Search Database

Supreme Court of UK

  • DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Scotland)-[2022]UKSC 26
    Value Added Tax Act 1994-Whether HMRC have power to refuse to accept a taxable person’s self-assessment claim for payment of a VAT credit while they verify the claim and to decide at a later date that they are only prepared to pay a lower amount than it claimed in the self-assessment.
  • R v Andrewes [2022] UKSC 24 (18/08/2022)
    Where a defendant obtains remuneration as a result of or in connection with an offence of fraud based upon the obtaining of employment by false representations or non-disclosure, in what circumstances (if any) will a confiscation order based on the wages earned be disproportionate within the terms of section 6(5) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, or contrary to Article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights?”
  • HA (Nigeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department-[2022] UKSC 22 (20/07/2022)
    (i) What is the correct approach to the test for whether “the effect of [a foreign criminal]’s deportation on [their] partner or child would be unduly harsh” within the meaning of section 117C(5) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; (ii) What is the correct approach to the test for whether there are “very compelling circumstances” for not deporting a foreign criminal who had been sentenced to imprisonment for more than four years, under section 117C(6) of the same Act, and (iii) What is the relevance, if any, of evidence in relation to the foreign criminal’s rehabilitation and how much weight should tribunals accord to such evidence in the context of the above tests, in light of conflicting approaches being endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Binbuga v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 551 and HA (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWCA Civ 1176?
  • R v Luckhurst [2022] UKSC 23 (20/08/2022)
    The proposed appeal relates to the scope of permitted legal expenditure as an exception to a restraint order granted pursuant to section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether section 41(4) prohibits an exception for reasonable legal expenses in respect of civil proceedings relating to the same or similar facts as those of the offence(s) giving rise to the restraint order.

Supreme Court of India

  • Rahimal Bathu & Ors. Vs Ashiyal Beevi (27/9/2023)
    A revisional court not to entertain a revision against an order rejecting on merits an application for review of an appealable decree, which is, if the revisional court sets aside or modifies or alters a trial court’s decree, the decree of the trial court would merge in the one passed by the revisional court. In consequence, the right of the party aggrieved by the trial court’s decree to file an appeal would get affected.
  • Phulel Singh Vs. State of Haryana (27/09/2023)
    The most glaring aspect that is required to be considered is that the High Court itself has disbelieved the dying declaration insofar as Jora Singh, father-in-law of the deceased is concerned. We fail to understand as to how the same dying declaration could have been made basis for conviction of the appellant when the same was disbelieved insofar as another accused is concerned.
  • Vinod Kumar vs State Of Punjab (23/09/2014)
    The law requires special reasons to be recorded for grant of time but the same is not taken note of. As has been noticed earlier, in the instant case the cross-examination has taken place after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to pressurize the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics. There is no cavil over the proposition that there has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court while conducting the trial to be guided by the mandate of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the basis of the material brought on record.
  • Smt. Roopa Soni Vs. Kamalnarayan Soni (06/09/2023)
    That the marriage has irretrievably broken down is to be factually determined and firmly established. For this, several factors are to be considered such as the period of time the parties had cohabited after marriage; when the parties had last cohabited; the nature of allegations made by the parties against each other and their family members; the orders passed in the legal proceedings from time to time, cumulative impact on the personal relationship; whether, and how many attempts were made to settle the disputes by intervention of the court or through mediation, and when the last attempt was made, etc.

READ Comments

Site Search

Forum Support


Project Folio

Recent Updates

%d bloggers like this: