Supreme court
Stamp Act | Stamp Duty Determined By Instruments' Legal Character, Not Its Nomenclature: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that while determining the chargeability of the Stamp Duty, the decisive factor is to ascertain the true legal character of the instrument, not the nomenclature assigned to the instrument. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed an appeal filed by a company that attempted to color a mortgage deed like a security bond to attract lesser stamp duty, affirming the higher demand for stamp duty on the deed. The appellant executed a...
S.138 NI Act | Cheque Dishonour Complaint Maintainable Against Trustee Without Arraying Trust As Accused : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 9) observed that a cheque dishonor complaint would be maintainable against a trustee, who has signed a cheque on the Trust's behalf, without arraying the Trust as an accused. The Court reasoned that since a Trust is not a juristic person, and neither sues nor is sued, therefore, trustees responsible for day to day affairs of the Trust would be held liable, particularly the one who signed the cheque. “When a cause of action arises due to an alleged...
Advocates Cannot Claim Exclusive Quota In District Judge Direct Recruitment : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Constitution Bench today held that the 25% quota set for direct recruitment for the post of district judges is not exclusively for the candidates from the bar. The bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices MM Sundresh, Aravind Kumar, SC Sharma and K Vinod Chandran held that : "We are also not inclined to accept the contention on behalf of the respondents that 25% quota of direct recruitment is reserved only for practising advocates. We are of the view that if...
Judicial Officers' Experience Greater Than That Of Practising Advocates: Supreme Court In District Judge Recruitment Case
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that in-service judicial officers can apply for direct recruitment as District Judges if they have a combined experience of seven years as an advocate and/or in service. The Court also observed that the experience gained by a judicial officer is greater than that of a practising advocate.The judgment authored by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai for the 5-judge Constitution Bench observed, "the experience the judicial officers gain while working as...
Age Bar In Surrogacy Act Won't Apply To Couples Who Froze Embryos Before Law Came Into Force: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that couples who had begun the surrogacy process before the enactment of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 law can proceed with surrogacy despite being over the statutory age limit under section 4(iii)(c)(I). The law mandates that the woman must be between 23 and 50 years of age and the man between 26 and 55 years.A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan said that the right to surrogacy of such couples crystallised when they had their...
Judicial Officers With 7 Years Combined Experience On Date Of Application Eligible For Direct Recruitment As District Judges : Supreme Court
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench today held that a judicial officer, who has a combined experience of seven years as a judicial officer and an advocate, is eligible to apply for direct appointment as a District Judge. The eligibility will be seen as on the date of the application.To ensure a level playing field, the Court held that the minimum age of the in-service candidates applying for District Judges' direct recruitment must be 35 years.The Court held that...
Written Statement Filed In Commercial Suit During COVID Limitation Extension Period Cannot Be Rejected For Delay : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (October 8) reiterated that the Written Statement filed belatedly in a commercial suit after the mandatory period of 120 days cannot be rejected when it was filed during COVID-19, as the delay fell entirely within the COVID-19 limitation extension ordered by the Supreme Court in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation. A bench of Justice Aravind Kumar...
'Shocking State Of Affairs' : Supreme Court Expresses Dismay Over Delayed Trials In Maharashtra Courts
The Supreme Court, on October 7, expressed dismay over the shocking state of affairs in the conduct of trials before different Courts in the State of Maharashtra. It was observed that as many as 649 cases are pending across all District Courts in Maharashtra, in which charges are yet to be framed. Some of these cases date back to the year 2006, and the reason for the delay is mostly attributed...