Hyderabad (Telangana) [India], May 4 (ANI): Light to moderate rain is likely to occur in Hyderabad for the next 24 hours accompanied by thunderstorms and lightning, informed Nagarathna, Director, Meteorological Centre, Hyderabad on Wednesday.

New Delhi Mar 23 PTI State Legislatures have the power to tax lotteries organised by other states the Supreme Court held on WednesdayA bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said a lottery conducted by Government of India states or authorised by a state or conducted by private entities is an activity falling within the nomenclature of betting and gamblingThe apex court allowed the appeals filed by Karnataka and Kerala governments and set aside the orders of Karnataka and Kerala High Courts which held that they lacked the legislative competence to levy tax on the lotteriesThe State Legislature has the competence to tax lottery scheme which is gambling being conducted not only by the Government of India or the Government of any State or by any other agency or instrumentality of a particular State but also by a private entity within the State as gambling the bench saidThe top court said that the high courts were not right in holding that the State Legislatures had no power to levy tax on lotteries conducted by the Government of India or the Government of any State or Union territory in the State of Karnataka as such a power could be read in Entry 40 or Entry 97 of List I and only the Parliament could levy such a taxWe hold that the tax sought to be imposed by the State Legislatures of Karnataka and Kerala by way of the impugned Acts is traceable to the power conferred on the State Legislatures under Entry 62 of List IIThe said entry contemplates imposition of taxes inter alia on the entire genus of betting and gambling having concluded that lottery of every kind whether organized by the Government of India or the Government of a State or by a private entity is included within the genus of gambling we find no reason to hold that State organised lotteries are excluded from the ambit of betting and gambling as appearing in Entry 62 of List II the bench saidThe apex court said that in the context of lotteries the organisation and conduct of a lottery scheme being a pan India activity when any State government permits the Government of India or any other state government to organise the lottery scheme in that state Entry 62 of List II would enable the Legislature of that State to levy taxes on the sameHence in our view the Legislatures of the State of Karnataka and Kerala were fully competent to enact the impugned Acts and levy taxes on the activity of betting and gambling being organised and conducted in the said respective states including lotteries conducted by the Government of India or the Government of any State the bench said PTI PKS SA

New Delhi Feb 24 PTI The Supreme Court Thursday said the duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence and seriousness of lapse or gravity of commission and omission on the part of the contractor which led to an incident should be the relevant considerationsThe apex court said it does not approve the guidelines issued by the Odisha Government in November 2021 which provide that blacklisting period per offence shall be limited to three years subject to an overall maximum cumulative period of 10 years for multiple offencesA bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna delivered the verdict on the pleas filed by the state against the orders passed by the Orissa High Court last yearThe high court in one of the orders had set aside the states order banning a contractor from participating or bidding for any work to be undertaken by the Odisha government and transacting any business with themSubsequently the high court had passed another order on a separate petition and directed the state to remove the name of the contractor from the list of blacklisted contractorsThe contractor the respondent before the apex court had constructed a flyover over railway level crossing in Bhubaneswar and in 2017 a 10 metre slab of the flyover collapsed during concreting of the railway over bridge and one person died while 11 others were injured in the incidentIn its verdict the top court noted the high court had erred in holding that the blacklisting order was pre-determined as in the case a committee had submitted a detailed report which was the basis for issuance of the show cause notice to the contractorThe action initiated against the respondent contractor was not in a vacuum but after considering the committees report and after following the due procedure as required the bench saidThe apex court noted that after the order of blacklisting was passed in the case the state government had formulated guidelines by November 26 2021 office memorandum OMHowever we may observe that we do not approve of the guidelines issued by the state government by OM dated November 26 2021 Duration of blacklisting cannot be solely per offence it saidSeriousness of the lapse and the incident andor gravity of commission and omission on the part of the contractor which led to the incident should be the relevant considerations it saidThe bench noted that in a given case it may happen that the commission and omission is very grave and because of the serious lapse or negligence a major incident would have taken place It said that in such a case it may be the contractors first offence and the period of blacklisting or banning can be more than three yearsHowever as the said guidelines are not under challenge we rest the matter there and leave it to the state government to suitably amend andor modify the said office memorandum However what we have observed above can be a guide while determining the period of debarmentblacklisting it said The bench observed that action of blacklisting in this case was taken after a comprehensive report of a high-level inquiry was submitted before the authority concernedIt noted that the state had studied the report submitted by the high-level committee and a show cause notice was issued and the contractor was called upon to show cause as to why he be not blacklistedThe bench said the contractor had replied to the same and after considering the allegations in the show cause notice and the reply the government had passed an order of blacklistingMerely because the show cause notice was issued after the inquiry committee report was considered and thereafter the state government took the decision to initiate proceedings for blacklisting that by itself it cannot be said that the order of blacklisting was pre-determined as observed by the high court the bench saidIt observed that the high court ought to have considered the seriousness of the incident in which due to the omission and commission on the part of the contractor in constructing the flyover one person had died and eleven others were injuredHowever to debar him contractor permanently can be said to be too harsh a punishment But considering the subsequent OM dated November 26 2021 reproduced hereinabove to which as such we do not agree as observed hereinabove we are of the opinion that if the blacklisting is restricted to five years it may be in the fitness of things it saidThe impugned judgment and order passed by the high court quashing and setting aside the order dated December 12 2017 blacklisting the respondent herein contractor is hereby quashed and set aside However the period of blacklisting is ordered to be restricted to five years from the date of passing of the order of blacklisting the bench said PTI ABA SA

New Delhi Feb 22 PTI The Supreme Court Tuesday said that a financier of a transport vehicle for which a lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered is liable to tax under the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1997 from the date of taking possession of the vehicleThe apex court refused to interfere with the December 2019 judgement of the Allahabad High Court which had held that the financier-in-possession of the transport vehicle was liable to pay tax under the 1997 ActA bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna dismissed the appeal filed by the financier who had extended loan for purchase of the vehicle in question against the high court verdictIn view of the above discussion and for the reasons stated above it is held that a financier of a motor vehicletransport vehicle in respect of which a hire-purchase or lease or hypothecation agreement has been entered is liable to tax from the date of taking possession of the said vehicle under the said agreement the bench said in its judgementThe top court said that if after the payment of tax the vehicle is not used for a month or more then the owner may apply for refund under section 12 of the 1997 Act and has to comply with all the requirements for seeking the refund as mentioned in the provisionHowever only in a case which falls under sub-section 2 of section 12 and subject to surrender of the necessary documents as mentioned in sub-section 2 of section 12 the liability to pay the tax shall not arise otherwise the liability to pay the tax by such owneroperator shall continue it saidThe bench noted in its verdict that the financier had extended a loan for the purchase of the transport vehicle and on default in payment of loan is in possession of the vehicle in questionIt also noted that counsel appearing for the appellant had referred to relevant provisions of the 1997 Act and the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 in support of his submission that being a financier-in-possession of the vehicle unless the vehicle is put to use or is being actually used there shall not be any liability on the financier to pay tax under the 1997 lawThe counsel appearing for the state had submitted before the apex court that under the provisions of the 1997 Act every owner and operator is liable to pay tax leviable under Section 4The bench while referring to the relevant provisions of the 1997 Act noted that a financier who is in possession of the transport vehicle in question owing to non-payment of loan is an owner under the relevant provisions of the 1997 law and also the 1988 ActIt said that Section 4 of the 1997 Act is the charging section as per which no motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle shall be used in any public place in Uttar Pradesh unless a one-time tax at the rate applicable has been paid in respect thereofIt said the requirement under law is to first pay the tax in advance as provided under section 9 and thereafter to use the vehicleIn other words it is pay the tax and use and not use and pay the tax Therefore the submission on behalf of the appellant-financier that tax has to be paid at the time of use or thereafter cannot be accepted the bench notedIf such a submission is accepted in that case section 91iva which provides for the amount of tax to be paid in advance will become redundant andor nugatory it saidThe bench said in a case where after the tax is paid and the vehicle is not used the operator or the owner may apply and claim for refund as per section 12 and may get refund subject to fulfilling all the requirementsUnder the circumstances the impugned judgment and order passed by the full bench of the high court does not warrant any interference by this court The appeal stands dismissed accordingly it said PTI ABA SA

New Delhi Feb 18 PTI The Supreme Court Friday turned down a plea seeking quashing of FIRs registered over the use of firecrackers during Diwali A bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna dismissed the plea saying how can a PIL be filed for quashing of FIRs The present Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is filed to quash the FIRs lodged by all the states in the country in respect to selling purchasing or bursting green crackers No such relief quashing the FIRs can be granted in exercise of powers under Article 32 of the Constitution of India If any accused is aggrieved in that case he may initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate High CourtCourt the bench said while dismissing the plea The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Sanjeev Newar and others seeking to quash the FIRs registered against them for using green firecrackers on Diwali The counsel for the petitioner contended that the apex court in its order dated October 29 2021 had made it clear that there was no blanket ban on firecrackers and use of green-crackers was permitted PTI PKS SA

New Delhi Jan 25 PTI The Supreme Court said on Tuesday that driving under the influence of alcohol a truck carrying the Provincial Armed Constabulary PAC personnel is a very serious misconduct and such indiscipline cannot be tolerated and that too in the disciplined Military A bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said merely because there was no major loss and it was a minor accident cannot be a ground to show leniency It was sheer good luck that the accident was not a fatal accident It could have been a fatal accident When the employee was driving a truck carrying the PAC personnel the lives of those PAC personnel who were travelling in the truck were in the hands of the driver Therefore it can be said that he played with the lives of those PAC personnel who were on duty and travelling from Fatehpur to Allahabad on Kumbh Mela duty the bench said The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by a PAC driver since deceased challenging the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority which had held him guilty for causing an accident under the influence of alcohol The top court further said that even otherwise driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is not only a misconduct but also an offence Nobody can be permitted to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol Such a misconduct of driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol and playing with the life of others is a very serious misconduct There are also other misconducts earlier committed by the employee the bench said It said considering the statement of the employee that he had consumed the liquor after the accident with the objective to suppress the fear the punishment of dismissal can be said to be too harsh and may be treated one for compulsory retirement In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the award of punishment of dismissal can be said to be too harsh the punishment of dismissal is directed to be converted into compulsory retirement of the employee As the employee has since died and on converting the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement death-cum-retirement benefits as also the benefit of family pension if any shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased employee in accordance with law and bearing in mind that punishment of dismissal has now been converted into one of compulsory retirement The present appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent the bench said PTI PKS SA

New Delhi Jan 18 PTI The Supreme Court Tuesday granted protection from arrest to actress Poonam Pandey in porn films racket case A bench of Justices Vineet Saran and B V Nagarathna issued notice to the Maharashtra government on an appeal filed by Pandey against a Bombay High Court order rejecting her anticipatory bail Issue notice In the meanwhile no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner the bench said Pandey has been arrayed as an accused in the FIR along with actor Sherlyn Chopra The high court had rejected her anticipatory bail application on November 25 2021 In December the apex court had granted protection from arrest to Raj Kundra in connection with an FIR registered against him for allegedly distributing pornographic videos Kundra had been booked under certain Sections of the Indian Penal Code Indecent Representation of Women Prevention Act and Information Technology Act for allegedly distributing transmitting sexually explicit videos Fearing arrest Kundra first sought anticipatory bail from the sessions court but it was refused He then moved the high court claiming that he had been framed PTI PKS SA

New Delhi Dec 28 PTI An insurer cannot repudiate a claim by citing an existing medical condition that was disclosed by the insured in the proposal form once the policy has been issued the Supreme Court has saidA bench of justices D Y Chandrachud and B V Nagarathna also said a proposer is under a duty to disclose to the insurer all material facts within his knowledgeThe proposer is presumed to know all the facts and circumstances concerning the proposed insurance it addedWhile the proposer can only disclose what is known to him the proposers duty of disclosure is not confined to his actual knowledge it also extends to those material facts which in the ordinary course of business he ought to know the court saidOnce the policy has been issued after assessing the medical condition of the insured the insurer cannot repudiate the claim by citing an existing medical condition which was disclosed by the insured in the proposal form and which condition has led to a particular risk in respect of which the claim has been made by the insured the bench said in a recent judgmentThe top court was hearing an appeal filed by Manmohan Nanda against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC rejecting his plea seeking a claim for medical expenses incurred in the United StatesNanda had bought an Overseas Mediclaim Business and Holiday Policy as he intended to travel to the US On reaching the San Francisco airport he suffered a heart attack and was admitted to a hospital where angioplasty was performed on him and three stents were inserted to remove the blockage from the heart vesselsSubsequently the appellant claimed the treatment expenses from the insurer which was repudiated by the latter stating that the appellant had a history of hyperlipidaemia and diabetes which was not disclosed while buying the insurance policyThe NCDRC had concluded that since the complainant had been under statin medication which was not disclosed while buying the mediclaim policy he failed to comply with his duty to make a complete disclosure of his health conditionsThe apex court said the repudiation of the policy by the United India Insurance company was illegal and not in accordance with lawIt said the object of buying a mediclaim policy is to seek indemnification in respect of a sudden illness or sickness that is not expected or imminent and that may occur overseasIf the insured suffers a sudden sickness or ailment which is not expressly excluded under the policy a duty is cast on the insurer to indemnify the appellant for the expenses incurred thereunder the bench said PTI PKS RC

New Delhi Dec 23 PTI The discretion to condone delay in filing suits has to be exercised judiciously and if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature the Supreme Court has saidA bench of justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said the object for fixing time limit for litigation is based on public policy fixing a lifespan for legal remedy for the purpose of general welfare The object of time limit is meant to see that the parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but avail their legal remedies promptly it saidThe discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case It is further observed that the expression sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party It is further observed that even though limitation may harshly affect rights of a party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute the bench said in a recent orderCondonation of delay is usually applied for the delay in filing suits or applications in the courts across the countryEach statue gives a time limit within which any suit appeal or application is to be filed under them to the courts or respective authorities The time limit prescribed is known as the limitation period of the suit or appealThe apex court observed that in case a party has acted with negligence lack of bona fides or there is inaction then there cannot be any justified ground for condoning the delay even by imposing conditions It is observed that each application for condonation of delay has to be decided within the framework laid down by this court It is further observed that if courts start condoning delay where no sufficient cause is made out by imposing conditions then that would amount to violation of statutory principles and showing utter disregard to legislature the bench saidThe observations came on an appeal filed against an order of Andhra Pradesh high court has condoned a huge delay of 1011 days in preferring the second appealThe top court quashed this judgement and said the high court is not at all justified in exercising its discretion to condone such a huge delay PTI PKS ZMN

New Delhi Dec 18 PTI The Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India BCI to issue directions to state bar councils to dispose of the complaints against lawyers received under Section 35 of the Advocates Act within a yearThe top court further directed BCI to dispose of the transferred complaints within a period of one year from the date of receipt of such complaintsA bench comprising justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said complaints should be transferred from the state to BCI only in exceptional cases with valid reasonsWe direct the Bar Council of India to finally dispose of the transferred complaints the particulars of which are referred to hereinabove expeditiously but not later than one year from today and for which even the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India may hold circuit hearingsWe also direct the respective State Bar Councils to decide and dispose of the complaints received by it under Section 35 expeditiously and to conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the complaint as mandated under Section 36B of the Advocates Act the bench saidThe top court said under the Advocates Act a duty is cast upon the BCI and state bar councils to safeguard the integrity of the legal profession It is duty of the BCI and respective state bar councils to ensure the nobility of the legal system at all costs it said in its judgement on FridayThe powers to conduct disciplinary proceedings against members of the Bar are provided under Sections 35 and 36B of the Advocates Act The mandate is to dispose of the complaint received under Section 35 andor Section 36 within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the said complaint andor from the date of such proceeding to the Bar Council of India By not disposing of the complaint within the stipulated time provided under the Act would tantamount to failure on their part to perform the duty cast under the Advocates Act the bench saidThe court said that having regard to the fact that 1246 complaints are pending before the BCI it is just and necessary that a mechanism be found for disposal of the said complaints in accordance with the procedure prescribedFor an efficient and quick disposal of the complaints by the Bar Council of India BCI may consider empanelling experienced and seasoned advocates andor retired judicial officers to act as inquiry officers where an inquiry would be necessitated On such inquiry being concluded the report of the inquiry officers could be received by the Bar Council of India On consideration of the said inquiry report the Bar Council of India could pass appropriate orders on the complaint the bench saidThe apex court said the suggestion is being made bearing in mind the number of complaints that are pending before BCIHence the Bar Council of India may issue suitable directions to the State Bar Council to enlist a panel of Inquiry Officers for the purpose of conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Bar Council of India in the respective States itself and on conclusion of the said inquiry to transmit the inquiry report to the Bar Council of India for enabling it to take it further action in the matterThis would also enable the complainants and the concerned advocates against whom the complaints are made to appear before the Inquiry Officers wherever such an inquiry is instituted in the State where the complaint has been filed the bench saidThe top court said this would also remove the difficulties caused to the parties to travel from various parts of the country to Delhi for appearing before the inquiry if any to be conducted on the complaints filed by the complainantsThe judgement came on an appeal filed against order passed by the disciplinary committee of the BCI by which the committee had dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant against his advocateThe appellant had filed the complaint case against his advocate on the ground of professional misconduct PTI PKS ZMN