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...
Denel (Proprietary Limited) Vs. GOI, Ministry of Defence (SC) – Exercising its powers under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reiterated that right to appointment of an Arbitrator does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days as prescribed under Section 11(4) & 11(5) of the Act unless petition is filed for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act prior to appointment by opposite party. The SC appointed an independent Sole Arbitrator due to apprehensions of bias and impartiality, contrary to the clauses of the contract necessitating appointment of DGOF or government servant, as the Sole Arbitrator.
RPFC Vs. The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors.(SC) – .The question which falls for consideration before this Court in this case is whether the employer of an establishment which is an ‘exempted establishment’ under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’ ) is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an ‘exempted establishment’. The question was raised by the respondent before the High Court and both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have recorded a finding in favour of the respondent and held that the respondent being an ‘exempted establishment’ cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section 14(B) of the Act.
Union Corporate Affairs Minister Dr. M.Veerappa Moily has called for making country’s growth more inclusive – a growth that benefits all regions and all sections of our society, particularly the poor and the under-privileged. Dr. Moily was addressing the 1st National Conclave on Corporate Social Responsibility here in New Delhi today. He said Corporates’ social responsibility is a matter intrinsically ingrained in the Constitution of India which envisages an economic development that does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment and that material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good.
Circular no. IRDA/AGTS/CIR/GLD/017/01/2012, A. As per clause 3 (b) of the guidelines only entities registered as Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and Societies and Trusts registered under Societies Registration Act shall be eligible to apply for accreditation as ATIs. The following is added in the above clause:
Central Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Central Provident Fund Employees’ Union (Delhi HC)- Though some merit is found in the contention of the petitioner employer that the award does not render any finding of parity in educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the Assistants/Stenographers/Hindi Translators/Superintendents employed with the petitioner employer and persons with the same designation in the Central Secretariat and a perusal of the records of the
Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs Girnar Exports (IPAB)- The four appeals are against the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Trade Marks at Chennai in three proceedings and the Deputy Registrar at Kolkata in one. The mark is Red Label. Application No. 397359 is for registration of the mark which is a label consisting of the word Red Label with a colour scheme of red and yellow in Roman and Arabic character in respect of tea (Class 30) which is the subject matter of TA/47/2003/TM/CH.
In all other matters, the concerned DC, SEZ should take all necessary steps, including consultation with Government Counsel and represent the matter before the relevant Court on behalf of UoI also.
Present case appears to be one where prima facie the provisions of Section 22 of the SICA are taken undue advantage of. Therefore, at least in those cases where the reference was rejected in previous years on merits by the BIFR, guidelines can be issued to ensure that fresh references in subsequent years should not be mechanically entertained. Learned counsel for the respondent may be right in contending that while registering the references, the Registrar cannot act as quasi judicial authority which is the function of the Board.
The government says it will soon notify 100 per cent foreign direct investment in single-brand retail. Secretary in the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) P K Chaudhery said this in response of a question about issuance of notification of 100 per cent FDI in single-brand retail.
The IRDA had issued guidelines for pension products vide its circular dated November 8, 2011 and insurance companies were required to withdraw all insurance products which do not conform to the guidelines with effect from January 1, 2012. In accordance with this circular, insurance companies had filed 22 revised products as on date out of which 21 products were filed only in the month of December 2011 and of which the largest number were filed in the last week of December 2011. During examination of the products, certain insurers have sought clarifications and in that context, the IRDA issues clarification on clause (17) of the Circular dated November 8, 2011 as follows:
