The judgment in Sanjay Bhandari v. Income-tax Officer[i] reaffirmed a critical statutory principle: prosecution under s. 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 ('Act') was held not to be contingent upon completion of adjudication proceedings.

The Court observed that the impact of the first proviso to Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and Explanation 1 to Section 54 is that a refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) shall be allowed only in cases falling under clauses (i) and (ii) to first proviso.

Yes, criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act can continue simultaneously with civil recovery suits. The Supreme Court has affirmed that both a civil suit for recovery and a criminal complaint under Section 138 are maintainable simultaneously for the same cause of action. This does not constitute abuse of process or multiplicity of proceedings, as the criminal proceedings under Section 138 are quasi-civil in nature and aim to address the civil aspect of recovery through criminal means.

No, Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013, requires a dishonest intent or a deliberate act with the intention to deceive or gain an unfair advantage, even in the absence of direct financial loss. Procedural lapses alone, without this element of intent, are unlikely to trigger proceedings under this section.

Yes, retrospective tax amendments that override judicial decisions and impact vested rights of taxpayers can be treated as unconstitutional. The legal principle of non-retroactivity generally prevents new laws from altering past events or actions. Retrospective amendments are particularly problematic when they disrupt previously settled matters, potentially violating fairness and natural justice.

Yes, denying a proper opportunity for a personal hearing during faceless assessments under the Income Tax Act, 1961, could be seen as infringing upon the principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard, which is implied under Article 14 (equality before the law) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

The traditional offer-acceptance model, while a cornerstone of contract law, faces challenges in modern commercial contracts. While it remains relevant for basic transactions, its rigidity can struggle to encompass the complexities of contemporary business dealings. Modern contracts often involve extended negotiations, standard form agreements, and electronic communications, which can make the simple offer-acceptance framework inadequate.

Implied terms, though not explicitly stated, can significantly alter an original agreement by filling in gaps and clarifying ambiguities. They are legally binding and can be introduced by law or custom, potentially changing the original parties' intended obligations.

Indian contract law addresses unconscionable or oppressive clauses through the principle of unconscionability, which allows courts to refuse enforcement of such clauses or portions of the contract. The concept of unconscionability is closely linked to fairness and the potential for exploitation, particularly in cases where one party has a dominant position or unequal bargaining power.

Unconscionable Contracts:
Indian courts recognize that contracts can be deemed unconscionable if they are unfair or oppressive to one party, often due to unequal bargaining power or a dominant party exploiting a weaker one.
Remedies:
If a contract is found to be unconscionable, the court has the power to refuse to enforce the entire contract, enforce it without the unconscionable term, or limit the application of that term to make it more equitable.
Judicial Scrutiny:
Indian courts actively scrutinize contracts for signs of coercion, undue influence, or other factors that could lead to unconscionability.
Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act:
The Supreme Court has recognized that unfair or unconscionable clauses can be declared void under Section 23, which addresses contracts that are against public policy.
Public Policy:
The principle of unconscionability aligns with the broader concept of public policy, as it seeks to prevent exploitation and ensure fairness in contractual relationships.
Unequal Bargaining Power:
The court will often consider whether one party had significantly more bargaining power than the other, as this can be a key factor in determining if a contract is unconscionable.
Examples:
Unconscionable clauses may include those that impose unreasonable termination clauses on employees, restrict liability for negligence without justification, or involve exploitative pricing practices.
Section 16 (Undue Influence):
This section specifically addresses contracts induced by undue influence, where one party has a dominant position and uses it to obtain an unfair advantage over the other.
Burden of Proof:
If a contract appears to be unconscionable due to undue influence, the burden of proving that the contract was not induced by such influence rests on the party in the dominant position.
In essence, Indian contract law strives to prevent exploitation and ensure fairness by allowing courts to intervene in cases where contracts are deemed unconscionable due to oppressive or unfair terms, particularly when unequal bargaining power or undue influence is present.

Letters of Intent (LOIs) and Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) are typically non-binding agreements, meaning they are not legally enforceable in court unless they contain specific clauses indicating a binding intent. While they may serve as a foundation for a formal contract, their enforceability depends on the language used and the parties' intent.