Search Judgments

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) – Section 11 – The Supreme Court addressed an appeal concerning a dispute between Bank of India (appellant) and Punjab National Bank (respondent) regarding competing claims over the stock of a borrower, M/s Sri Nangli Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. The borrower had availed credit facilities from both banks, hypothecating stocks of paddy and rice to Bank of India, and later pledging the same stocks to Punjab National Bank. When the borrower defaulted, Bank of India initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 97 & 101 – This case concerns the execution of a decree for specific performance and possession of immovable property, where the decree-holders (appellants) faced obstruction from the nephews of the original vendors (respondent nos. 1 & 2). The core dispute revolves around whether the executing court correctly upheld the objections of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 based on their claim of being cultivating tenants in possession.

Waqf Act, 1995 – Sections 3(i), 32(2)(g), 64(2); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 9; Karnataka Waqf Rules, 2017 – The dispute concerned the succession to the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin of a Dargah. The Petitioner, grandson of the original Sajjadanashin, claimed the office based on a nomination (Khilafatnama). His claim was upheld by the Trial and First Appellate Courts, but the High Court reversed, holding that Civil Courts lacked inherent jurisdiction under the Waqf Act, 1995.

The Supreme Court distinguished the spiritual office of Sajjadanashin from the secular role of a Mutawalli, emphasizing that the Waqf Board’s power to appoint and remove Mutawallis under Section 32(2)(g) of the Waqf Act, 1995, pertains to administrative functions, not spiritual succession.

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) – Section 17(5)(c) and (d) and Section 16(4) – This judgment addresses the constitutional validity and interpretation of Section 17(5)(c) and (d) and Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, concerning the eligibility for Input Tax Credit (ITC) on goods and services used in the construction of immovable properties, especially concerning renting/leasing activities.

The core issue revolves around whether restrictions imposed by these sections on availing ITC for the construction of factories, buildings, and commercial complexes against the GST received from renting/leasing are valid. The petitioners challenged these provisions, arguing they violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A of the Constitution, leading to a cascading effect of taxes.

The court analyzes whether a distinction should be made between “plant and machinery” and “plant or machinery” and, the expression “plant or machinery” used in Section 17(5)(d) cannot be given the same meaning as the expression “plant and machinery” defined by the explanation to Section 17.

T he Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 7; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Section 9(3); The Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) Section 11(3) – This criminal revision case challenges the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, regarding the disposal of Rs. 4,35,000 seized in connection with a case against the petitioner’s brother under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). The petitioner claimed the money belonged to him and was meant for his son’s medical admission.

The prosecution argued the money was unaccounted and likely illegal gratification.

Societies Registration Act, 1860 Section 5 & Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 92 – The Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, can be considered a “trust” or “constructive trust” for the purpose of instituting a suit under Section 92 of the CPC. The case stemmed from a dispute within a not-for-profit society (Operation ASHA) registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with allegations of financial impropriety and mismanagement.

The Court analyzed the essential conditions for invoking Section 92, including the existence of a public trust, breach of trust or necessity for court direction in administration, and the nature of reliefs claimed. The Court discussed various perspectives on constructive trusts, highlighting the distinct nature of remedies.

This case involves a batch of appeals against the orders of the High Court of Sikkim, which were filed by various lottery distributors challenging the levy of service tax on their activities related to the sale of lottery tickets organized by the Government of Sikkim. The core issue revolves around whether the relationship between the lottery distributors and the State Government is that of principal-agent or principal-to-principal, which would determine the applicability of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended from time to time.

The High Court consistently ruled in favor of the lottery distributors, holding that their activities did not constitute a service to the State Government and therefore were beyond the purview of “taxable service” as defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994.

The Supreme Court examined various amendments made to the Finance Act, 1994, through the Finance Acts of 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2016, analyzing relevant clauses, specifically Section 65 and 66D of the Finance Act, 1994.

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Sections 147, 148, 153A, and 153C – This case involves two writ petitions filed by a daughter-in-law and mother-in-law, challenging notices issued under Section 148 and subsequent assessment orders passed under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The Income Tax Department reopened the assessment based on information from a search and seizure action conducted on a syndicate allegedly providing bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG). The petitioners had purchased shares of M/s. Mono Herbicides Ltd.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 & 37 – This appeal concerns a contract between National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and Som Datt Builders-NCC-NEC(JV) for road construction. A dispute arose regarding the payment for geogrid material used in a Reinforced Earth (RE) wall, specifically concerning item No. 7.07 of the Bill of Quantities (BOQ). The contractor claimed payment for the actual quantity used at the BOQ rate, while NHAI sought to renegotiate the rate due to an increase in quantity.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 and 37 – This case concerns an appeal against a Calcutta High Court order under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which partially set aside an arbitral award. The dispute arose from a road widening project in West Bengal, where delays led to the contractor (appellant) raising several claims against the State (respondent). The Arbitrator awarded the appellant Rs.1,37,25,252.

The District Judge, under Section 34, upheld most of the award, but the High Court, under Section 37, altered the decision.