Lex Koterie

Supreme Court Stray Dogs Judgement 2025

4 months ago | [YT] | 0

Lex Koterie

Amid continued opposition protest, the Lok Sabha on Monday passed two important legislations pertaining to taxation -- Income-Tax (No 2) Bill and Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill.

The Income-Tax (No.2) Bill, 2025 seeks to consolidate and amend the law relating to Income Tax Act 1961. The Bill will replace the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Bill incorporates almost all of the recommendations of the Select Committee headed by senior BJP member Baijayant Panda.

The other legislation -- the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025 will amend the Income-tax Act, 1961 as well as the Finance Act, 2025. It aims to provide tax exemptions to subscribers of the Unified Pension Scheme.

These Bills were introduced by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman in the lower house earlier in the day.

"Almost all of the recommendations of the Select Committee have been accepted by the government. In addition, suggestions have been received from stakeholders about changes that would convey the proposed legal meaning more accurately," said the statement of objects and reasons of the Income-Tax (No.2) Bill, 2025.

The Select Committee had suggested a host of changes in the Income-tax Bill, 2025, which was introduced in the Lok Sabha on February 13.

"There are corrections in the nature of drafting, alignment of phrases, consequential changes and cross-referencing. Therefore, a decision has been taken by the government to withdraw the Income-tax Bill, 2025 as reported by the Select Committee. Consequently, Income-tax (No. 2) Bill, 2025 has been prepared to replace the Income-tax Act, 1961," the statement said.

The Taxation Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025, also passed by voice in the Lok Sabha, incorporated changes in the scheme of block assessment with regard to Income Tax search cases, and would provide for certain direct tax benefits to public investment funds of Saudi Arabia. It seeks to amend the Income-tax Act, 1961 and also the Finance Act, 2025.

#IncomeTaxBill2025 #TaxationLawsAmendment2025 #IncomeTaxAct1961 #FinanceAct2025 #UnifiedPensionScheme #LokSabhaUpdate #IndianTaxReforms #NirmalaSitharaman #DirectTaxIndia #IndianParliamentNews

4 months ago | [YT] | 0

Lex Koterie

The Delhi high court has restrained Maharaja Agrasen Model School from taking coercive action against students for non-payment of increased fees for the 2023-24 academic session onwards, provided that parents clear all dues based on the fee structure approved by the Directorate of Education (DoE) up to 2022-23 and continue paying the hiked fees thereafter.

Justice Vikas Mahajan passed the order on Thursday in response to a petition filed by the Agrasen Parents Association, represented by advocate Anjani Kumar Mishra. The petition challenged the school’s move to bar students from classes for non-payment of hiked fees for the current and upcoming academic years, alleging that the fee hike had not been approved by the DoE.

Justice Vikas Mahajan passed the order on Thursday in response to a petition filed by the Agrasen Parents Association, represented by advocate Anjani Kumar Mishra. The petition challenged the school’s move to bar students from classes for non-payment of hiked fees for the current and upcoming academic years, alleging that the fee hike had not been approved by the DoE.
The DoE, represented by advocate Avani Singh, clarified that the department had approved fee hikes for the academic years 2019-20 through 2022-23 but had yet to review the structure for 2023-24 and beyond.

Taking this into account, justice Mahajan directed, “Consequently, respondent no. 1/school shall not take any coercive action against the students subject to them clearing all dues up till academic session 2022-23 as per the approved fee structure decided by respondent no. 2/DoE and further, paying the fee as per the statement of fees submitted by respondent no. 1/school for academic sessions 2023-24 onwards, till the time DoE takes a decision on the same.

hashtag#DelhiHighCourt restrains hashtag#MaharajaAgrasenSchool from coercive action over hashtag#FeeHike not approved by hashtag#DoE. A big win for hashtag#ParentsRights and hashtag#StudentJustice! hashtag#SchoolFees hashtag#LegalUpdate hashtag#EducationLawIndia

5 months ago | [YT] | 2

Lex Koterie

www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:73520…

5 months ago | [YT] | 0

Lex Koterie

The Supreme Court ruled that a criminal conviction is not required for gratuity forfeiture under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

Gratuity can be forfeited if the employee's misconduct itself constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude.

The Court clarified the law laid down in the case of Union Bank of India and Ors. vs. C.G. Ajay Babu (2018), stating that the observation made in CG Ajay Babu's case that the forfeiture of gratuity is permissible only upon the criminal conviction was an obiter remark having no binding effect.

Interpreting the term 'offence' under the provision, the Court observed:

“An 'Offence' as defined in the General Clauses Act, means 'any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being' and does not call for a conviction; which definitely can only be on the basis of evidence led in a criminal proceeding. The standard of proof required in a criminal proceeding is quite different from that required in a disciplinary proceeding; the former being regulated by a higher standard of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' while the latter governed by 'preponderance of probabilities'.”

#gratuityact #conviction #forfeiture #supremecourtofindia #lexkoterie

10 months ago | [YT] | 0

Lex Koterie

The Supreme Court asked the State of Haryana to pay a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs each to three accused who were illegally sentenced in a murder case.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had, in its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the acquittal of appellants and convicted them of murder. Although the State had not filed any appeal against the acquittal by the trial court, the father of the deceased filed a revision petition. Despite the High Court having no power to reverse an acquittal in revisional jurisdiction, it did so.

The Supreme Court termed this as a serious misconception of law. Discussing the objective behind adding this provision and the legislative history, the Court concluded, that this proviso creates an independent right in favour of victims. The proviso, therefore, is not an exception to Section 372, but a stand-alone legal provision., the Court said.

“In view of the aforesaid, it is very much clear that the amendment so made in Section 372 CrPC by adding a proviso in the year 2009 creating a substantive right of appeal is not retrospective in nature. A statute which creates new rights shall be construed to be prospective in operation unless otherwise provided, either expressly or by necessary implication.”

Dated : 29th January,2025

#section372crpc #supremecourtofindia #rigorousimprisonment #acquittal #lexkoterie

11 months ago | [YT] | 1

Lex Koterie

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that a partner of an unregistered firm cannot enforce a contractual right against another partner. The Court reasoned that the restriction arises from the bar under Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (“Act”), which prohibits the maintainability of suits between unregistered partners of a partnership firm.

The Court clarified that the bar under Section 69 of the Act applies even before the partnership firm's business commences. However, filing suits for the dissolution of the firm, rendition of accounts, or realization of the property of a dissolved firm remains permissible, even if the firm is unregistered.
#partnership #partnershipact #section69 #unregisteredpartnership #supremecourtofindia #lexkoterie

11 months ago | [YT] | 1

Lex Koterie

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the judgment of the Karnataka High Court which held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment.

Section 187(3) states that the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, beyond 15 days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so. However no Magistrate shall authorize the detention of the accused person in custody under this sub-section for a total period exceeding–(i) 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more; (ii) 60 days, where the investigation relates to any other offence.

Section 187(3) of BNSS was Section 167(2) of Criminal Procedure Code. Under Section 167 (2) CrPC investigation, has its completion period of 90 days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a period of ten years or more and for the remaining offences, it is 60 days. In BNSS, the same 90 days is permitted where imprisonment is for a term of ten years or more.
.
#poliçe #24hoursinpolicecustody #policecustody #BNSS #supremecourt #lexkoterie

1 year ago | [YT] | 1

Lex Koterie

The Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the decision of a Magistrate to issue bailable warrants in a case filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court highlighted that the issuance of such warrants was unjustified, given the nature of the proceedings under the Act.

The Court stated that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (D.V. Act) are quasi-criminal in nature and do not have any penal consequences, except in cases where there is a violation or breach of a protection order.

#supremecourt #supremecourtofindia #dvact #domesticviolence #lexkoterie

1 year ago | [YT] | 2

Lex Koterie

Two bills which aim to achieve One Nation One Election–'The Constitution 129th Amendment Bill 2024' as well as the 'The Union Territories Laws Amendment Bill 2024, were introduced in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday (December 17) after a voting process.

Reportedly, the Union Cabinet has accepted the recommendation of High Level Committee for simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies; municipal and panchayat polls within 100 days of the general election.
.
#onenationoneelecation #bill #constitution #lexkoterie

1 year ago | [YT] | 2