Read all latest corporate law news, articles, notifications & circular on Taxguru.in. News on laws related to DIPP Labour Minimum Wages Gratuity PF Arbitration Negotiable instrument Essential Commodities SRFAESI Competition Act Corporate Law
Corporate Law : Learn how Intellectual Property Rights impact commercial contracts, including ownership, licensing, dispute resolution, and key co...
Corporate Law : Understanding territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Key rulings and amendments explain where cheque bounce cas...
Corporate Law : Learn who must file LLP annual returns in India and how to do it. Understand filing requirements, deadlines for Forms 11 and 8, an...
Corporate Law : Rent Agreement is a legal document outlining the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon by the Owner and the Tenant for leasing...
Corporate Law : Learn about demerger under the Companies Act, 2013, its process, types, regulatory framework, taxation aspects, and key challenges...
Corporate Law : CCI invites stakeholder comments on the draft Competition Commission of India (Conduct) Rules, 2025, ensuring ethics, confidential...
Corporate Law : IBBI dismisses multiple RTI appeals citing misuse of the RTI Act through repetitive filings. The order emphasizes responsible use ...
Corporate Law : The EC clarifies that duplicate EPIC numbers do not indicate fake voters and will ensure unique EPIC numbers for registered electo...
Corporate Law : Manan Kumar Mishra wins a 7th term as Bar Council of India Chairman. His leadership continues as legal professionals push for High...
Corporate Law : IRDAI permits insurers to use equity derivatives for hedging, aiming to reduce portfolio risks amid market volatility. Strict comp...
Corporate Law : Calcutta High Court held that gratuity doesn’t form part of liquidation estate. Hence, entire dues of workers would not come und...
Corporate Law : NCLAT Delhi held that rejection of resolution plan of appellant justified as CoC deliberated and discussed the Resolution Plan of ...
Corporate Law : High Court failed to examine whether the complaint, even if taken at face value, established the personal liability of the directo...
Corporate Law : Kerala High Court dismisses writ petition challenging luxury tax assessment, citing the availability of a statutory appeal. ...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court dismisses PIL challenging internet price hikes by Jio and Airtel, stating consumers have alternatives. Petitioner ad...
Corporate Law : IRDAI allows insurers to undertake Bond Forwards for hedging under specific conditions, aligning with RBI’s 2025 guidelines on...
Corporate Law : IBBI rejects RTI appeal seeking detailed breakup of Dalmia Cement claims in Jaiprakash insolvency case, citing unavailability of d...
Corporate Law : IBBI rejects RTI appeal seeking clarifications on valuer registration, stating that opinions and justifications do not fall under ...
Corporate Law : IBBI disposes of SCN against IP in CIRP case, addresses claims dispute, and ongoing RoC investigation. Details of findings and DC'...
Corporate Law : The IBBI Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Sonu Jain for one year due to delays and procedural lapses in the liquidation pr...
May kindly refer to the subject cited above. As you are aware that the establishments covered under the EPF and MP Act, 1952 are required to remit provident fund contribution on monthly basis in respect of all the eligible employees. However, till 31.03.2012 (Before introduction of ECR) the contributions were reflected in the member’s account only after receiving details of subscription in Annual Returns i.e. 3A and 6A. At times, these returns were not submitted by the employers of the closed establishments although the PF office was in receipt of contributions by way of monthly remittances or recovery of the amount in default. The compliance measures initiated against such establishments to procure the returns, many a times did not yield result due to non-traceability of either the employers or the records. This finally results in non-payment of PF accumulations to the members.
Employees of a liquidated company can file their claim for provident fund, duly attested by any of the following authorized persons: ♦ Member of Parliament; ♦ Member of Legislative Assembly; ♦ Magistrate; ♦ A Gazetted Officer; ♦ Sarpanch of the Village;
The parties cannot be deprived of their rights to challenge the award on the ground that there is a delay of 2 years and four months and the Award as declared after such a long period, in our view, can be challenged under Section 34 of the Act. The party cannot be remedy-less. Even under Section 16, the objection even if decided, can be re-agitated under Section 34 of the Act. There is no such scheme for the delayed action of the Arbitrator. Considering the aforesaid aspects, in our view, the award is bad in law.
Trade Mark registration is quasi-judicial process and tends to be time consuming as it involves various steps, inter-alia, examination, publication and disposal of opposition. Sharp increase in the applications filed in the recent years and shortfall in manpower are the other reasons for delay.
The principle is that one who has made the decision having a judicial flavour should not participate in appeal arising from such a decision. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the principles of law I am of the opinion that the Commissioner has manifestly erred in law and acted against the settled principles of natural justice by deciding the appeal against his own order passed as an inferior authority.
This paper attempts to study the impact of non registration of firms i.e., partnership firms. The whole idea of the paper is that all others who are transacting with the firm must be aware of the constitution of the firm and thus the documents which are available with the registrar of companies are public documents and people dealing with the firm are said to have constructive notice of the details about the firm.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of M/s DSR Steel Ltd against the order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity allowing revising of tariff for industries and others under an incentive scheme. The Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd of Jaipur, Jodhpur and Ajmer had applied for revision of tariff from the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission. Objections of several industries and some hundred individuals were heard before allowing the revision. The industries argued that they had invested huge amounts on the promise of continuation of the incentive scheme prevailing then. The commission rejected the arguments and allowed revision of the tariff. The industries took the issue to the appellate tribunal in New Delhi, which rejected their arguments. Now the Supreme Court has also dismissed the appeal, stating that issues decided by the commission and the tribunal should not be reopened unless there is a substantial question of law involved.
Due date for payment of Provident Fund contributions is 15 days from the end of month in which wages are paid (plus grace period of 5 days). Thus, if wages pertaining to April’ 2012 is paid on, say, 7th May’ 2012, due date for payment of Provident Fund contribution is 20th June’ 2012 [i.e. 15th June’ 2012 as increased by grace period of 5 days].
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2/SOL, it is stated that the student is not entitled to any relief in the present petition for the reason that as per the rules of the respondent No.2/SOL contained in the prospectus, only a bonafide student of a college is entitled to migration to SOL and admittedly, the student had paid her regular fee with I.P. College upto April, 2011 and not thereafter and resultantly, on the date when she had sought migration, she was not a bonafide student enrolled with any college and, therefore, she could not be considered for purposes of migration to the respondent No.2/SOL. In support of the aforesaid averments, a copy of the prospectus of SOL for the academic year 2011-12 with regard to migration/direct admission is enclosed with the counter affidavit as Annexure R-1.
After investigation, chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact and has not disclosed anywhere in this petition that he had approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which stood rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order attained finality as has not been challenged any further.
