Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional law

M/S NARESH KUMAR GUPTA versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER

The amendment to section 29 of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 by the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2013 is constitutionally valid; the High Court's conclusion that the amendment was not unreasonable or excessive is affirmed, the proviso and Explanations render the opening part retrospective (thereby removing defects in prior implementation), and an amendment extending limitation can apply even where the original limitation period had expired (relying on Jyoti Traders). Consequently the appeals are dismissed and related transferred cases disposed of in the terms set out by the Court.

Source excerpt

  • Retrospective legislation
  • Limitation / bar of limitation
  • Amendment validity
  • Principles of natural justice
  • Reassessment period
  • Statutory interpretation
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

NHPC LTD. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SECRETARY & ORS.

The Amendment and Validation Act of 1997 validly cured the defects identified by the High Court (by enlarging the definition of 'business', defining 'fare','freight' and 'road', deleting the Explanation to Section 3(1) and inserting Section 3(1A) with Schedule I), thereby lawfully removing the basis of the Division Bench judgment of 27.03.1997; accordingly non-fare paying employees and their children transported by the appellants fall within the tax net under Section 3(1-A) and the State Legislature had competence under Article 246 read with Entry 56 List II; the appeals are dismissed but, in…

Source excerpt

  • Retrospective legislation
  • Validation/validation acts
  • Abrogation of judicial decisions
  • Legislative competence
  • Passenger tax
  • Separation of powers
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

UNION OF INDIA ETC. versus THE UNITED PLANTERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN INDIA ETC. & ORS.

The Supreme Court declined to transfer the writ petitions challenging the Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Act, 2015 to the Supreme Court or to any one High Court because variance in factual aspects and the role of the appropriate Government (Central or State) meant jurisdictional High Courts should decide petitions in light of their factual backgrounds; the possibility of divergent views alone did not justify transfer; accordingly the transfer petitions were dismissed and interim stay orders vacated.

Source excerpt

  • Transfer of cases
  • Payment of bonus act, 1965
  • Retrospective legislation
  • Minimum wages
  • Article 139a
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

B K PAVITRA AND ORS. versus THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

The Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 is constitutionally valid. It cures deficiencies identified in earlier legislation by providing for adequate data collection, does not usurp judicial power, and its retrospective provisions are neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional. The creamy layer principle does not apply to the grant of consequential seniority in promotions for SCs and STs.

Source excerpt

  • Reservation in promotion
  • Consequential seniority
  • Retrospective legislation
  • Data collection for reservation
  • Creamy layer principle
Read case analysis
Property law

UNION OF INDIA versus NARESHKUMAR BADRIKUMAR JAGAD & ORS.

By operation of the amended Section 3 of the 1995 Act (w.e.f. 1st April, 1994), statutory or protected tenancy rights in the suit property vest in the Central Government, rendering the decree and undertakings against NTC unenforceable. The Trust (landlord) must seek remedy against the Central Government as per relevant rent legislation for possession of the suit property.

Source excerpt

  • Retrospective legislation
  • Enforceability of decrees
  • Nationalisation of textile undertakings
  • Tenant rights
  • Remedy against statutory tenant
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus THE KARNATAKA PAWN BROKERS ASSN. & ORS.

The 1998 amendments to the Karnataka Money Lenders Act and Karnataka Pawn Brokers Act providing for non-payment of interest on security deposits are legal, constitutional, and valid, but the provisions making these amendments retrospective from 1985 are illegal and invalid.

Source excerpt

  • Retrospective legislation
  • Money lending regulation
  • Arbitrariness under article 14
  • Security deposits
  • Interest on deposits
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

CHEVITI VENKANNA YADAV versus STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS.

The Telangana legislature had competence to pass retrospective amendments to the Markets Act, altering membership and tenure. The amendment validly removed distinctions between existing and future members, and changing 'appointed' to 'nominated' does not violate Article 14. Retrospective curtailment of tenure of nominated members is constitutional; there is no violation of vested rights, nor does the enactment qualify as colourable legislation.

Source excerpt

  • Legislative competence
  • Retrospective legislation
  • Colourable legislation
  • Equality under article 14
  • Statutory amendment and validation
Read case analysis
Tax law

MIS. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, GAUHATI & ORS.

Though non-issuance of show-cause notice before recovery order was a procedural lapse, it caused no prejudice to the appellant. The retrospective withdrawal of excise exemption stands validated by Section 154 of Finance Act, 2003 and R.C. Tobacco's case. Issuance of notice would be an empty formality as neither the appellant nor the authority has any discretion. Thus, failure to issue notice does not warrant quashing of the recovery order.

Source excerpt

  • Natural justice
  • Excise duty
  • Retrospective legislation
  • Promissory estoppel
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

BISWANATH BHATTACHARYA versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

Notice under Section 6(1) does not require reasons to be communicated; forfeiture under SAFEMA is not a penalty under Article 20; Act is valid and immune from constitutional challenge due to IXth Schedule inclusion.

Source excerpt

  • Forfeiture of property
  • Retrospective legislation
  • Violation of article 20
  • Preventive detention under cofeposa
Read case analysis
Taxation

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS

MODVAT credit availed on HSD oil as input after the 1995 Notification and Trade Notice was not permissible. Section 112 of the Finance Act, 2000 validates recovery of such credit with interest at 24% p.a. if not returned within 30 days from Presidential assent and does not have retrospective effect. Respondents who failed to return wrongfully availed credit must pay interest. The Revenue’s action is legitimate and recovery with interest is lawful.

Source excerpt

  • Modvat credit
  • Interest recovery
  • Central excise
  • Retrospective legislation
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.