Specific Relief Act is a procedural statute

Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an enactment in procedural law is purported to be drawn from the decisions in Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Pvt. Ltd (2007), Radheshyam Kamila v. Kiran Bala (1971) and Moulvi Ali Hossain Mian v. Rajkumar Halda (1943).

 

 

Amendment to procedural law (specific relief act) would not apply retrospectively. (Specific Relief Act, 1963 is an enactment in procedural law is purported to be drawn from the decisions in Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals Pvt. Ltd (2007), Radheshyam Kamila v. Kiran Bala (1971) and Moulvi Ali Hossain Mian v. Rajkumar Halda (1943).)

 

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vatika Township Private Limited (2014) – for the proposition that distinction  that amendment confer benefits without imposing corresponding duties, and therefore attract the rule against retrospective operation are distinct.

Third parties permitted to challenge the award

Chennai Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 253 : (2007) 3 Arb LR 218 : (2007) 3 Mad LJ 1 at page 228

16. To sum up the findings, though Government of India was not a signatory to the arbitration agreement, it was a party non-signatory. Therefore, not only a party to the arbitration agreement but a party non-signatory also can challenge the impugned award passed by the learned arbitrator. Further, the scheme of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, the proposition of law that an aggrieved party can challenge the judgment will have to be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case. The contextual facts and circumstances warrant expansion of the definition found under Section 2(1)(h) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to include the Government of India who is a party non-signatory for the purpose of challenging the award under Section 34 of the said Act. In view of the above, sustaining the order passed by this court granting leave to Union of India to prefer the original petition challenging the award passed by the learned arbitrators, Application No. 169 of 2007 filed by Chennai Container Terminal Private Limited seeking to recall and set aside the order dated 09.01.2007 stands dismissed.

 

File notings are not decisions

Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 405 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1031 at page 166

37. In Jasbir Singh Chhabra v. State of Punjab [(2010) 4 SCC 192] , this Court held: (SCC p. 209, para 35)

“35. … However, the final decision is required to be taken by the designated authority keeping in view the larger public interest. The notings recorded in the files cannot be made basis for recording a finding that the ultimate decision taken by the Government is tainted by mala fides or is influenced by extraneous considerations.”

 

Abandon plea - new ground

The point not urged before the High Court cannot be argued before this Hon'ble Court (2008) 2 SCC 95 Md Akram Ansari v. Chief Election Officer

 

Whether immovable property falls in the ambit of section 406 ipc

AIR 1962 SC 1821 (RK DALMIA)

2019 SCCONLINE KER 1789 (DAMODAR PANIKKAR)

Section 150 of Income Tax Act, 1961

In ITO v. M/s Neetee Clothing, 2015 SCC OnLine ITAT 11513, ITAT Delhi held that “Further, we concur with the opinion of the ld CIT(A) that the words “any proceeding under this Act by way of appeal reference or revision” cannot be read as to give effect to an order made in any case and for any period and of any person. These words should be so construed as referable to an order made for a particular year or years of that particular assessee and not of others.”

 

 

In DCIT v. Sai Baba Sales, 2016 SCC OnLine ITAT 13642, the ITAT Pune has allowed proceedings ordered by CIT(A) under S.148 r/w S.150 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to identify the correct assessee in a case where it could not be ascertained from the material on record whether income is to be taxed in the hands of the director or the company

 

Landmark Supreme Court is CIT v. Greenworld Corpn., (2009) 7 SCC 69

Independence at every stage of proceeding

CIT v. Greenworld Corpn., (2009) 7 SCC 69 at page 98

55. When a statute provides for different hierarchies providing for forums in relation to passing of an order as also appellate or original order, by no stretch of imagination a higher authority can interfere with the independence which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process.