Aastha, Author at SCC Times

Supreme Court determines if Section 52A of Wakf Act, 1995 has retrospective application or not

“Expression Whoever alienates or purchases or takes possession of, which is the opening phrase of Section 52A of the Wakf Act, 1955, cannot be read or construed to include possession taken in the past, which resulted in continued possession, when the provision was enacted.”

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Whether stamp duty payable on sale deed to be calculated as per prevailing market value of property on execution date? Supreme Court answers

“Stamp Act in its application to Uttar Pradesh has been amended by the UP (Stamp Amendment Act 1952) and Article 23 of Schedule IB as applicable to UP.”

Case Briefs High Courts

Whether Doctrine of lis pendens applicable on in-service contracts? Delhi High Court answers

Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is an expression of the principle “pending a litigation nothing new should be introduced”. It provides that pendente lite, neither party to the litigation, in which any right to immovable property is in question, can alienate or otherwise deal with such property so as to affect his appointment

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Mens rea not an essential ingredient for contravention of S. 45, Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969: Supreme Court

“The intention of the legislature is very clear and unambiguous that the moment any eventuality as mentioned in Section 45(5) occurs, the penalty shall be leviable as mentioned in sub-section (6) of Section 45 of the Gujarat Sales tax Act, 1969”, the Supreme Court observed.

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Whether Government employee entitled to annual increment, earned one day prior to retirement?; Supreme Court answers

Supreme Court held that, “the entitlement to receive increment therefore crystallises when the government servant completes requisite length of service with good conduct and becomes payable on the succeeding day.”

Case Briefs High Courts

Patent infringement requires copying only ‘essential features’ of suit patent; Delhi High Court refuses to grant injunction

The Delhi High Court observed that “Dichotomizing the claims and the accompanying specifications is, therefore, contrary to the most fundamental canons of patent law.”

Case Briefs Supreme Court

Explained| Supreme Court’s judgment on classifying borrower’s accounts ‘fraudulent’ by Lender Banks vis-a-vis Audi Alteram Partem

‘Audi alteram partem application cannot be impliedly excluded under the Master Directions on Frauds.’