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 : Supreme Court advises High Courts to prioritize criminal appeals of elderly accused on bail, especially in old cases, to ensure fa...
Corporate Law : AI and automation are reshaping Indian jobs. Learn about skill gaps, industry impact, and future opportunities in IT, finance, hea...
Corporate Law : The initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under Sections 7-10 of the IBC involves different creditors and p...
Corporate Law : Analysis of 1989 economic policy debate between Nani Palkhivala and Madhu Dandavate, examining globalization's impact on India's s...
Corporate Law : SC rules that directors cannot face Section 138 NI Act cases if the cause of action arises after insolvency proceedings begin unde...
Corporate Law : CAIT urges the government to block FDI-backed e-commerce firms from controlling inventory, citing threats to 8 crore Kirana MSMEs ...
Corporate Law : The government has no plans to revise the ₹5,000 tax limit for preventive health check-ups. AI-based health initiatives focus on...
Corporate Law : To combat online financial fraud, RBI has launched an AI-based tool, ‘MuleHunter,’ to identify money mules and has advised fin...
Corporate Law : Update on CCI's order regarding WhatsApp and Meta's data sharing. NCLAT's interim stay and government measures to prevent data mis...
Corporate Law : Overview of IBC 2016's impact, amendments, and government's stance on further changes, including flat registration in insolvency c...
Corporate Law : The invitation card for the marriage ceremony in Guru vaguer was also placed on record as Annexure P-3. Assessee was said to have ...
Corporate Law : Competition Commission of India dismisses allegations of monopoly against Delhi airport operators, citing lack of prima facie evi...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court overturns High Court ruling, upholds e-auction sale under SARFAESI Act. Bank directed to return surplus funds to bor...
Corporate Law : SC quashes Punjab HC order dismissing plea under CrPC 482. Case remitted to Sessions Court for re-examination of deposit requireme...
Corporate Law : SC clarifies scope of Section 143A of NI Act, holding interim compensation as discretionary, not mandatory, in cheque bounce cases...
Corporate Law : IBBI disciplinary order highlights contraventions by Mr. Kairav Trivedi in CIRP cases, including non-cooperation, resolution plan ...
Corporate Law : India's Ministry of Cooperation merges audit panels for multi-state co-ops, simplifying auditor appointments for FY 2024-25....
Corporate Law : MSME investment and turnover limits revised. New thresholds apply from April 1, 2025, increasing eligibility for micro, small, and...
Corporate Law : FSSAI waives registration fees for Anganwadi (ICDS) Centers, introduces a new Kind of Business (KoB), and grants five-year registr...
Corporate Law : PFRDA has issued regulations for the Unified Pension Scheme under NPS, applicable to Central Government employees from April 1, 20...
It has been decided to declare Sunday, the 14th April 2013, as a Closed Holiday on account of the birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, for all Central Government Offices including Industrial Establishments throughout India.
The explanation to section 4 of the Act defines dominant position to mean a position of strength enjoyed by an enterprise in the relevant market in India which enables it to operate independent of competitive forces prevailing in the relevant market or affect its competitors or consumers or the relevant market in its favour. On examining the dominant position of the OP, it was seen that the OP had no legal existence in India and did not engage in any business in India. Further, the relevant market was fragmented with many players engaging in the activity of production/ manufacture of ARV drugs in India. Accordingly, the OP was not a dominant player in the relevant market in India and therefore, no abuse as envisaged under section 4 of the Act could exist.
Absence of an appeal does not necessarily render the legislation unreasonable as only because no appeal is provided under the Act against the order passed under section 14 of the Securitisation Act will not render section 14 ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India.
The Regulations now do not require a notice to be filed for acquisition of shares or voting rights of companies if the acquisition is less than five percent of the shares or voting rights of the company in a financial year, where the acquirer already holds more than twenty five percent but less than fifty percent of the shares or voting rights of the company.
In the present case, indisputably all the participating opposite parties i.e. 28 Part-I firms and 1 Part-II firm quoted an all-inclusive rate of Rs. 66.50 each for the supply of the tendered material. Further, the quantity quoted by the each of the bidders was less than 50% of the total quantity. These facts have not been denied or disputed by any of these opposite parties. Coupled with the facts that the bid documents containing same handwriting, same format with common omissions and commissions of language, past conduct etc., it is safe to infer that such conduct is reflective of meeting of minds or concerted action to establish that the firms have directly or indirectly tried to determine or influence the price of the tender/ project.
Instances have come to notice wherein a few PSUs/Departments have approached Tribunals/Courts to re-open the cases in which permission to litigate was denied by CoD. In a few cases, Public Sector Undertakings/Departments have filed petitions in the High Courts. In an isolated case, a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has also been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court by an organisation against the High Court decision seeking clarification of the Order dated 17.2.2011 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, although the High Court had declined to re-open the case.
Companies Need to Look Beyond Shareholder Value And Make Sustainability a Core Driver of their Strategy – Sachin Pilot Corporate Affairs Minister Inaugurates ‘CSIA International Corporate Governance Conference’ Shri Sachin Pilot, Minister of Corporate Affairs, inaugurated the two-day 2nd CSIA (Corporate Secretaries International Association) International Corporate Governance Conference on the theme ‘Corporate Governance for Sustaining […]
There is another aspect of the matter. The purport of unearned increase is to, in addition to the premium charged by the appellant DDA at the time of granting the lease, entitle the appellant DDA to share 50% of the increase in value of the leasehold rights from the date when the lease was given and till the date of transfer. The transfer of the leasehold rights in the present case, as aforesaid, is under the aegis of this Court. There is no doubt as to the consideration for the said transfer. It is not in dispute that the matter has throughout been pending in this Court on the issue of unearned increase. We are of the opinion that it would be highly unjust and unfair to ask the respondent M/s Aeroshine who though has purchased the leasehold rights at the rates of the year 1983-85, to pay unearned increase to the appellant DDA of the year 2004 or of today.
These regulations may be called the Competition Commission of India (Procedure in regard to the transaction of business relating to combinations) Amendment Regulations, 2013.
The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) created to issue a unique identification number (“Aadhaar”) to residents of India authorize/recognize “Registrars’ to enroll individuals for Aadhaar. We note that currently UIDAI has primarily engaged with State Governments, Central Ministries and public sector organizations to act as Registrars. As per the information available with the Authority, in the insurance sector only Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) is registered as Registrar with UIDAI.
