978-81-3125-099-0 5th Edition 2017 Price: INR 3295/- (Set of 2 Volumes) Hardcover |
Get latest updates on Indian Judiciary and LexisNexis in the fortnightly e-newsletter by Team LexisNexis India. We bring to you in detail the Landmark Judgements from the Supreme Court of India and respective High Courts; Legislations Updates on Central and State Acts; related Legal News and Articles; Upcoming Events and Press Releases by LexisNexis India and Universal Law Publishing and our Newly Released Titles. |
Monday, 04 July, 2017 |
Lexis®India |
1. The Supreme Court, Binoy Viswam vs. Union of India & Others, has held that the Parliament was fully competent to enact Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and its authority to make this law was not diluted by the orders of this Court. This Court does not find any conflict between the provisions of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other subsidies, benefits and services) Act, 2016 and Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act inasmuch as when interpreted harmoniously, they operate in distinct fields. [(2017) 4 MLJ 703 (SC) : LNIND 2017 SC 286] Read more 2. The Supreme Court, in Aniruddha Ashok Sankhpal vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, has held that though Appellant specifically challenged G.O. in question and there was prayer in writ petition, he raised no argument to that effect or discussion in judgment regarding challenge to that G.O. When before High Court, Appellant did not challenge aforesaid condition in G.O. in question, he cannot be allowed to raise such challenge before this Court. [2017-III-LLJ-1 (SC) : LNINDORD 2017 SC 8898] Read more 3. The Supreme Court, in Dr. Sou Jayshree Ujwal Ingole vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, has held that no case of committing a rash and negligent act contemplated under Section 304-A IPC is made out against the Appellant and in view of Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and Another, this was not a case where the Appellant should face trial especially when 20 years have already elapsed. [(2017) 2 MLJ (Crl) 683 (SC) : LNIND 2017 SC 164] Read more 4. The Madras High Court, in P. Duraisamy and Others vs. State, represented by the Secretary to Government Department of Home (Prison) Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 and Others, has held that an entry in the register of the Registrar of Births and Deaths is not a conclusive proof of the date of birth/death. [(2017) 2 MLJ (Crl) 721 : LNINDORD 2017 MAD 126] Read more Click here to register for Lexis®India Trial/Demo For training, write to contact.in@lexisnexis.com |
Legal News |
(a) Former Calcutta High Court Judge Justice CS Karnan who was convicted by the Supreme Court for contempt of Court and who was evading arrest, has been arrested by West Bengal Police. His application for bail and suspension of sentence has also been rejected. He became the first High Court Judge to have retired while still absconding. (b) The Supreme Court has refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order directing the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to pay crores of rupees as interim payment to Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited, a Reliance Infrastructure Subsidiary. (c) The Madras High Court has held that tobacco is not a food product for the purpose of Food Safety and Standards Act and no proceedings can be initiated against the manufacturers under the Act. (d) The Madras High Court has refused to grant the relief of restitution of conjugal rights to husband who remarried during pendency of suit. (e) The Supreme Court’s Vacation Bench has agreed to hear death-row convicts’ writ petition seeking stay on their hanging, following the rejection of their mercy petitions by the President of India. |
Upcoming Events |
Legislation Updates |
New Bare Act:-
New Rules:-
Amendments:-
|
New Releases - Click here for All New Releases |
Darashaw Vakil’s Commentaries On The Transfer Of Property Act |
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’S The Indian Penal Code |
9788131251003 35th Edition 2017 Price: INR 845/- Paperback |
Previous Newsletters |
Landmark Judgements |