Important judgements of the Supreme Court and High Courts

HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS (SUPREME COURT)

Prima facie, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jayantilal N. Mistry (2016) 3 SCC 525 did not take into consideration the aspect of balancing the right to information and the right to privacy. The petitioners have challenged the action of the RBI, vide which the RBI issued directions to the petitioners/Banks to disclose certain information, which according to the petitioners is not only contrary to the provisions as contained in the RTI Act, the RBI Act and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, but also adversely affects the right to privacy of such Banks and their consumers.

Court:   Posted on: October 1, 2022

The State of Maharashtra vs. Greatship (India) Limited (Supreme Court)

The statutes provide for the right of appeal against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and against the order passed by the first appellate authority, an appeal/revision before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the assessment order in view of the availability of statutory remedy under the Act

Court:   Posted on: September 22, 2022

Union Of India vs Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)

Section 3(2) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 is declared as unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. Accordingly, Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is also unconstitutional as it is violative of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the unamended Act of 1988, prior to the 2016 Amendment Act, was unconstitutional for being manifestly arbitrary. The 2016 Amendment Act was not merely procedural, rather, prescribed substantive provisions. In rem forfeiture provision under Section 5 of the 2016 Act, being punitive in nature, can only be applied prospectively and not retroactively. Concerned authorities cannot initiate or continue criminal prosecution or confiscation proceedings for transactions entered into prior to the coming into force of the 2016 Act, viz., 25.10.2016. As a consequence of the above declaration, all such prosecutions or confiscation proceedings shall stand quashed

Court:   Posted on: September 13, 2022