Today’s Legal Updates

Thursday, 24th March 2022




Distribution of Revenues between the Union and the States

Article – 270 Taxes levied and distributed between the Union and the States

(1) All taxes and duties referred to in the Union List, except the duties and taxes referred to in articles *[268 and 269], respectively, surcharge on taxes and dutiesreferred to in article 271 and any cess levied for specific purposes under any law made by Parliament shall be levied and collected by the Government of India and shall be distributed between the Union and the States in the manner provided in clause (2).
(2) Such percentage, as may be prescribed, of the net proceeds of any such tax or duty in any financial year shall not form part of the Consolidated Fund of India, but shall be assigned to the States within which that tax or duty is leviable in that year, and shall be distributed among those States in such manner and from such time as may be prescribed in the manner provided in clause (3).
(3) In this article, “prescribed” means,—
(i) until a Finance Commission has been constituted, prescribed by the President by order, and
(ii) after a Finance Commission has been constituted, prescribed by the President by order after considering the recommendations of the Finance Commission.

*The words and figures in brackets shall stand substituted as “articles 268, 268A and 269” by the Constitution (Eighty-eighth Amendment) Act, 2003, s. 3 (date yet to be notified).

Today Legal Updates :-

  1. Today the Supreme Court took exception to the vacancies in tribunals across the country and the failure of the Central government in filling up the same.
    • Unless government wakes up and appoints members to tribunals, I feel the Court should stay all litigation under all legislation where members of tribunal have not been appointed.
    • Why establish tribunals (and) then give jurisdiction to High Courts?
    • I don’t want to receive WhatsApp messages concerning the case. Some one sneaks into my groups and leaves messages. We don’t want to get into all of this.
  2. Today the Supreme Court held that filing of false claims for ex-gratia compensation for COVID-19 deaths is a punishable offence under Section 52 of the Disaster Management Act besides being against morality and ethics.  (Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India)
    • the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to conduct random scrutiny of 5 per cent of the COVID-claim applications filed in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Maharashtra.
    • Nobody can be permitted to misuse the same and it is also against morality and is unethical, which can never be accepted.
    • The Court, therefore, fixed 60 days as the outer limit for filing compensation claims for COVID-19 deaths.
    • Therefore, we deem it appropriate to fix the outer limit of sixty days from today to file the claims for compensation in case the death occurred due to COVID-19 prior to March 20, 2022. For future deaths, ninety days’ time is provided from the date of death due to COVID-19 to file the claim for compensation.
    • Any claimant, being a kin/family member of those who died due to COVID-19, is entitled to the ex-gratia of ₹50,000.
    • Such advertisement shall be published fortnightly for a period of six weeks from today.
  3. The Punjab and Haryana High Court will hear cases only through physical mode with effect from 28th March 2022.
  4. Today the Delhi High Court sought the response of Election Commission of India (ECI) and State Election Commission (SEC) on a petition filed by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) seeking directions to conduct the upcoming municipal elections in the national capital using Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) equipped with Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT). (Aam Aadmi Party (Through Saurabh Bharadwaj MLA) v State Election Commission and Anr.)
  5. Today A Delhi court declined bail to Umar Khalid, accused in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case in connection with the Delhi riots of February 2020.
    1. some of the key highlights from the 61-page order delivered by Additional Sessions Judge Amitabh Rawat:-
      • The Court agreed with Umar Khalid’s counsel Senior Advocate Trideep Pais on some inconsistencies in statements of a few protected witnesses, but said a finding had to be given on a cumulative reading of statements of such witnesses and events shown in the charge­sheet.
      • In a conspiracy, various continuous acts are committed by different accused persons and one act could not be read in isolation.
      • At times, if read by itself, a particular act or an activity may appear innocuous, but if it is a part of chain of events constituting a conspiracy, then all the events must be read together.
      • Again agreeing with Pais it was noted that Khalid was part of the WhatsApp group MSJ (Muslim Students of Jamia) and DPSG (Delhi Protest Support Group) but hadn’t sent many messages in these groups and they are not overtly provocative or incriminatory. The order, however, pointed out that he was part of such groups created for specific objects and his acts or presence throughout the period beginning from the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Bill in December 2019 till the riots of February 2020 riots, had to be read in totality and not piecemeal.
      • On the argument that Khalid was in Delhi at the time of riots, the order said that in a case of a conspiracy, it is not necessary that every accused should be present at the spot.
      • Khalid had also argued that his bent of mind could be discerned from his doctoral thesis on Welfare aspects of Adivasis of Jharkhand and other writings. However, according to the order, these arguments were not relevant. The Court countered it by stating if the bent of mind is to be assessed in this manner, then co-­accused Sharjeel Imam has written thesis on riots but any thesis or research work, by itself, done by any accused cannot be a ground for assessing mens rea or bent of mind.
      • A bail application has to be decided on facts presented in charge­sheet.
      • When the accusation against the accused Umar Khalid were found to be prima facie true, the embargoes created by Section 43D of UAPA and Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure would apply.
  6. Today Former Maharashtra Home Minister and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Anil Deshmukh has approached the Bombay High Court seeking regular bail in the money laundering case against him.
    • During the course of investigation which led to the complaint and supplementary complaint of ED, around 100 witnesses had been interrogated and none of the witnesses claimed that they were influenced by Deshmukh.
    • The following grounds were taken in the bail plea:-
      • That Deshmukh was arrested on November 1 and has been in judicial custody since November 15, 2021.
      • Trial is unlikely to commence as the investigation still continues as no charge sheet has been filed in the main case being investigated by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
      • There is no chain for alleged money laundering has been established by the prosecution. “Just vague allegation without any material will not be sufficient to keep an innocent man behind bars.”
      • The material placed on record contains only statements of co-accused persons and there is no documentary evidence which is being relief upon by ED.
      • The prosecution is trying to mislead the Courts by alleging that the amount of ₹10.42 crores was laundered. “Prosecution may not travel beyond alleged predicate offence and project alleged money laundering for a non-existent offence.”
      • Deshmukh voluntarily appeared before the agency which showed that he was always ready and willing to join the investigation.
  7. A Special Public Prosecutor Amit Prasad, who argued against grant of bail to Umar Khalid in an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case registered against him in connection with the Delhi Riots, has said that the order will now be used to spin a narrative against the judiciary.
    • “When Ishrat Jahan gets bail, faith in judiciary is restored, but when others are rejected, then you’d want to play your student activist card. So now is the time when a narrative will come in. We have to be careful with that narrative,”
    • “The way I look at this order is somewhere, the point of investigation has been vindicated and I say so because the investigation stepped in very late. The DPSG chat, etc., actually indicates conspiracy. Investigation stepped in very late…Violence was there but main characters laid low. Bail rejection (has) established prima facie of the crux of investigation,” 
  8. Today the Karnataka High Court held, A landlord whose property was used as a brothel cannot be prosecuted under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, if he/ she was unaware that the premises were being used for that purpose. (Prabhuraj v State of Karnataka)
    • quashed the criminal proceedings against a landlord, on the ground that he was not aware that his property was being used to run a brothel.
    • “In the light of Section 3(2)(b) of the (Immoral Traffic Prevention Act) and the police themselves acknowledging that the petitioner was not aware of what was happening in the premises, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would degenerate into harassment and become an abuse of the process of law,” 
    • The petition was filed by the owner of a residential premises, which had been let out to accused no 1 through a rent agreement between the parties. The police conducted a search of the premises and found out that the accused was running a brothel. Pursuant to the search, a crime was registered against the petitioner and others under Sections 3 (keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel), 4 (punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution) 5 (procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution) and 6 (detaining a person in premises where prostitution is carried on) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA) and Section 370 (trafficking of persons) of the Indian Penal Code. (IPC)
  9. Today A Special CBI Court in the rouse avenue courts Delhi dismissed the bail plea of former National Stock Exchange (NSE) official Anand Subramaniam in the co-location scam case, noting that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) was in the process of unveiling the true face of a “Himalayan Yogi”, which was “as elusive as the anecdotal Himalayan Yeti”. (Anand Subramanian v. CBI)
    • There are strong chances that he may influence the relevant witnesses or tamper with the evidence, since the investigations are under progress and the charge sheet is yet to be filed, more so as it has already been alleged by the investigating agency that he has deleted number of emails, which were accessed during the investigation. As a resultant, the accused fails in this triple test at this stage.”
    • Investigating agency is in the process of removing the secret veil to show to the Court the true face of this Himalayan Yogi, who is as elusive as anecdotal Himalayan Yeti. Further the prosecution at this stage of investigation is stated to be working on disjoint scattered dots, from which it has to conjure a final picture in the shape of a charge sheet. The investigations which are at the initial stage will crystallise into concrete form only after filing of the charge sheet,”
    • Though some times, there may be some overlapping, as observed earlier while deciding the anticipatory bail application of co-accused Chitra Ramkrishna, although it is a completely different matter that all this while the SEBI has looked other way with regard to launching criminal proceedings against the present accused as well as other accused persons involved in the co-location scam, despite being the market watch dog,
  10. Today A Delhi Court said that allegations against Umar Khalid in the UAPA case connected to Delhi Riots are “prime facie” true and rejected his bail plea. (Umar Khalid v. State)
    • On the perusal of the charge­sheet and accompanying documents, for the limited purpose of the bail, I am of the opinion that allegations against the accused Umar Khalid are prima facie true.”
  11. Today the Delhi High Court reduced by half the fine imposed on a man convicted of being an operative of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and being in possession of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).  (Mohd Nafees Khan v National Investigation Agency)
    • “In view of the overall circumstances that have been delineated hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the limited relief of reduction in the fine imposed upon Mohammed Nafees khan in the impugned judgment and order merits interference particularly in view of his impoverished state. Therefore, whilst upholding the order of sentence imposed upon Mohammed Nafees Khan, we direct that the fine imposed upon him be reduced in half.”
  12. Today the Delhi High court held that a putative father is entitled to visitation rights of a minor child and that while granting such rights, the well-being of a child is of paramount importance.  (Kinri Dhir v Veer Singh)
    • “It cannot be disputed that the respondent, being a putative father shall be entitled to visitation rights. While determining and granting such rights, more so when the child is of less than three years of age, surely his well-being/ welfare is of paramount importance. At the same time, the minor must not be insulated from parental touch [Ref: Ruchi Majoo (supra)] and influence of the other parent for healthy growth of child and development of his personality,”
  13. Today the Calcutta High Court reserved its order in the petitions seeking investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other independent agency into the violence in Birbhum district of West Bengal, in which 8 persons were killed allegedly in retaliation to the murder of local All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Bhadu Sheikh.
    • in order to ensure that evidence on the spot remains intact and witnesses are protected, the Court had also passed the following directions:-
      • State will immediately install CCTV cameras with DVR having sufficient memory covering all angles of scene of occurrence and will do continuous recording until further orders. Cameras should be installed in the presence of District Judge, Purba Bardhaman district.
      • A team from CFSL, Delhi is directed to visit the spot of incident and collect the necessary material for forensic examination without any delay.
      • Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police in consultation with District Judge, Purba Bardhaman district should ensure that witnesses are adequately protected and not threatened or influenced by anyone.
    • After 48 hours the prime suspect has not been arrested! I have been informed that the CM said that if any other political leaders wish to visit the site, they can visit with police. This can lead to destruction of evidence.
    • “I am praying for CBI investigation. History repeats itself- 2007, Nandigram police firing. In that too, suo motu cognisance taken,”
    • “This x is the family member who is still alive. No report was given by the State for statement under 161 or 164. These 8 people were killed on that day. One victim died at hospital, and no statement was recorded. Family members of people who are now homeless, nobody has contacted them,”
    • “Who is this Gyanwant Singh? The ED has sent notice to him in 2021 in coal smuggling case. That’s the reason he’s been made the top of this SIT….When the SIT was formed, Gyanwant Singh was not on it. State needs to respond why he was added,”
    • Advocate General (AG) SN Mookherjee told the Court, “There was a direction to provide witness protection. I don’t want to take names- this has been provided. All but one postmortems have been videographed,”
    • “It is very easy to stand up, say things which are not even in the petition. Every submission of theirs, none is in plea,” 
    • “I am being candid, it will not result in a reversal immediately. It is contrary to human behaviour! Every political party has been allowed access to Village. People of other political parties have been there,” 
    • “Witness protection has been addressed. On tampering of evidence- forensics are in the picture. Safeguarding has also happened. CCTV. Cordoning off. All that has happened,” 
    • “In the petitions, there is not one allegations concerning Gyanwant Singh. I don’t hold a brief for him but if he is being crucified, he is entitled to a hearing! We are before a highest court of State,”
  14. Today the Central Government notified the appointment of judicial officer Umesh Chandra Sharma as an Additional Judge of the Allahabad High Court.
  15. Today the Kerala High Court came to the aid of a domestic help by ordering post office authorities to disburse a deposit of hers with full interest.  (Saroja v Postmaster)
    • Saving money by a poor man or woman is not to buy a BMW car or to purchase a palatial building or for a luxurious life. The same is for fulfilling his/her small dreams. Every man and woman may have dreams about their life…Even poor domestic helper who deposited her hard earned money of ₹20,000 in the post office time deposit scheme has to approach this Court to get her interest!
    • In such a situation, the denial of interest to the petitioner, according to me, is not only unconscionable, but it is a clear case of injustice,
    • After keeping the deposit in their custody, the respondents are teaching the red tape rules to this poor domestic helper,”
    • the courts will not enforce and will, when called upon to do so, strike down an unfair and unreasonable contract, or an unfair and unreasonable clause in a contract, entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power.
    • The first category will not get the benefit of amended Rules and the second category will get the benefit of amended Rules. This is a clear case of discrimination and infringement of the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
  16. Today the Union Ministry of Law and Justice has notified the appointment of two new women judges to the Delhi High Court are  Poonam Bamba and Swarana Kanta Sharma.
  17. Today the Central Government notified the appointment of two lawyers, advocates Rajiv Roy and Harish Kumar, as judges of the Patna High Court.
  18. Today the Central government notified the appointment of two lawyers, Nidumolu Mala and S Sounthar, as additional judges of the Madras High Court.
  19. Today the Supreme Court transferred the investigation into the alleged wrongdoings on the part of former Mumbai Police Commissioner Param Bir Singh being probed by the Maharashtra Police, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
    • The exigencies in the advancement of principles of natural justice require the probe to be transferred to CBI. We are not saying appellant is a whistle-blower or anyone involved in this case is washed with milk.
    • We do not want the investigation to be influenced by the observation of this Court. High Court has treated this as a service dispute, which it is not, and thus we set aside the High Court verdict. We allow the appeal and direct the probe into 5 FIRs be transferred to CBI with all records.
    • So far as departmental proceedings are concerned, it will be appropriate to await the probe by CBI. We don’t know whether this is the end of road or more FIRs will be registered. If more FIRs are registered, then those too will be transferred to CBI.
    • There is no material before your Lordships to show why in the interest of independence and impartiality this case should be transferred to the CBI.
    • Justice Kaul responded, “I am in favour of this that every matter should not go to CBI, why burden them? But what can be murkier than what is happening? Top echelons of police and ministry are making allegations against each other.”
    • “Sometimes there is some ego battle between State and this agency. But what can be more glaring than this? Here, one is alleging another to take money. He (former State Minister Anil Deshmukh) was your appointee as a Police Commissioner…there is a battle royale going on. The two persons in this case certainly require investigation.”
    • “Media reports don’t bother us. Yesterday Maharashtra government officials made statements that they may not get a fair hearing by the judiciary and it was in press today and we read it. But this has not bothered us. We put it in the dustbin where it belongs.”
    • “My police officers were called and asked to collect 100 crores from bars etc for (former State) Home Minister. This disturbs us and Mr Sharad Pawar concedes this. When this catches fire, I am transferred and Home Minister says there was dereliction of duty on my part,” 
    • “The issue needs to be probed by CBI for a thorough and impartial probe. If any other agency also probes this along with CBI then it may create hurdle and overlapping of subject matter. There cannot be parallel investigation,”
  20. Today A Kashmiri Pandit organisation has moved the Supreme Court by way of a curative petition seeking probe by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the 1990 massacre of the Pandits in Kashmir.
    1. The plea has sought the following prayers:
      • Investigation and prosecution of terrorists like Yasin Malik and Farooq Ahmed Daar @ Bitta Karate, Javed Nalka and others, for of murder of Kashmiri Pandits during 1989- 90, 1997 and 1998, and which are lying un-investigated by J&K Police even after expiry of 26 years.
      • Transfer of investigation of all the FIR’s/cases of murder and other allied crimes against Kashmiri Pandits in year 1989-90, 1997 and 1998, to an independent investigating agency like CBI or NIA or any other agency.
      • Transfer of all the FIR’s/cases pertaining to murders of Kashmiri Pandits, from State of J&K to some other State (preferably State of NCT of Delhi), so that the witnesses, who were reluctant to approach police or Courts in view of their safety concerns, can freely and fearlessly come and depose before Investigating agencies and Courts.
      • Completion of trial and prosecution of Yasin Malik for gruesome murder of 4 officers of Indian Air Force on the morning of January 25, 1990, which is currently pending before CBI Court.
      • Appointment of an independent committee or Commission to investigate into the mass murders and genocide of Kashmiri Pandits during 1989-90 and subsequent years, and also to investigate the reasons for non-prosecution of FIR’s of murders of Kashmiri Pandits and Court monitored-investigation so that the hundreds of FIR’s can reach their logical conclusion without any further delay.
  21. Today the Supreme Court observed that it is not impacted by media reports and will decide cases unaffected by such reports.
    • Media reports don’t bother us. Yesterday Maharashtra government officials made statements that they may not get a fair hearing by the judiciary and it was in press today and we read it. But this has not bothered us. We put it in the dustbin where it belongs.
    • My police officers were called and asked to collect 100 crores from bars etc for (former State) Home Minister. This disturbs us and Mr Sharad Pawar concedes this. When this catches fire, I am transferred and Home Minister says there was dereliction of duty on my part.
    • This (cases filed by Maharshtra government) is a clear case of victimisation since this was based on baseless allegations. Look at the price I paid to fight this out. Suppose CBI finds something against me, I will face the music.
    • The issue needs to be probed by CBI for a thorough and impartial probe. If any other agency also probes this along with CBI then it may create hurdle and overlapping of subject matter. There cannot be parallel investigation.
    • Param Bir Singh seeks to adopt the mantle of a whistleblower now after being at the head of this system. He writes this letter and somehow he thinks that this letter will grant him some kind of immunity.
    • No, he is not claiming any immunity…He says investigate everything against me. Here a very murky affair is going on amid echelons of power on who should investigate…Let me make it very clear that I don’t consider Param Bir Singh as a whistleblower. But a thorough investigation here is also in the interest of the State.
  22. The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Bhavit Sheth and Harsh Jain, co-founders of fantasy games platform Dream11.  (Bhavit Sheth and Anr v. State of Karnataka)
    • the criminal proceedings noting that with the High Court’s February 14 order striking down the provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act that banned online games, nothing remained in the present matter.
    • The accused were charged under Sections 79 (keeping common gaming house) and 80 (gaming in common gaming-house) of the Karnataka Police Act against the petitioners.
    • “Amendment to the Karnataka Police Act was the subject matter in several writ petitions… the Division Bench of this Court, by its order dated 14.02.2022 has struck down Sections 2, 3, 6, 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, in its entirety as ultra vires the Constitution of India,” 
  23. Yesterday the Supreme Court reiterated that rules of evidence that apply towards criminal trials are distinct from those governing a disciplinary enquiry.  (State of Karnataka vs Umesh)
    • Unlike a criminal prosecution where the charge has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, in a disciplinary proceeding, a charge of misconduct has to be established on a preponderance of probabilities,
    • The top court accordingly held that courts in exercise of judicial review powers in disciplinary cases must restrict to determine only the following:-
      • the rules of natural justice have been complied with.
      • the finding of misconduct is based on some evidence.
      • the statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed.
      • whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity.
      • the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct.
    • Whether the order of the Disciplinary authority in holding the petitioner guilty of charges despite a finding by a criminal Court acquitting him of the similar charges on the basis of similar set of evidence was justified?
    • It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility.
    • The acquittal of the respondent in the course of the criminal trial did not impinge upon the authority of the disciplinary authority or the finding of misconduct in the disciplinary proceeding,
    • purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment”.
  24. Today the Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh each on Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar of Trademarks for non-disclosure of facts in relation to a case before the Court.  (Dr Reddys Laboratories Limited v Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks)
    • “The fact that 6,000-7,000 oppositions have been entertained beyond the period of limitation ought to have been disclosed on the first day when the writ petitions were filed so that judicial time could have been saved. The non-disclosure of this fact by the officials of the CGPDTM is clearly unacceptable and appears to be deliberate,” 
  25. Today the Supreme Court declined request for urgent listing of appeals against the Karnataka High Court verdict which had upheld the power of colleges to ban wearing of hijab by female Muslim students in government educational institutions in the State.
    • The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana by Senior Advocate Devadutt Kamat but the CJI asked the petitioners not to sensationalise the issue and refused to give any specific date for hearing the matter.
  26. Yesterday the Allahabad High Court quashed a magistrate’s summons issued to Dainik Jagran Editor-In-Chief Sanjay Gupta for publishing an allegedly defamatory news item.  (Sanjay Gupta v. State of UP and anr)
    • Being Editor-in-Chief in absence of specific allegations against the applicant the legal bar will apply against him. He cannot be held responsible and prosecuted for any news item published in any edition of the news paper,
    • No person should be tried without a prima facie case. The present complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 complainant does not contain any positive averments in the complaint about the knowledge of the objectionable character of the matter mentioned in it.
  27. Today the Bombay High Court directed Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) to pay ad interim compensation of ₹1 lakh per family to those fishermen families affected by the ongoing construction of the third Thane Creek bridge near Vashi.  (Mariyayi Machhimaar Sahkari Sansthya Maryadit vs Department of Fisheries and Ors.)
    • “Seven months later there is still no clarity as to how the final compensation will be quantified or by whom. We cannot expect these fisherfolk to wait one more year without any livelihood or compensation,”
    • The Court, taking into account that the Compensation Committee in its Draft Policy had recommended the adoption of NGT approach and also considering the fact the project itself will take more than 3 years to complete, noted that it is very likely that the final compensation amount will exceed ₹1 lakh per family. It was also of the view that since the ad hoc compensation is paid to the petitioner society and not to individual fisherfolk, there will be more accountability.
    • It, therefore, ordered that interim compensation of ₹1 lakh per family to be paid to the petitioner’s members within two weeks. It also directed MSRDC, with the assistance of CMFRI or any other agency, to determine the final compensation payable to the Project Affected Persons within three months.
  28. Yesterday the Income Tax Department told the Gujarat High Court that it was seriously considering whether compensation towards the death of kin in a terrorist attack can be termed as income. (Kalpesh Babubhai Dalal V Income Tax Officer)
    • The issue came before the High Court after the Income Tax Department sought to tax the compensation received by a man for the death of his wife who was killed by terrorists in the infamous Pan Am flight hijack of 1986.

Legal Prudent Fraternity