Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD NEUBERGER (with whom Lord Walker agrees) Introductory 1. The specific issue raised by this appeal is whether, following receipt of a statutory notice from an inspector of taxes to produce documents in connection with its tax affairs, a company is entitled to refuse to comply on the ground that the documents are covered by legal advice privilege (LAP), in a case where the legal advice was given by accountants in relation to a tax avoidance scheme. The more general question raised by this issue is whether LAP extends, or should be extended, so as to apply to legal advice given by someone other than a member of the legal profession, and, if so, how far LAP thereby extends, or should be extended. The statutory provisions applicable in this case 2. The statutory provisions in force at the time during which the events giving rise to the present proceedings took place were in the Taxes Management Act 1970 ("TMA"). All references in this judgment to sections are to sections of that Act, u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
M.S. Sanklecha, J. 1. This Full Bench has been constituted on a reference made on 23rd April, 2015 by a Division Bench of this Court in Amritlakshmi Machine Works and Others v/s. The Commissioner of Customs (Import) (303 ELP 161). This reference has arisen when the Division Bench in Amritlakshmi Machine Works (supra) was considering four appeals (two by the partnership firm and two by its managing partner) under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) from a common order dated 7th May 2012 of the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). All the four appeals raised the following substantial question of law: Whether the Tribunal has erred in imposing simultaneous penalties on both partners and partnership firm? This reference arose as in the view of the Division Bench in Amritlakshmi Machine Works (supra) there was a cleavage of opinion on the above issue between the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court. In Texoplast Industries v/s. Additional Commiss...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : [1991]72CompCas588(AP)
ORDERJeevan Reddy, J.1. The issue before the Full Bench is whether a writ petition liesagainst a Co-operative Society, and if it doe's, in what circumstances? Context is the enforcement of bye-laws governing service conditions of employees.2. In P. S. Naidu v. Chittoor District Co,-operative Central Bank, (1977) 2 APLJ (HC) 282 : (1978 Lab IC 528), a Division Bench of this Court held that an order of punishment made by a Society against its employee cannot be questioned by the latter by way of writ petition. The Bench pointed out 'as far as this Court is concerned, it has uniformly taken the view that a writ petition does not lie against a co-operative society especially when it relates to matters concerning the Society and its employees. In C. V. Narasimha Naidu v. Chittoor District Co-operative Bank Ltd., (1971)2 APLJ (SN) 16 ('W.P. No. 3788/1970 dated 7-6-1971'), one of us (Kuppuswami, J.) following the decision of a Division Bench of this (Madras?) Court in Lakshmaiah v. Sri Perumb...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
(Prayer: Crl. A. No.835/2014 is filed Under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure by the Advocate for the Appellant/Accused No.1 Praying that this Honble Court may be Pleased to set aside the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence Both Dated: 27.09.2014 Passed by the 36th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha and Others) at Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.208/2004 Convicting the Appellant/Accused No.1 for the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code read with Section 13(1)(E) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Appellant/Accused No.1 is Sentenced to Undergo Simple Imprisonment for a Period of Four Years, and to pay a Fine of Rs.100 Crores. In Default to pay the Fine Amount, she shall Undergo Further Imprisonment for One Year For the Offence Punishable Under Section 13(1)(E) read ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We are in these appeals concerned with an issue of considerable national and international importance, pertaining to the setting up of a nuclear power plant in the South-Eastern tip of India, at Kudankulam in the State of Tamil Nadu. The incidents occurred in Three Miles Island Power Plant USA, Chernobyl, Ukraine, USSR, Fukoshima, Japan, Union Carbide, Bhopal might be haunting the memory of the people living in and around Kudankulam, leading to large-scale agitation and emotional reaction to the setting up of the Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) and its commissioning. The nature of potential adverse effect of ionizing radiation, adds to fears and unrest which might not have even thought of by Enrico Fermi a noble laureate in physics in 1938, who was responsible for the setting up of the first Nuclear reactor in a Doubles quash Court at Slagg Field, at the Chicago University, USA. Since then, it is history, India has now 20 Nuclear Reactors, in place...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:25. 10.2018 Pronounced on:14. 12.2018 versus versus ........ Petitioner ........ Petitioner ........ RESPONDENTS BGP PRODUCTS OPERATIONS GMBH AND ANR......... Petitioners UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ RESPONDENTS versus ALL INDIA DRUG ACTION NETWORK UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. + W.P.(C) 6084/2018, C.M. APPL.23517/2018 + W.P.(C) 8555/2018, C.M. APPL.32864/2018 & 34112/2018 + W.P.(C) 8666/2018, C.M. APPL.33281/2018 + W.P.(C) 9601/2018, C.M. APPL.37387/2018 & 37388/2018 CIRON DRUGS AND PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NEON LABORATORIES LTD. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ........ Petitioner versus Through : Sh. C.S. Vaidianathan, Sr. Advocate with Sh. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Gayatri Roy, Ms. Soumili Das, Sh. Anirudh and Sh. Amit Panigrahi, Advocates, for petitioners, in W.P.(C) 6084/2018. Sh. Colin Gonsalves, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Olivia A.I. Bay, Sh. Deepak Kumar Singh and Ms. Harini Raghupathy, Advocates, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.152 OF2013TOFAN SINGH Appellant Versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1750 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2214 OF2009CRIMINAL APPEAL No.827 OF2010CRIMINAL APPEAL No.835 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL No.836 OF2011CRIMINAL APPEAL No.344 OF2013CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1826 OF2013CRIMINAL APPEAL No.433 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.6338 OF2015CRIMINAL APPEAL No.77 OF2015CRIMINAL APPEAL No.90 OF2017CRIMINAL APPEAL No.91 OF2017SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.1202 OF2017JUDGMENT R.F. Nariman, J.1.These Appeals and Special Leave Petitions arise by virtue of a reference order of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC31 The facts in that 1 appeal have been set out in that judgment in some detail, and need not be repeated by us. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court recorded that the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012JUSTICE K.S. PUTTASWAMY (RETD.) AND ANOTHER .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.151 OF2013TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) No.152 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.833 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1797 OF2013WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.932 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.1796 OF2013CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.144 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.494 OF2012IN TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.313 OF2014TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.312 OF2014SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.2524 OF2014WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.37 OF2015Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2012 & c onnected matters Page 1 of 567 WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.220 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.674 OF2015WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.829 OF2013TRANSFERRED PETITION (CIVIL) No.921 OF2015CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) No.470 OF2015WRIT...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. h December, 2014 Date of Decision:06. h February, 2015 % + CRL.A.910/2008 VIKAS YADAV Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. with Mr.Amit Kala,Adv. versus STATE OF UP Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. CRL.A.741/2008 VISHAL YADAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Vinay Arora, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF UP ....Respondents Through : Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. Crl.A.Nos.910, 741, 958/2008, Crl.Rev.P.No.369/2008, Crl.A.Nos.1322/2011 & 145/2012 pg. 1 + CRL.A.958/2008 STATE Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:24. h December, 2014 Date of Decision:06. h February, 2015 % + CRL.A.910/2008 VIKAS YADAV Through: ..... Appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Adv. with Mr.Amit Kala,Adv. versus STATE OF UP Through : + ..... Respondent Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. CRL.A.741/2008 VISHAL YADAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Vinay Arora, Advs. versus STATE GOVT. OF UP ....Respondents Through : Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Mr.P.K. Dey, Adv. with Mr.Kaushik Dey, Mr. Abhijeet, Mr. Vijay Pal Singh and Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Advs. for complainant. Crl.A.Nos.910, 741, 958/2008, Crl.Rev.P.No.369/2008, Crl.A.Nos.1322/2011 & 145/2012 pg. 1 + CRL.A.958/2008 STATE Through : ..... Appellant Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv. with Ms. Shinjan Jain, Adv. for State. Ms. Ritu Gauba, APP for ...
Tag this Judgment!