Forum Database Glossary
Library Home » Search Database

Search Database

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Check Domain

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

  • Government of NCT of Delhi Vs. Subhash Jain and Ors(02/12/2022)
    The expression “paid” in the main part of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not include a deposit of compensation in court. The consequence of non-deposit is provided in the proviso to Section 24(2) in case it has not been deposited with respect to majority of landholdings then all beneficiaries (landowners) as on the date of notification for land acquisition under Section 4 of the 1894 Act shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of the 2013 Act.
  • Union of India and Ors Vs Subrata Nath(23/11/2022)
    being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct.
  • Pawan Kumar Goel Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.(17/11/2022)
    IMPORTANCE OF PLEADING IN NI ACT-It is necessary to specifically aver in a complaint under Section 141 that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 and has to be made in a complaint. Without this averment being made in a complaint, the requirements of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.
  • Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B. Sreenivasulu & Ors (16/11/2022)
    SARFAESI Act, 2002-Although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of predeposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law

Recent Comments


Site Search

Forum Support

%d bloggers like this: