Adv.Dharamvir Lamba

Adv.Dharamvir Lamba More than 25 year experence in session court. Best deal with civil and criminal cases of all types.

20/05/2018
30/10/2016

May millions of lamps illuminate your life
with endless joy,prosperity,health & wealth forever
Wishing you and your family a very
"HAPPY DEEPAVALI"......,...................
Adv D.V Lamba

DHC: DON’T PAY SERVICE TAX TO BUILDERSIn a judgment that could have ramifications for home buyers across the country, th...
18/09/2016

DHC: DON’T PAY SERVICE TAX TO BUILDERS

In a judgment that could have ramifications for home buyers across the country, the Delhi High Court has held that service tax cannot be charged on property units in a complex, which include builder flats, group housing flats and builder floors. The Delhi High Court bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Vibhu Bakhru in its judgment on June 3 has set aside the provision of Section 65(105)(zzzh) of the Finance Act, 1994, which includes “services” from any person to another person “in relation to construction of complex” within the ambit of service tax. The bench has also directed the service tax department to refund the tax charged from the two petitioners. The judgment applies to flats purchased before July 1, 2012.

The petitioners, who are senior public sector employees, had purchased flats from Sethi Buildwell Pvt. Ltd in the Max Royal group housing project in Sector 76, Noida. The flats had been purchased in 2010, and the petitioners completed payments in 2012. The petitioners, in their plea filed through advocate Puneet Agrawal, challenged the demand of service tax as well as ‘Preferential Location Charges (PLC)’ which were charged by the builder in addition to the cost of the flat.

The bench, in its judgment, struck down the provision, observing that the Rules framed under the Service Tax Act 1994 did not provide for a mechanism to calculate the component of “service” in a contract between a buyer and builder. In the absence of rules, noted the court, there was no way to distinguish between other components of the cost of the flat, which would include cost of land, construction material and other charges. “Neither the Act nor the Rules framed therein provide for a machinery provision for excluding all components other than service components for ascertaining the measure of service tax,” held the bench.

Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court held that “the charging provisions as well as the machinery for its computation must be provided in the Statute or the Rules framed under the Statute.” The court also accepted the argument made by advocate Puneet Agrawal that it was not possible to differentiate between the cost of land, cost of construction, labour and other costs, from service costs, as the contract between a buyer and the builder was a “composite contract” that included all costs and payments.

The tax department had argued that a service tax is only charged on 25 per cent of the gross amount charged by a builder. The revenue department also argued that “the value of the immovable property as well as the property in goods incorporated in the works” was excluded from the ambit of service charge. The court, however, found that “machinery provisions” i.e. the proper mechanism for calculations were not provided.

Service tax cannot be charged on transfer of property, as it is covered under other laws, including stamp duty charges. The bench has now directed Centre to look into whether the builder had collected service tax from the buyers, and refund the money. The court, however, said tax on the Preferential Location Charges were valid as it was a ‘ service ’.

“This judgment will affect all home buyers who had purchased flats in 2010-12 and paid taxes on the flat 25 per cent rate,” said Agrawal, adding that buyers can also claim refund if the builder had not calculated specific value of service tax but had charged on the “presumptive rate.”

To subscribe LAWTELLER magazine:

Cash on Delivery: http://bit.ly/1aDoq8K

Pay with Dr./Cr. Card or Net Banking: www.lawteller.com

SC: UPLOAD FIRs ON WEBSITES WITHIN 24 HOURS Supreme Court today (07.09.2016) directed all States and Union Territories t...
18/09/2016

SC: UPLOAD FIRs ON WEBSITES WITHIN 24 HOURS

Supreme Court today (07.09.2016) directed all States and Union Territories to upload the FIRs on their websites within 24 hours of registration at police stations.

A bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and C Nagappan, however, extended the time up to 72 hours for uploading of the FIRs for those states which are located in difficult terrains where internet connectivity is poor.

The apex court exempted the state police authorities from uploading the FIRs on sensitive cases pertaining to insurgency and sexual offences against women and children.

The bench also made it clear that the accused cannot take benefit before the courts of law of the fact that FIRs lodged against them have not been uploaded on the website. Initially, it was suggested during the hearing that the
states be allowed to upload FIRs on websites within 48 hours. However, the court later fixed the time limit at 24 hours.

The direction came on a PIL filed by Youth Lawyers Association of India on the issue.The PIL referred to a decision passed by the Delhi HighCourt in which the city police was directed to upload the FIRs on its website within 24 hours of being registered.

To subscribe LAWTELLER magazine (print edition):

through COD, visit: https://goo.gl/BYs7MN
OR
with Dr./Cr. Card & Net Banking: www.lawteller.com

24/04/2016

⭐⭐Law of limitation not applicable for
proceeding u/S. 125 Cr. P.C.

2016 ALL MR(Cri) JOURNAL 178
(CHHATHSGARH HC)
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.


Smt. Sita Bai w/o. Jethuram Sinha
Vs.
Jethuram Sinha
Criminal Revision No. 978 of 2014
and Crimiinal Revision No. 155 of 2015

Decided on 13th August 2015.

Mr. SAMIR SINGH, Ad V. forApplicant.
Mr. MANOJ PARANJP E, Ad v. fo r No n
-Applicant.
-----
(A)Criminal P.C.(1973), S. 125 -
Limitation Act(1963), S. 5-Maintenance
-Filed by wife after delay of 34 years-

Held: Law of limitation not applicable to for
proceeding u/S. 125 Cr. P.C. - It is a
continuing right-Claim for maintenance not restricted by period of limitation.

(B) Cr.P.C. 125 - Application withdrawn by wife on account of compromise entered between parties in 1993 -However husband stopped to maintain her in 2012. Application for maintenance filed in year 2014 again - cannot be rejected on ground of delay in filing Application.

(C) Enhancement also granted - Rs. 1500 per month to wife was not considered reasonable when husband was living with second wife and her children and getting pension of Rs. 36, 391/-. Amount enhanced to Rs. 5000/- P.M.

SC: GENDER EQUALITY IS CONSTITUTIONAL MESSAGEGender equality is a "constitutional message" and the ban on entry of women...
23/04/2016

SC: GENDER EQUALITY IS CONSTITUTIONAL MESSAGE

Gender equality is a "constitutional message" and the ban on entry of women of a particular age group in the historic Sabarimala temple cannot be claimed as a right to manage religious affairs by its management, the Supreme Court said on 18.04.2016.

"Gender equality is a constitutional message and they (temple management) cannot say that this (banning women) comes under their right to manage religious affairs," a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said.

The bench, also comprising Justices V Gopala Gowda and Kurian Joseph, reiterated that it would test the "so-called" customary practice under the provisions of the Constitution.

At the outset, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for NGO 'Happy to Bleed' which is seeking women's entry into the historic shrine in Kerala, said the law was meant for "removal of social ills" and constitutional principles would prevail over discriminatory customs and beliefs.

"The ban on entry of women cannot be said to be part of the right to manage a public religious places like temple," she said and referred to various judgements to buttress her arguments.

The right to enter a public temple is available to all Hindus irrespective of gender, she said, adding that any custom, belief or even law could be termed "void" if they do not conform to the constitutional principles.

During the hearing when Jaising started dealing with the aspect that the deity at Sabarimala is "celibate" and "brahmachari", the bench asked her not to get into it.

"They (Travancore Devaswom Board) rely on customs, tradition and philosophy and you rely on Constitution. Let us not get into the nature of deity...," the court said, adding it would examine whether any custom is protected by any law.

The court is hearing a PIL, filed by Indian Young Lawyers' Association (IYLA) seeking entry of women in the Sabarimala temple, located on a hill-top in the Western Ghat mountain ranges of Kerala's Pathanamthitta District.

To subscribe the monthly LAWTELLER print magazine:-

Cash on Delivery: http://bit.ly/1aDoq8K

Pay with Dr./Cr. Card or Net Banking: www.lawteller.com

SC: FATHER CAN GIVE PROPERTY TO MARRIED DAUGHTERIn a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on 20.04.2016, ruled that a ma...
23/04/2016

SC: FATHER CAN GIVE PROPERTY TO MARRIED DAUGHTER

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on 20.04.2016, ruled that a man is legally entitled to nominate his married daughter to own his cooperative society flat after his death, depriving his wife and only son.

The West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules, 1987, stipulate that the owner of a flat in a cooperative society can nominate his house in favour of a person "belonging to his family".

Taking this rule as their defence, along with other provisions of the WB Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, Biswa Ranjan Sengupta's wife and son challenged the decision of the managing committee of Purbanchal Housing Estate, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, to transfer ownership of a flat to Indrani Wahi, Sengupta's married daughter.

Based on the objection, the deputy registrar of Cooperative Societies declined to record Indrani's name as the successor of the flat originally allotted to Sengupta, who in his last days was living with her because of "ill-treatment" by his wife and son.

Indrani's appeal was allowed by a single judge of the high court, which directed the flat to be registered in her name. But a division bench of the HC said Indrani was a part shareholder of the property along with Sengupta's wife and son and that she could dispose of the property only with the express consent of other shareholders. Indrani appealed against this judgment in the apex court.

A bench of justices JS Khehar and C Nagappan analysed the entire gamut of judgments on this issue and said: "There can be no doubt that where a member of a cooperative society nominates a person in consonance with provisions of the rules, on the death of such member, the cooperative society is mandated to transfer all the share or interest of such member in the name of the nominee. The rights of others on account of inheritance or succession is a subservient right. Only if a member had not exercised the right of nomination under Section 79 of the Act, then and then alone, the existing share or interest of the member would devolve by way of succession or inheritance."

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Khehar said: "It is not necessary for us to deal with the issue whether Indrani Wahi, being a married daughter of the original member, Biswa Ranjan Sengupta, could be treated as a member of the family of the deceased because the single judge, as also the division bench of the HC, have concluded that she was a member of the family." The court noted that this concurrent finding was not challenged by Sengupta's only son.

Holding that the cooperative society had no option but to register Indrani as the owner of the flat, the SC bench said it would be open to Sengupta's son to pursue his case of succession or inheritance in other forum.

To subscribe the monthly LAWTELLER print magazine:-

Cash on Delivery: http://bit.ly/1aDoq8K

Pay with Dr./Cr. Card or Net Banking: www.lawteller.com

23/04/2016

SC: PRIVATE SCHOOLS NEED DELHI GOVT.’S NOD TO FIRE TEACHERS

A driver who was sacked by a private school in 2003 has secured a judgment from the Supreme Court forbidding recognised schools in Delhi from dismissing any employee, including teachers, without "prior approval" of the director of education.

In its judgment on April 13, SC upheld a provision in the Delhi School Education Act 1973 that requires all recognised schools to obtain the government's approval before sacking an employee. The section — 8(2) of the DSEA 1973 — had been struck down by the Delhi high court in July 2005.

Terming the 2005 decision "bad in law", the apex court observed, "The intent of the legislature while enacting the same (Section 8(2)) was to provide security of tenure to employees of schools and to regulate the terms and conditions of their employment."

Activists said the judgment will check "victimisation" of teachers who dare to raise their voice against arbitrary and illegal decisions of private school managements.

The SC ruling is a shot in the arm for teachers such as Asha Rani, Payal Singh (name changed on request), Dinesh Chand Sharma and their colleagues. According to Asha Rani, 43, she was suspended from a school in Sector 15, Rohini, and two of her colleagues were fired for demanding full salary and benefits.

"Our salaries were being transferred to our accounts but the management took signed, blank cheques from us and withdrew the money. Our actual salaries were being paid in cash," alleges Asha Rani. About 60 teachers had filed a cheating case in 2010. Now, most have inquiries against them. "Other Rohini schools sacked teachers too or they quit under pressure. With this judgment, schools will have to first take permission from the government."

"It will check intimidation of teachers by managements and ensure job security for those who dare to fight exploitation. The inquiries may still be conducted internally but all documents will now have to be shared with the government," said lawyer-activist Khagesh Jha.

Singh and Sharma were handed "compulsory retirement" by a private school in Civil Lines in 2014 after teaching there for 32 and 21 years, respectively. Not paid arrears after the fifth pay commission recommendations were implemented, they had filed a case against the school in high court in 2010. "Clearly, their performance was not the issue," said Jha.

Four of five petitioners were "compulsorily retired" and the sixth was removed from service. "The latter had called the police and complained against harassment during the inquiry," explained Singh, 56, who taught English. Sharma taught physical education. Neither has taught in a school again. Sharma, over 50 years old, struggled to find employment and made ends meet by tutoring. Now his daughter has a bank job and things are looking up. His case, however, is still in the Delhi School Tribunal.

Jha said, in the intervening decade, dozens of teachers have been dismissed. "The judgment helps," added Singh, "Even if it's on paper, it's something."

To subscribe the monthly LAWTELLER print magazine:-

Cash on Delivery: http://bit.ly/1aDoq8K

Pay with Dr./Cr. Card or Net Banking: www.lawteller.com

www.lawteller.com

Address

Chember No-154, Dist. Court
Bhiwani
127021

Telephone

+919813424310

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Adv.Dharamvir Lamba posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Share