SERVICE TAX ON IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY :STAY BY DELHI HIGH COURT AGAIN

The Delhi High Court has again stayed the imposition of service tax imposition on immovable property rentals in one of the Home Solutions cases, reaffirming its earlier stance. The order contradicted a Punjab & Haryana High Court order and put the ball back into the Supreme Court, which had asked for the Delhi High Court to adjudicate.

The Delhi High Court division bench comprising of Delhi High Court Chief Justice Dipak Mishra and justice Manmohan pressed for early adjudication of the matter by the apex court while observing the recent conflicting Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order to be merely persuasive and not binding

 

.............................................................

 

The Delhi HC allowed the interim stay to remain operative while concluding that the Supreme Court would be the final authority to decide on the substantive questions

source:

 

http://www.simpletaxindia.org/2010/12/service-tax-on-immoveable-property-stay.html

Anticipatory bails should be applicable till trial ends

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has held that once anticipatory bail is given, “the protection should ordinarily be available till the end of the trial” to the person who is either apprehending arrest in a criminal case or has been named accused by the investigating agency.

A two-judge SC bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and K S Radhakrishnan made these observations while granting anticipatory bail to one Siddharam Mhetre, a Congress leader from Maharashtra named accused in a murder of a BJP leader.

Ruling out the view taken by some superior courts that anticipatory bail should be for a limited period of time, the bench has observed that such orders are not in consonance with the Criminal Procedure Code and a judgment of the Constitution Bench of the SC.

It is a general practice adopted by courts in India that the competent courts grant anticipatory bail for a stipulated time to a person who is apprehending arrest. And the person procures regular bail from the trial court if the investigating agency arrests him within the stipulated time. If that time expires, then the person has to either go for the extension of the anticipatory bail or to get it afresh.

who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled for any relief

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6662 OF 2004

Ramjas Foundation and another               Versus                       Union of India and others

The principle that a person who does not come to the Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case.

he above noted rules have been applied by this Court in large number of cases for declining relief to a party whose conduct is blameworthy and who has not approached the Court with clean hands - Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558, Welcome Hotel v. State of A.P. (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy v. Government of Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1, A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221, Prestige Lights Limited v. SBI (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D. Sharma v. SAIL (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayashree v. Bhagwandas S. Patel (2009) 3 SCC 141 and Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114.

Date of judgment: November 9, 2010.

Arbitration agreement & Res judicata

Absence of recital in the agreement as to which disputes were to be referred to the Arbitrator and not excluding certain claims/disputes from the purview thereof - Held, it must be presumed that the parties had agreed to submit to arbitration all disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in respect of defined legal relationship - A view to the contrary would render such an arbitration agreement redundant. 

2010(4) Civil Court Cases 864 (Bombay)

Res judicata -Essential ingredients for the applicability of S.11 CPC are : (i) The matter must be directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and in the later suit; (ii) The prior suit should be between the same parties or persons claiming under them; (iii) Parties should have litigated under the same title in the earlier suit; (iv) The matter in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided in the first suit; (v) The court trying the former suit must have been competent to try particular issue in question - To define and clarify the principle contained in Section 11 of the Code, eight Explanations have been provided.

 2010(4) Civil Court Cases 905 (S.C.) : 2010(3) Apex Court Judgments 545 (S.C.)

Consumer Law and Agreement ousting Territorial Jurisdiction

Fact:

Clause 11 of the terms and conditions of sale provided that the Courts situated at Coimbatore city alone shall have the jurisdiction to try all or any dispute exclusively to the exclusion of all other Courts. Dispute arose. Dispute arose. Complaint filed before Hon’ble H.P. State Commission. Opposite Party took plea of the objection of territorial jurisdiction in terms of Clause 11. Issue reached before the Hon’ble National Commission.

The Hon’ble National Commission ruled that

The Clause 11 would not be applicable for consumer Fora is not a Court. Secondly, there is a difference in provisions of Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act and provisions in Sections 15 to 20 of the CPC insofar as place of jurisdiction is concerned.

The cause of action had undisputedly arisen at Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh and this would suffice to say sale confirmation letter would not be a bar in filing a complaint at Bilaspur. It may be mentioned that the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 could not be abridged by any agreement. If such an interpretation is put than the purpose of beneficial provisions of the Consumer Protection Act might be set at naught to a great extent for it would be difficult and cumbersome for a consumer to go to the distant place to contest the matter and to suffer more expenditure than what he would get.

Citations: I (2008) CPJ 404 NC

Associated Road Carriers Ltd. v/s Kamlender Kashyap

District forums can entertain all consumer disputes

New Delhi: All district forums in the capital have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain consumer disputes irrespective of the residence of parties, the Delhi State Consumer Commission has said. 

"The demarcation of the areas according to the police stations is only for the sake of administrative convenience and not for divesting the district forums to entertain the complaint against the complainant residing in an area not falling within jurisdiction of particular police station," the Commission bench comprising Members M L Sahni and Salma Noor, said.

The Commission passed the order on a petition of Swaranjeet Singh challenging the territorial jurisdiction of a district consumer forum to entertain the case of the complainant.

"Since Delhi happens to be one district and every district forum has territorial jurisdiction over every consumer dispute and if such forum takes any final decision in the matter irrespective of having no administrative territorial jurisdiction, the order cannot be set aside being vitiated," it said while dismissing his appeal.

Singh had approached the State Commission with the plea that the complaint filed by the complainant, Anil Kumar Dixit, is not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction.

Singh had contended that the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of district forum X (South) whereas the complaint was filed before district forum VI (New Delhi). 

Appeal No. FA-10/139                                        Date of Decision :   12.05.2010

similar FA'S:

FA-07/18 decided on 31.10.2007, FA-07/759 decided on 10.10.2008 and latest is FA-10/220 decided on 17.03.2010