Jacob Puliyel Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The Petitioner was a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) and was advising the Government of India on vaccines. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner highlighted the adverse consequences of emergency approval of vaccines in India, the need for transparency […]
Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana (Supreme Court) Facts- By an earlier order dated 15.5.2009 [reported in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2009 (7) SCC 363], we had referred to the ill – effects of what is known as General Power of Attorney Sales […]
IRunway India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT bangalore) Facts- The assessee filed its ROI for AY 2015-16 on 27 November 2015 declaring a total income of Rs. 52,289,620 under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The AO passed the assessment order dated 26 December 2017 u/s 143(3) of the Act making […]
The rule of contra proferentem thus protects the insured from the vagaries of an unfavourable interpretation of an ambiguous term to which it did not agree.
Learn about the basics of banking and Schedule 8 – Investments. Explore investments in government securities, approved securities, shares, debentures, and bonds.
ITAT Delhi rules in favor of Anup Service Station, allowing deduction for delayed deposit of PF & ESI contributions. Legal analysis and implications of the decision.
Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court) Apex Court in the case of Gangahanume Gowda Vs. Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. reported in (2003) 3 SCC 40 has decided the interest on delayed payment of gratuity. It is also held that the same is mandatory and not discretionary. When it is not […]
Indranil Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal And Others (Calcutta High Court) The Calcutta High Court held that in case of death of an accused the compensation awarded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be recovered from the estate of a deceased accused, but an interim compensation awarded under Section 143A of […]
Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Supreme Court of India) The High Court overlooked the fact that there was no independent instrument of PoA and that in any case, the power of sale of a secured asset flowed out of the provisions of the Securitisation Act, 2002 and not out of […]
Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs), in some recent cases, have dismissed certain Securitisation Applications (SAs) on a peculiar ground of prematurity- ‘no loss of possession of the secured asset’. In the opinion of these DRTs, where neither the symbolic nor the actual physical possession of the immovable property/secured asset was taken by the secured creditor, but only intimation notices to take physical possession of such property were issued by the court receiver appointed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the SAs challenging such intimation notices were premature.
