sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Sada Law

Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7

Leave a Comment / 2022, Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Discover the key details of the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling on the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). Scheduled for May 7, the hearing will address critical aspects like the Enforcement Directorate’s powers and the presumption of innocence. Introduction On May 7, the Supreme Court of India will reconvene to hear appeals against the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling, which upheld significant provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The petitions aim to challenge the earlier verdict, and the reconstituted bench is set to deliberate on pivotal issues. Bench Reconstitution Initially, the case was handled by a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, C.T. Ravikumar (now retired), and Ujjal Bhuyan. Following Justice Ravikumar’s retirement, the bench has been reassembled with Justice N. Kotiswar Singh joining the team. The hearing is scheduled for 2:00 PM on May 7. Background: The Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling  On July 27, 2022, a bench led by Justices A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravikumar delivered the landmark ruling. This decision upheld key provisions of the PMLA, including: Authority of the Enforcement Directorate: Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17, and 19 grant powers for arrests, attachment, search, and seizure. Reverse Burden of Evidence: Section 24 places the burden of proof on the accused, aligning with the Act’s objectives. “Twin Conditions” for Bail: Section 45’s stringent bail requirements were reinstated by Parliament in 2018, overriding the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. Grounds for Review Eight petitions were filed seeking an immediate review of the ruling. Notable issues include: The Court’s finding that accused individuals need not receive a copy of the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), akin to a First Information Report (FIR). The reversal of the presumption of innocence, which sparked widespread debate. Timeline of the Review Process August 25, 2022: A bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana observed that certain conclusions warranted reexamination. August 7, 2022: The Court granted an open hearing on the petitions. October 16, 2022: The case was deferred due to Justice Surya Kant’s absence, after initially being scheduled for September 18. What to Expect on May 7: The reassembled bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and N. Kotiswar Singh, will address the critical review petitions. This hearing could have significant implications for the enforcement of anti-money laundering laws in India. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s review of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary ruling marks a crucial moment for the interpretation of the PMLA. The decision will not only impact ongoing cases but also set a precedent for how financial crimes are prosecuted in India. Stay tuned for updates on this landmark case. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court to Review Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Ruling on PMLA: Hearing Scheduled for May 7 Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts NITU KUMARI 04 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India, in the 2024 Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala case, reinforced LGBTQ+ rights, personal liberty, and the legitimacy of chosen families. Learn about the key guidelines issued to High Courts in habeas corpus and protection petitions. Supreme Court Reinforces LGBTQ+ Autonomy and Personal Liberty in Habeas Corpus Case On March 11, 2024, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment in the case of Devu G. Nair vs. The State of Kerala, affirming the autonomy and dignity of LGBTQ+ individuals. The Court issued a set of critical guidelines to High Courts regarding the handling of habeas corpus petitions and protection petitions, especially those involving sexual orientation and identity. Case Background – Devu G. Nair v. State of Kerala In this case, the petitioner alleged that her close companion, referred to as “X”, was being unlawfully confined by her natal family due to their intimate relationship. The Kerala High Court initially directed “X” to undergo counseling, raising concerns about interference with personal liberty. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, examined whether the High Court’s order violated the individual’s right to choose their relationships and living arrangements freely. Key Legal Issues Addressed  Violation of Autonomy through Forced CounselingThe Court analyzed whether court-ordered counseling infringed on the autonomy and dignity of “X”, particularly when it could be used to suppress her sexual orientation. Protection of LGBTQ+ Individuals in Legal ProceedingsThe Court also considered what safeguards courts should implement when hearing habeas corpus petitions involving LGBTQ+ persons. Arguments Presented Petitioner’s ViewpointThe petitioner emphasized that members of the LGBTQ+ community often face violence, emotional abuse, and rejection by their biological families. The concept of a “chosen family”—comprised of friends and intimate partners—holds vital importance in their lives. Any directive for therapy or family counseling may reinforce harmful societal biases. Respondent’s Standpoint“X” claimed she was staying with her parents of her own free will and referred to the petitioner as an “intimate friend.” She also stated she did not wish to live with or marry anyone at that time. However, concerns were raised about the potential misuse of counseling to manipulate her sexual identity and choices. Supreme Court Verdict and Key Takeaways Ratio Decidendi (Binding Legal Principle) Right to Choose RelationshipsAdults have the constitutional right to determine their own relationships and living situations without undue interference. Judicial Limits in LGBTQ+ CasesCounseling must not be weaponized to alter someone’s sexual identity or relationship preferences. Recognition of Chosen FamiliesThe Court recognized chosen families as equal in importance to biological families, especially for marginalized communities. Obiter Dicta (Judicial Commentary) The judiciary must remain impartial and avoid reinforcing societal prejudices. Courts should ensure that they do not become tools of coercion, particularly in matters involving identity and individual liberty. Guidelines Issued to High Courts The Supreme Court laid down the following judicial guidelines for handling similar cases: Prioritize Personal Liberty: Habeas corpus petitions must be resolved swiftly, focusing on the freedom of the individual. Ensure Private Interaction: Judges should ensure that individuals can meet and speak freely with legal representatives or partners in a safe, non-coercive environment. Avoid Forced Counseling or Parental Custody: Courts must not suggest therapy or parental care that could stigmatize or pressure LGBTQ+ individuals. Show Empathy and Protect Privacy: The judiciary should treat such matters with compassion and preserve the individual’s dignity. Provide Immediate Protection: Where necessary, courts should arrange police protection to safeguard individuals from threats posed by natal families. Conclusion – A Milestone for LGBTQ+ Rights in India This landmark judgment marks a significant step forward in the protection of LGBTQ+ rights, privacy, and individual liberty under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. By acknowledging the reality of chosen families and setting firm boundaries against judicial overreach, the Supreme Court has provided a strong foundation for protecting personal freedoms in future cases. The case of Devu G. Nair vs. State of Kerala serves as a reminder that constitutional values must prevail over societal pressure, especially when it comes to the lives and identities of underrepresented groups.   Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5

Supreme Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Autonomy in Habeas Corpus Case: Guidelines Issued to High Courts Read More »

Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail NITU KUMARI 04 May 2025 In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court of India invalidated the premature release of 11 convicts in the 2002 Bilkis Bano case, reinforcing the importance of justice and proper legal procedures. Learn the full background, legal journey, and final judgment. Background of the Bilkis Bano Case The Bilkis Bano case is one of the most harrowing incidents of the 2002 Gujarat riots, a communal conflict that followed the Godhra train burning. Bilkis Bano, 21 years old and five months pregnant at the time, was gang-raped during the violence in Gujarat’s Dahod district. In the same attack, seven members of her family, including her three-year-old daughter, were brutally murdered by rioters. Due to the sensitivity of the case and concerns over a fair trial, the matter was transferred from Gujarat to Maharashtra. In 2008, a Sessions Court in Mumbai convicted 11 accused under Sections 302 and 376 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Bombay High Court upheld this judgment in 2017. Controversial Remission of Convicts in 2022 In a shocking turn, the Gujarat government granted remission to all 11 convicts in August 2022, allowing their early release under a remission policy. The move sparked public outrage and widespread criticism, especially from Bilkis Bano, who petitioned the Supreme Court seeking to revoke their release. The remission was initially pursued by Radheshyam Shah, one of the convicts, who approached the Gujarat High Court. The court dismissed his plea, citing lack of jurisdiction. However, upon further legal battle, the Supreme Court of India directed the Gujarat government to consider the remission applications. Grim Facts of the Case Bilkis Bano and several female family members were brutally raped. A two-day-old infant, eight children, and multiple adults were murdered. 12 individuals were charged with gang rape, murder, and rioting with deadly weapons. Six police officers and two doctors were also charged with tampering evidence and misconduct. While one officer was convicted for filing a false First Information Report (FIR), five others and the two doctors were initially acquitted by the Trial Court but were later convicted by the Bombay High Court on appeal. Legal Issues Addressed   1. Was the remission of the 11 convicts justifiable? The core issue was whether the early release complied with legal standards and jurisdictional rules. 2. Was Bilkis Bano’s writ petition under Article 32 maintainable? The Court examined her constitutional right to petition against executive actions violating her rights. 3. Were Public Interest Litigations (PILs) by third parties maintainable? The Court assessed whether unrelated individuals could challenge remission orders. 4. Was the Gujarat government the appropriate authority for granting remission? Since the trial occurred in Maharashtra, the legal jurisdiction of Gujarat in granting remission was heavily scrutinized. Supreme Court Observations and Verdict The Supreme Court emphasized the purpose of punishment—not as retaliation but as reformation and deterrence. Drawing philosophical inspiration from Plato, the Court stated that a criminal, like a patient, should be rehabilitated when possible. However, such remission should follow legal procedures and must be justified. Final Ruling: The Court ruled that the State of Gujarat was not the competent authority to grant remission since the trial was held in Maharashtra. The remission was declared invalid, and the 11 released convicts were ordered to surrender within two weeks. Conclusion: Upholding Justice in the Bilkis Bano Case The Bilkis Bano case remains a landmark in the Indian judicial system, highlighting the importance of victim rights, judicial independence, and strict adherence to legal procedure. The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces that remission policies cannot override justice, especially in cases involving heinous crimes like gang rape and mass murder. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Overturns Remission in Bilkis Bano Case: 2002 Gujarat Riots Convicts Ordered Back to Jail Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Learn about the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the transfer of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case following heated exchanges in court. Get insights into the roles of Justices Abhay Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Gopal Sankaranarayana Key Developments in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam Case The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, recently allowed the State of Chhattisgarh to request a case transfer to another bench. This decision comes amidst a high-profile legal battle in the ongoing Chhattisgarh liquor scam case. Background of the Case In the matter of Anil Tuteja v. Union of India and connected cases, Anil Tuteja, along with former IAS officers Vidhu Gupta and Nitesh Purohit, sought to quash corruption charges against them. These charges stemmed from allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court, however, declined to entertain their arguments during Friday’s hearing. Heated Exchange in Court A contentious exchange unfolded during the proceedings. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, objected to adjournments requested by the petitioners’ counsel. He also sought the vacation of a temporary injunction that protected the accused from arrest. Justice Oka noted Jethmalani’s arguments and suggested he petition the Chief Justice to transfer the case to an appropriate bench. “If there are complaints about unresolved matters, you can request the Chief Justice to assign the case elsewhere,” Justice Oka remarked. Petitioners’ Defense Senior Advocates Gopal Sankaranarayanan and Meenakshi Arora represented the petitioners. They countered Jethmalani’s claims, arguing that delays were primarily caused by the State’s requests for adjournments. Arora described the State’s objections as “unfair,” particularly when adjournments had been sought due to the State’s own scheduling challenges. Court’s Observations During the hearing, Justice Oka questioned the urgency of Jethmalani’s request to revoke the interim protection, emphasizing that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation. “Why is custodial interrogation necessary when the quashing petitions are still pending?” he asked. Jethmalani argued that custodial interrogation was vital for the investigation, asserting that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide on such matters. In response, Justice Oka proposed that the interlocutory applications (IAs) be heard on a non-miscellaneous day prior to the summer break. Transfer Request Granted Despite heated arguments, Justice Oka maintained that the judiciary could not be burdened with repeated complaints over adjournments. “If we start entertaining such objections in every case, it will hinder the Court’s ability to function effectively,” he said. The bench ultimately decided to allow Jethmalani to petition the Chief Justice to transfer the matter to a different bench, ensuring a more streamlined process. Conclusion This latest development underscores the complexity of the Chhattisgarh liquor scam case, with both sides vigorously defending their positions. As the case moves forward, the judiciary’s emphasis on maintaining procedural efficiency will likely play a pivotal role in its resolution. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Chhattisgarh State Option to Seek Case Transfer Amid Heated Liquor Scam Hearing Read More »

Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 Byju’s withdraws its Supreme Court appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on Aakash’s ownership. Read the latest updates on the Think and Learn vs. Aakash case. Overview of the Byju’s vs. Aakash Ownership Dispute In a significant development, Think and Learn Pvt Ltd (operating the ed-tech giant Byju’s) has withdrawn its appeal in the Supreme Court of India. The appeal challenged the Karnataka High Court‘s ruling on the ownership of Aakash Educational Services, a subsidiary of Byju’s. This legal battle emerged after the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) issued an order to maintain the status quo on Aakash’s shareholding. Aakash contested this decision, resulting in the High Court overturning the NCLT’s directive. Supreme Court Proceedings The Supreme Court reviewed Byju’s appeal on May 2, 2025. Despite expressing concerns over the High Court’s jurisdiction in the matter, the apex court refrained from overturning the High Court’s decision. Key Observations by the Bench A two-judge bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice P.S. Narasimha highlighted: “There was no justification for the High Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when the NCLT’s ruling could have been appealed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).” However, the bench allowed Byju’s to withdraw its appeal, noting the sequence of events that followed. Senior Counsel P.S. Patwalia, representing Think and Learn Pvt Ltd, formally requested the withdrawal, which the court permitted. Timeline of Events March 27, 2025: The NCLT Bengaluru ordered Aakash Educational Services to maintain its current shareholding structure. April 8, 2025: The Karnataka High Court overturned the NCLT’s directive, ruling in favor of Aakash and remanding the case for reconsideration. April 30, 2025: The High Court’s interim ruling required Aakash to uphold its current shareholding until this date, pending further action by the NCLT. Implications for Byju’s and Aakash The withdrawal of Byju’s Supreme Court petition marks a pivotal moment in the ownership dispute with Aakash Educational Services. While Aakash has successfully defended its position, the matter now returns to the NCLT for further deliberation. This case underscores the complexities of corporate governance and the judicial process, particularly in disputes involving high-value mergers and acquisitions. Conclusion The resolution of the Byju’s vs. Aakash ownership case highlights the importance of due process in corporate disputes. Byju’s decision to withdraw its Supreme Court appeal reflects a strategic move to focus on NCLT proceedings rather than prolonged litigation. As the case progresses, it will serve as a crucial example of how businesses navigate India’s evolving legal and regulatory framework. Stay updated as this landmark case unfolds further, shaping the future of corporate governance in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Read More »

Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Byju’s Withdraws Supreme Court Petition on Aakash Ownership: Karnataka HC Ruling Stands Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements NITU KUMARI 04 May 2025 In a landmark ruling in Cox and Kings vs SAP India (2023), the Supreme Court of India upheld the Group of Companies Doctrine, allowing non-signatories to be bound by arbitration agreements. Learn the implications for Indian arbitration law. Case Overview – Cox and Kings vs SAP India Pvt. Ltd. Date of Judgment: December 6, 2023Case Citation: 2023 INSC 1051Court: Supreme Court of IndiaPresiding Judges: Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice) Hrishikesh Roy Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha Jamshed B. Pardiwala Manoj Misra (judge) This pivotal arbitration case involved Cox and Kings Ltd. (Petitioner) and SAP India (Respondent), along with its German parent company SAP SE. It examined whether a company that did not sign an arbitration agreement could still be bound by it under Indian law. Factual Background The Agreements and Dispute In 2015, Cox and Kings engaged SAP India to provide software solutions for its e-commerce platform. Several agreements were signed, including one with an arbitration clause. Although SAP SE, the German parent company, was not a signatory, it was deeply involved in project execution. Due to implementation failures, the project was abandoned in 2016. Cox and Kings sought ₹45 crore in compensation, while SAP India demanded ₹17 crore, alleging wrongful termination. Arbitration Demand and Legal Issue Cox and Kings issued arbitration notices to both SAP India and SAP SE. However, SAP SE had not signed any arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court was approached under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an arbitrator. This brought up a crucial legal question:Can non-signatories be compelled to arbitrate based on the Group of Companies Doctrine in Indian arbitration law? Key Legal Issues Can non-signatories be made parties to arbitration agreements? Is the Group of Companies Doctrine valid under Indian arbitration law? Under what conditions can a non-signatory be bound by an arbitration clause? Supreme Court Observations The Constitution Bench delivered several critical findings: The definition of “parties” under Section 2(1)(h) includes both signatories and non-signatories in certain cases. Actions by a non-signatory may imply tacit consent to be bound by an arbitration agreement. The requirement of a written arbitration agreement (Section 7) does not exclude non-signatories where intent is clear. The Group of Companies Doctrine is a valid and independent legal principle in Indian arbitration jurisprudence. The doctrine cannot rely solely on concepts like alter ego or piercing the corporate veil. Courts and tribunals must evaluate multiple factors (e.g., participation, mutual intent, business structure) before binding a non-signatory. Rejection of Previous Interpretation The Court criticized the ruling in Chloro Controls Pvt. Ltd. v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc. (2012) for improperly linking “claiming through or under” to the Group of Companies Doctrine. Judgment and Ratio Decidendi The Court upheld the Group of Companies Doctrine in India, confirming: Non-signatories can be bound by arbitration agreements under specific conditions. Arbitral tribunals must assess the intent and involvement of the non-signatory at the referral stage. The doctrine enhances clarity in complex multi-party, multi-contract commercial disputes. Implications for Indian Arbitration Law This decision marks a significant shift in how arbitration agreements are interpreted, especially in cases involving corporate groups. It sets a precedent for binding non-signatory entities that actively participate in contract execution or show intent to be bound. Key Takeaways: The Group of Companies Doctrine is now a settled part of Indian arbitration law. Courts must take a case-by-case approach, considering conduct and corporate relationships. Arbitral tribunals can decide on non-signatory involvement at the referral stage. Conclusion The Supreme Court’s ruling in Cox and Kings vs SAP India Pvt. Ltd. reinforces the principle that corporate entities within the same group may be bound by an arbitration agreement, even without being formal signatories. The Group of Companies Doctrine provides flexibility in addressing disputes in multi-party commercial contracts, aligning Indian arbitration law with global standards Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw Publications. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Sada Law • May 4, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Affirms Group of Companies Doctrine: Non-Signatories Can Be Bound by Arbitration Agreements Read More »

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ordered the removal of an unauthorized temple and gurudwara encroaching on a public road in Kharar, Punjab. In its directive, the court provided six weeks for the removal of holy texts, idols, and other religious artifacts following the proper observance of rituals. Court’s Findings Justice Harsh Bunger reviewed the case records and confirmed that the construction of the religious structures had been carried out without approved building plans or permissions from the relevant authorities. There was no evidence to suggest that these structures were part of the colony’s approved layout plan. The court was responding to a writ petition seeking the removal of alleged illegal encroachments by the Managing Committees of: Shri Guru Nanak Darbar Gurudwara Radha Madhav Mandir Both structures, according to the petition, obstructed public access to a commercial market through the installation of barricades, boundary walls, gates, and hoardings. Key Precedents The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahesh Prasad Gupta v. R.G., Jharkhand High Court and Others (2002), which held that the demolition of unauthorized structures, even religious ones, is permissible when they lack proper approval. Court’s Directives Self-Removal by Committees: The Gurudwara and Mandir Managing Committees were given six weeks to voluntarily remove the structures and ensure proper handling of religious artifacts. Action by Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM): If the committees fail to comply, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Kharar), in coordination with the police, will oversee the removal of the unauthorized structures. All rituals for the removal of holy texts, books, and idols must be observed prior to demolition. Cost of Removal: The entire cost of removing the unauthorized buildings will be borne by the respondents. Follow-Up Measures: Non-compliance by the committees will lead to the filing of a status report by the SDM, which may result in contempt proceedings. Conclusion The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the importance of adhering to legal procedures for construction, even in cases involving religious edifices. By balancing the observance of religious sentiments with the enforcement of law, the court’s decision aims to ensure unobstructed public access to essential infrastructure. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Read More »

Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Gurudwara and Temple in Kharar Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case MAHI SINHA 04 May 2025 The Punjab and Haryana High Court questions the Special POCSO Court over the victim’s surrender as a prosecution witness in a rape case, emphasizing the need for her testimony for a fair trial. Overview of Vijay v/s State of Haryana The Punjab and Haryana High Court has raised concerns over a recent development in a rape case under the POCSO Act. The court found it “strange” that the victim surrendered as a prosecution witness and has sought an explanation from the Special POCSO Court regarding this unusual situation. Key Details of the Case: The Court’s Observations Justice Amarjot Bhatti stated that the victim’s testimony is essential for ensuring a fair and definitive trial. The decision to surrender the victim as a prosecution witness by the Public Prosecutor was termed peculiar. This action was also noted in the Zimni ruling, further prompting judicial scrutiny. Request for Explanation The High Court has instructed the Additional District & Sessions Judge/Fast Track Special Court (POCSO) to submit a detailed report outlining the circumstances and facts that led to the victim’s surrender. The objective is to clarify this significant procedural anomaly. Background of the Case The petitioner, accused of raping a 16-year-old girl in 2020, has been in custody for over four years and eight months. His attorney, Mr. Rahul Singh, argued that the charges were fabricated. Meanwhile, the court highlighted that the victim was under 16 at the time of the alleged crime, which makes the charges particularly serious under the POCSO Act. Previous Court Ruling In January, the court acknowledged the lengthy incarceration of the accused but emphasized the importance of the victim’s age during the alleged incident. It directed the trial court to expedite the collection of prosecution evidence to avoid further delays. Upcoming Hearing Date The next hearing for this case is scheduled for May 27, 2025. The High Court has requested all involved parties to ensure that the trial progresses without unnecessary hindrance. Legal Representation Petitioner’s Advocate: Mr. Rahul Singh Additional Advocate General for Haryana: Ms. Aditi Girdhar Conclusion This case highlights the complexities involved in legal proceedings under the POCSO Act, particularly when dealing with sensitive issues like the victim’s testimony. The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s proactive measures aim to ensure justice while addressing procedural anomalies. As the trial continues, it underscores the importance of safeguarding the interests of victims while ensuring fair treatment for the accused. The upcoming hearing will likely shed more light on this unique legal situation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Punjab and Haryana High Court Questions POCSO Court on Victim’s Surrender as Prosecution Witness in Rape Case Read More »

Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary BSF Policeman Unintentionally Crosses International Border, Pakistan Rangers Detain Him Despite Multiple Flag Meetings India-Shuts Attari-Wagah Border as Pakistani Nationals Depart Post-Pahalgam Terror Attack Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram MAHI SINHA 03 May 2025 The Supreme Court expressed grave concern over recurring fires at the Bandhwari landfill in Gurugram and urged the CAQM to issue preventive directives. Learn about the legal, environmental, and public health implications. Supreme Court Shocked by Fire Incident at Bandhwari Landfill In a recent development under the landmark case of MC Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India expressed alarm over the massive fire at the Bandhwari landfill in Gurugram. The Court noted that even after extinguishing the fire, lingering smoke continues to pose a serious public health hazard. Fire Took Four Days to Contain A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan stated that at least two fires occurred at the site in April 2025. The latest one took four days to bring under control. “We were shocked after watching the video,” the bench remarked, highlighting the enormous air pollution caused by the incident. Legacy Waste and the Scale of the Problem The Municipal Corporation of Gurugram (MCG) informed the Court that the landfill currently holds 13 lakh metric tons of garbage, including 9 lakh metric tons of untreated legacy waste. The Court ordered the Municipal Commissioner of Gurugram to file an affidavit by May 15, outlining the timeline for removing this waste. Court Directs CAQM to Take Preventive Measures The Court stressed that the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) must issue enforceable directives under Section 12 of the CAQM Act, 2021, to prevent such fires. The Bandhwari site is used by both Gurugram and Faridabad, and similar incidents have occurred throughout the National Capital Region (NCR). Solid Waste Management Rules Violated Justice Oka questioned whether the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 had been implemented, noting that all compliance deadlines had already expired. The Municipal Commissioner revealed that the landfill spans 30 acres and a seven-year cleanup plan is underway, expected to conclude by the end of June 2025. Legal Framework and Non-Compliance Penalties The Court reiterated the importance of clause (zj) of Rule 15 of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, which mandates local authorities to clear legacy waste within a year of the rules’ implementation. This deadline expired in 2017. The Court also emphasized Section 14 of the CAQM Act, which outlines strict penalties for violating CAQM directives, including up to five years in prison and a fine of ₹1 crore. A Call for Urgent Environmental Action This incident has brought to light the urgent need for sustainable waste management and stricter enforcement of environmental laws. The Supreme Court has made it clear that recurring landfill fires in the NCR cannot be ignored. “The situation demands swift, legally binding action to safeguard public health and the environment,” the Court concluded. Conclusion The Bandhwari landfill fire is more than a local incident—it is a symptom of larger systemic failures in waste management and environmental governance across the NCR. The Supreme Court’s response underscores the urgency of preventive strategies, legal enforcement, and long-term remediation. It is now up to local authorities and central agencies like CAQM to act decisively. The health and well-being of millions depend on swift and effective intervention. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Sadalaw Publications • April 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Jharkhand High Court Ruling: GST Authorities Can’t Deny Pre-Deposit Refund on Limitation Grounds Sadalaw Publications • April 26, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Read More »

Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Demands Action from CAQM Over Bandhwari Landfill Fires in Gurugram Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Actor-Activist Sushant Singh Moves Supreme Court to Transfer Petition Challenging IT Rules Petition Amid Social Media Blocking Dispute. Supreme Court Reviews J&K’s Plea Against HC Order Halting Detention of Alleged Overground Worker Amid Pahalgam Terror Attack India’s Supercar Boom: Lamborghini’s Growth Plans Amid Fastest-Growing Economy Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Supreme Court Ruling on SECC 2011: Maharashtra’s Plea for OBC Data Denied Due to Inaccurate Caste Information Bombay High Court Sentences Woman to Jail for Contempt of Court Over ‘Dog Mafia’ Allegations Against Judiciary BSF Policeman Unintentionally Crosses International Border, Pakistan Rangers Detain Him Despite Multiple Flag Meetings India-Shuts Attari-Wagah Border as Pakistani Nationals Depart Post-Pahalgam Terror Attack  Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions MAHI SINHA 03 May 2025 The Supreme Court of India reaffirms the applicability of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on salaries paid to Christian nuns and priests in government-aided institutions, emphasizing uniform tax laws regardless of religious vows or income redirection. Supreme Court Rejects Review Petitions on TDS for Religious Salaries Background and Case Overview: In the landmark case Institute of the Fransican Missionaries of Mary and others v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India has dismissed review petitions challenging the imposition of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on salaries paid to Catholic nuns and priests working in government-aided educational institutions. On May 2, 2025, the bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna, J.B. Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra found no grounds for review, reaffirming their earlier judgment from November 7, 2024. One of the petitions was withdrawn and subsequently dismissed, while all requests for an oral hearing were also denied. Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Key Observations The petitions challenged a Madras High Court ruling which had stated that TDS is applicable to the wages of nuns and missionaries. During the November 2024 hearing, Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, along with Justices Pardiwala and Misra, made it clear that tax obligations apply uniformly: “If a Hindu priest advises donating income to perform puja, and not keep it, it doesn’t exempt him from taxation. The same rule applies to others. The law must be consistent.” The Court emphasized that the taxability is determined at the point of receipt, not based on how the funds are later used or to whom they are transferred. The salary, if credited to an individual’s name and recorded in the accounts, is liable for TDS, irrespective of whether the funds are ultimately retained or passed on to religious institutions like a Diocese or Congregation. Counterarguments and Dismissal by the Bench Senior Advocate Arvind Datar argued that nuns and priests, having taken vows of poverty and “experienced civil death” under Canon Law, are not liable to pay taxes and do not file income tax returns. He further cited an existing CBDT circular suggesting clergy were exempt from TDS. However, the Court dismissed this view, reiterating that: An individual, as per the Income Tax Act, is someone who can receive income, and clergy members do fall under this definition. Not all receipts are taxable, but a receipt is taxable if it constitutes income, regardless of later donation or surrender. Datar warned that the ruling would impact over 4,000 priests across India, but the bench held firm on the principle of equal application of tax law. Madras High Court’s Judgment and Precedent The Income Tax Department had filed appeals against a single bench ruling that favored religious organizations. That bench had accepted the argument that, due to vows of poverty and donation of income to the Church or Diocese, no income accrued personally to the nuns and priests, thus exempting them from TDS. However, the Division Bench—comprising Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and Dr. Vineet Kothari—reversed this decision, stating that: Salaries are earned in an individual capacity. Donations made post-receipt represent application of income, not a diversion by overriding title. Religious organizations cannot claim a privileged position in taxation. They referenced the Kerala High Court ruling in Fr. Sabu P. Thomas v. Union of India, which clarified that the doctrine of diversion of income by overriding title did not apply here. For such a doctrine to hold, a legal obligation must require the direct diversion of income at the source to another party, without the individual having access or entitlement to it. Final Takeaway: Uniform Application of Tax Laws The High Court emphasized that the salary was credited to the clergy’s individual bank accounts and earned under employment contracts—with the State Government, not the Church. Therefore, the employment was legally secular, even if religiously motivated. As per Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, religious beliefs do not influence TDS applicability. The ruling confirms that clergy members working in aided institutions are subject to the same tax rules as any other salaried employees in India. Conclusion This Supreme Court ruling has wide-reaching implications for tax compliance in religious institutions. It underlines the importance of uniform tax enforcement and clarifies that vows of poverty or religious devotion do not exempt individuals from legal financial obligations when income is earned. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Power of Constitutional Courts in Granting Bail for Offenses with Stringent Bail Conditions: A Case Analysis of V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director Sadalaw Publications • May 2, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to Determine Victim’s Age Under POCSO Act Tsewang Thinles vs UT of Ladakh: High Court Clarifies Special Court’s Power to

Supreme Court Upholds TDS on Salaries of Christian Nuns and Priests, Dismisses Review Petitions Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote