Blog

Only contradictions  in material particulars and not minor contradictions can bea ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses.

Copy of the judgement

Under Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the court within whose jurisdiction the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account is situated, will have jurisdiction to try the offence, if the cheque is delivered for collection through an account.

Kindly refer to the Notification for details

No inherent right to compassionate appointment but rather, it is a right based on certain criteria, especially to provide succor to a needy family – Supreme Court

Kindly refer to the Notification for details

The Supreme Court of India, in a case relating to payment of customs duty held that the precise time when the gazette is published in the electronic mode assumes significance.

Facts

The arrival of the goods and the filing of the IGM was before 18:00 hours on 16 February 2019. The First respondent filed bill of entry number 2083178 dated 16 February 2019 seeking clearance of the goods for home consumption. The bill of entry was self assessed at 18:08 hours under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the Customs Act 19622 under Customs Tariff Heading 2523910 by levying nil customs duty in terms of notification 68/2012 dated 31 December 2012

On 16 February 2019, notification 5/2019 was issued by the Ministry of Finance in the Department of Revenue, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975.3 By this notification, a new tariff entry was introduced in Chapter 98 of Section XXI in the following terms:notifying that all goods originating in or exported from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan – 200 % -”.

The notification contains a reference to the date (16 February 2019) and time (20:46:58) at which it was uploaded and published in the e-Gazette of the Government of India. Based on the enhancement in the rate of duty brought about by the notification, the customs authorities refused to release the goods which were assessed earlier. The bill of entry was recalled and reassessed on 20 2 “the Customs Act” 3 “the Customs Tariff Act” 10 PART C February 2019 at 18:14 hours by levying customs duty at 200 per cent and IGST at 28 per cent, enhancing the duty from Rs 73,342/- to 8,10,952/-.

The Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of the Customs Act and the General Clauses Act held as follows:

“The situation at hand, operates on a landscape which is significantly altered by the regulatory regime in the electronic age where, both – uploading of notifications in the e-gazette and filing of bills of entry- are in the electronic form. As we have previously noted, Notification 5/2019 was uploaded in the e-gazette at a specific time and date and cannot apply to bills of entry which were presented on the customs automated EDI system prior to it, attracting the legal fiction set out in Regulation 4(2) of the 2018 Regulations.

Copy of judgment attached.

The Supreme Court had the occasion to consider a question as to what would be the consequence on the Employer and the Insurance Company in case of an accident where the validity of a driving license had expired. having expired. The claim made under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was rejected against the Insurance Company as the driver did not have a valid licence on the date of the accident. While the Supreme Court fixed the liability on the Insurance Company under the Workmen’s Compensation Act howoever held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the employer has to, thus, bear responsibility and consequent liability of permitting the driver to drive with an expired licence over a period of three (3) years.

The Supreme Court further held that once the basic care of verifying the driving licence has to be taken by the employer, though a detailed enquiry may not be necessary, the owner of the vehicle would know the validity of the driving licence as is set out in the licence itself, it cannot be said that thereafter he can wash his hands off the responsibility of not checking up whether the driver has renewed the licence.

Kindly refer to the text of the judgment for complete details.