1.Case Title: Dr. Kafeel Khan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Allahabad High Court (2018)
Justice Varma granted bail to Dr. Kafeel Khan, who was accused of medical negligence following the 2017 Gorakhpur hospital tragedy. The court found no direct evidence implicating Khan in the oxygen supply crisis that led to multiple child fatalities.This ruling drew national attention to issues of medical accountability, government negligence, and human rights.
2. Caste Title: M/S Prakash Industries Limited vs. Union of India and Anr (2023)
Justice Varma held that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot investigate offences beyond money laundering and cannot assume the existence of a predicate offence. This ruling provided clarity on ED’s jurisdictional limits and prevented misuse of investigative powers. He examined the scope of the ED's investigative authority.
3. Case Title: Kinri Dhir vs. Veer Singh(2022)
Justice Varma held that judicial bias need not be proven as a fact but must be evaluated from the viewpoint of a reasonable person’s apprehension. He examined the test for judicial bias in cases of alleged unfair trial proceedings.
4. AAP leaders case
Justice Varma issued notice to Republic TV, India Today, Zee News and Times Now over their alleged misreporting of the trial in the Delhi Excise Policy Case and directed the news channels to ensure that all broadcasts on the matter are "in tune" with the "official press releases" issued by the CBI and ED.
5. Case Title: Shree Bhavani Power Projects vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(3) and Anr. (2024)
Justice Varma of Delhi High Court has observed that failure to digitally file an audit report cannot be countenanced to be fatal to the claim that may be laid in terms of Section 80-IA(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘IT Act’). The Division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed, “Viewed in that light, in our considered opinion, as long as that Audit Report was duly furnished to the AO and was available to be scrutinized and examined by that authority during the assessment proceedings, the provisions of Section 80-IA(7), as it stood prior to the amendments introduced in 2020, would be recognized to have been substantially fulfilled. In any event, a failure to digitally file that report cannot be countenanced to be fatal to the claim that may be laid in terms of Section 80-IA(7).
6. Case Title: Hari Kishan Sharma v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr., (2024)
Delhi High Court ruled in favor of an assessee by granting relief despite discrepancies in Form 26AS related to tax credits. In the case at hand, the assessee, who received compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, faced issues because the tax deducted on the compensation did not appear in their Form 26AS. The assessee sought to get credit for the TDS amount of Rs. 1.68 lakhs against the enhanced compensation of Rs. 18.59 lakhs. After the Land Acquisition Collector issued a revised Form 16A reflecting the correct TDS, the assessee applied to submit a revised return, which was initially rejected. The Division Bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Ravinder Dudeja said, “amount of tax paid or treated as paid for and on behalf of the assessee if found to be in excess of that which is chargeable, the assessee would become entitled to claim a refund.”
7.Case title: Nidhi Kapoor v. Principal Commissioner and Additional Secretary to the Government of India
Justice Varma as part of division bench, ruled that gold is a ‘prohibited item’ for import under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment clarified that the term “prohibition” under the Act includes goods that are regulated or restricted, such as gold imports. This decision had a significant influence on India’s gold import policies and customs regulations.
No comments:
Post a Comment