Legislative and Regulatory Update
You now have the option of customizing your manupatra round-up .This means that you get updates on the areas of interest that you select .You may change your preferences at any time you wish to. If you do not customize your round up you will continue to get the updates on all areas
To customize your round-up now click here.
_____________________________________________________________________
India Centric Online Legal & Business Database Bringing forth new efficiency and unparalleled results to research efforts.
In This Issue [No.149] February 20, 2006
Supreme Court High Courts & Tribunals Ministry of Commerce & Industry Ministry of Finance Ministry of Home Affairs Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs International Cases and News
Site Links
To keep you informed about the latest Legislative and Regulatory information manupatra.com publishes this e-roundup highlighting the recent changes brought about by the Notifications/Acts/Bills /Ordinances etc.
About manupatra.com
http://www.manupatra.com/ provides comprehensive and easy to use legal and related information over the Internet .Our database covers Central Laws , Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court (full text of the judgments from 1950 onwards ), Orders of Tribunals , Bills , Notifications, Circulars and more
Key features of manupatra are
Content is derived from reliable primary and secondary sources Database is updated on a daily basis Electronic Ready Reckoner to view the judgments under a particular section of an Act / Subject Powerful search engine with user friendly interfaces Search in any one court/year or multiple courts/year Hyper-linking of documents Updated modules on WTO, Anti Dumping, Arbitration, Investment Destinations Abroad, Capital Markets, Taxation, Environment, Cyber & IT Laws, IPR, Corporate Laws, Industrial Policies, Foreign Trade, Forex & Banking and more
For subscription to manupatra.com or for more details please log onto http://www.manupatra.com/ or call us at 0120 2531811 or send an email to : contact@manupatra.com
If at any stage you wish to stop receiving the e-roundup please click here to unsubscribe.
- CEAT Ltd. Vs. Anand Abasaheb Hawaldar and Ors.
The employer discriminated employees who retired under VRS scheme I and VRS scheme II by conferring additional benefit to employees retired under VRS Scheme II.The main challenge in this appeal was as to legality of judgment rendered by the Division Bench, which held that the additional benefit given to employees who accepted VRS scheme – II amounts to discrimination. The appellants contented that the approach of High Court was clearly erroneous as there was no discrimination as employees covered by VRS-II stood at a different footing from those who accepted VRS-I.
The apex Court held that the challenge of unfair labour practice could not be sustained. Every kind of differential treatment could not be taken to vitiate an act. There must be a prejudice, which was not founded on reason, and actuated by self-interest - whether pecuniary or personal. The background facts do not establish that the appellant-company was guilty of favouritism or partiality. The complaint of unfair labour practice is not established under Items 5, or 9 or 10 of Schedule IV to the Act. Hence the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the High Court has to be set aside.
Anjan KumarVs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
The appellant claimed to be in reserved category and sought appointment in Civil services, which was turned down by the subordinate Courts. The sole question calls for determination in this appeal was, as to whether the offshoot of the tribal woman married to non-tribal husband could claim status of Scheduled Tribe and on the basis of which the Scheduled Tribe certificate could be given.
The Supreme Court while extracting the ratio from the catena of decisions stated that the offshoots of the wedlock of a tribal woman married to a non-tribal husband - Forward Class cannot claim Scheduled Tribe status. The condition precedent for granting tribe certificate was that one must suffer disabilities wherefrom one belongs. Since in present case such offshoot was brought up in the atmosphere of Forward Class, he was not subjected to any disability. Hence, the appellant could not claim the benefit of reserved category in civil services.
North West Switchgear Limited Vs. Commnr. of Central Excise, New Delhi
The present appeals were preferred against the final order of CEGAT, which upheld the view taken by the authorities to drop the demands of certain amount raised on the appellants by the respondent herein, but, held that the 'fan regulators' manufactured by the appellants were classifiable under sub-heading 8414.99 as opposed to 8414.20 as an accessory of the fans. The issue involved in both the sets of appeals was whether the 'fan regulators' are classifiable under the sub-heading 8414.20 along with fans or under the sub-heading 8414.99 as 'parts and accessories'.
The apex court held that the appellants contention of regulators have to be classified under 'electric fans', whether sold with the fan or separately, could not be upheld as acceptence of contention would lead to absurd conclusion as no 'part or accessory' will be covered by heading 8414.99. Hence, dismissing the appeal it was held that the 'fan regulators' manufactured by the assessee, which are sold as such "without the electric fan" would be classifiable under sub-heading 8414.99 as accessories of fans.
Bombay
Asis Ubaldo Rodrigues Vs. Maria Ubaldo Rodrigues
In the present case, Family Court had dissolved the marriage of petitioner and respondent and referred the matter for confirmation to High Court under Section 17 of Indian Divorce Act, 1869. However, during the course of civil reference the petitioner expired. The question before the Hon'ble court was whether the procedure of decree under Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is required to be followed in a case where petition has been tried and decided by the Family Court under Family Courts Act.
While rendering decision Hon'ble court observed that the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 has been amended and Sections 10, 11 and 17 have been substituted. Thus, it was held that that the reference made by the Family Court for confirmation was uncalled for as the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the family court needs no confirmation since the provisions of Family Courts Act shall prevail over the provisions of Indian Divorce Act, 1869 so far as procedural aspect was concerned.
Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Post Master, M.P. Circle Bhopal & another Vs N.K. Bajirani
In the Present case, appeal was made to the M.P. State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission against the order of the District Commission where the District Commission has upheld the decision that respondent is not allowed to have interest on more than one account under the National Saving Scheme Rules, 1987.
The matter to be decided was whether not informing the respondent that he is not entitled to open more than one account amounts to deficiency in service on part of Post Master and whether he was entitled to interest of all three accounts. The State Commission considering the complaint filed by respondent under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, quoted the National Commission in Department of Posts & Telegraphs Vs Dr. R.C. Saxena, and held that not informing the respondent amounts to deficiency in service and the respondent is entitled to receive the interest accrued on all three accounts.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Orient Press Ltd. Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
In this case, appeal was made to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax where the Joint Commissioner imposed penalty under Sec. 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when it has dropped penalties in the previous two assessment years on the same facts.
The question to be decided by the Tribunal was whether the Joint Commissioner can impose penalty when on the same facts, no penalties were imposed in the previous two assessment years. The Tribunal held that penalty under Sec. 271 (1) (c) can be imposed on the income surrendered by the assessee during the survey when it has not been imposed in the last two assessment years. The Joint Commissioner cannot take ground that the assessee has concealed the income as he has explained the circumstances that prove that there was no concealment of income. Hence the penalties under Sec. 271 (1) (c) cannot be imposed.
Disclaimer
(1) While all reasonable care has been taken to ensure that the information provided in the "round up" and on the website is fair and accurate the company and its promoters and employees shall not in any way be responsible for the consequences of any action taken on the basis of reliance upon the contents of this "round up".
(2) This is not a Spam mail. You have received this mail because you have either requested for it or someone must have suggested your name under our various referral programs. Since India has no anti-spamming law, we refer to the US directive, which states that a mail cannot be considered Spam if it contains the sender's contact information, which this mail does. In case this mail doesn't concern you, please unsubscribe from mailing list.
Feedback