Madras High Court
4 articles
Rule 6(5) and the 'Exclusively' Test: Madras High Court Upholds Full CENVAT Credit for an IT Park Operator but Sustains Service Tax on Fit-Out Charges
In Commissioner of GST & Central Excise v. Ascendas IT Park (Chennai) Ltd., a Division Bench of the Madras High Court reads the word 'exclusively' in Rule 6(5) literally, rejects a Board circular as irrelevant, and yet rules for the Department on service tax on fit-outs.
13 min readPriority Is Not Purity: Madras High Court Holds a SARFAESI Auction Purchaser Must Clear a Known Excise Attachment Before the Encumbrance Entry Is Removed
A bank sold a mortgaged property under SARFAESI with a Central Excise attachment disclosed as a known encumbrance, then asked the High Court to have the entry struck from the encumbrance certificate. The Division Bench refused: priority over Crown dues is settled, but Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 is mandatory.
15 min readA Registered Power of Attorney, Once Exercised, Cannot Be Undone by Its Own Later Cancellation: Madras High Court on Sections 200–202 of the Contract Act
In C.Rajendran v. P. Arumugam, the Madras High Court held that an agreement of sale executed by a registered power-of-attorney agent binds the principal so long as the power was valid and unrevoked at the time of the agreement, rejecting the principals' argument that a subsequent cancellation of the power, and a disputed reading of its acreage, could defeat a decree for specific performance.
13 min readA Remarried Widow, a Murderer, and a Coparcener's Share: Madras High Court Separates Section 24 from Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act
A three-decade-old partition dispute forced the Madras High Court to decide whether a coparcener's share reverts to his relatives when his widow remarries, or passes instead to his daughter. The answer turns on a distinction between two very different kinds of disqualification buried in the Hindu Succession Act.
12 min read