5 Important Indian Courts Cases Pronounced Today (Friday, 4th May 2018]

1. Indian Oil Corporation Vs. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

A. Whether the entire State can be treated as 'local area' for the purposes of entry tax? 


B. Whether entry tax can be levied on the goods which are directly imported from other countries and brought in a particular State? 

C. In some statutes enacted by certain States, there was a provision for giving adjustment of other taxes like VAT, incentive etc paid by indigenous manufacturers and it was contended by the assessees that whether the benefits given to certain categories of manufacturers would amount to discrimination under Section 304 ?

Read Full Text : http://bit.ly/2whTpKQ

2. Bholu v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 389 - Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail - The period of incarceration of the accused cannot be a ground for granting bail where the grant of bail is forbidden in law.

Read Full Text : http://bit.ly/2rmbhz7

3. Ashwani Khatri v. Neelam Khatri [Allahabad High Court]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 10 - Stay of Suit - Scope of - Section 10 would apply only if the matter in issue in both the suits is identical and it is between the same parties, or between the parties to whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title.

Read full Text : http://bit.ly/2rjlk8k

4. Vishnu Shanker v. Girdharilal [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

There exists a distinction between a Mitakashra Coparcenary property and Joint Family property. A Mitakashra Coparcenary carries a definite concept. It is a body of individuals having been created by law unlike a joint family which can be constituted by agreement of the parties. A Mitakashra Coparcenary is a creature of law.

Read full Text : http://bit.ly/2HXGZJr

5. Amar Singh Mehta v. Sukh Ram Sharma [Himachal Pradesh High Court]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 118, 138, 139 - Presumptions as to negotiable instruments - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account - Presumption in favour of holder - In order to draw presumption under Section 118 read with Section 139 of the Act, the burden is heavily upon the appellant/complainant to show: (i) that he had the requisite funds for advancing the sum of money to the accused, (ii) that the issuance of cheque in support of repayment of money advanced was true, and (iii) that the accused was bound to make payment as had been agreed while issuing cheque in favour of the complainant. [Para 9]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S. 139 - Presumption in favour of holder - The presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. It is settled position that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the standard of proof for doing so is that of ‘preponderance of probabilities’ and not beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 8]

Read Full Text : http://bit.ly/2rk0zJI

No comments