal Procedure – Territorial Jurisdiction – Foreign Nationals – Offences involving foreign nationals – Appellants challenged the criminal proceedings initiated in India on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction – Supreme Court held that the physical presence of the accused in India is not necessary for launching criminal prosecution if the offence involves effects within India – T...