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 : This paper explores how investments—from traditional financial instruments to innovative treaty provisions—can be reoriented t...
Corporate Law : The J&K&L HC quashed Nazir Ahmad Ronga’s detention under the Public Safety Act, citing vague allegations and lack of evidence, s...
Corporate Law : Explore the equity principle in taxation, covering fairness, horizontal & vertical equity, progressive vs. regressive taxes, and g...
Corporate Law : Kerala HC quashes rape case, stressing case-specific analysis of allegations. Assumption that women won’t file false sexual assa...
Corporate Law : Bihar, despite its population and legal challenges, lacks even one High Court Bench. Examining the disparity in bench distribution...
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 : Rupee depreciation affects imports and exports. RBI intervenes to manage volatility, using forex reserves to stabilize the currenc...
Corporate Law : Clarification on share certificate claims under Rs. 5 lakh, legal heir acceptance, and applicant authenticity measures by the Inve...
Corporate Law : Government clarifies the status of Barshi Textile Mills under IBC 2016, addressing worker payments, company status, and cooperativ...
Corporate Law : Bombay High Court removes a bail condition restricting overseas travel, ruling that passport retention violated the Passports Act,...
Corporate Law : Gujarat High Court grants bail to Pragnesh Manharbhai Kantariya in ₹537 crore fake transaction case, allowing conditional releas...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court dismisses SLP by CIT (Exemptions) against KIIT due to a 504-day delay in filing. Development fees were treated as ca...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court overturned the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision to condone a 1011-day delay in filing a second appeal, citin...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rules on police authority in cognizable drug-related offences under Chapter IV of the Drugs Act, emphasizing the rol...
Corporate Law : IRDAI reconstitutes its Insurance Advisory Committee, appointing five new members. The notification takes effect from its publicat...
Corporate Law : IBBI mandates detailed disclosure of carry forward losses in the Information Memorandum (IM) to enhance transparency in corporate ...
Corporate Law : FSSAI directs FBOs to update Form IX nominee details and enables auto-approval for Non-Form C modifications in FoSCoS from Februar...
Corporate Law : The Immigration and Foreigners Bill 2025, introduced in Lok Sabha, consolidates laws on passports, visas, and foreigner registrati...
Corporate Law : IRDAI permits insurers to use Bond Forwards for hedging, subject to compliance with RBI directions, prudential norms, and operatio...
Employees Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. O.L. of Esskay Pharmaceuticals Limited (Supreme Court of India)- In terms of Section 530(1), all revenues, taxes, cesses and rates due from the company to the Central or State Government or to a local authority, all wages or salary or any employee, in respect of the services rendered to the company and due for a period not exceeding 4 months all accrued holiday remuneration etc. and all sums due to any employee from provident fund, a pension fund, a gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of the employees maintained by the company are payable in priority to all other debts.
Mrs. Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & ANR. (Supreme Court) -In case of a Director, complaint should specifically spell out how and in what manner the Director was in charge of or was responsible to the accused Company for conduct of its business and mere bald statement that he or she was in charge of and was responsible to the company for conduct of its business is not sufficient. [Vide National Small Industries Corporation Limited vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Another, (2010) 3 SCC 330].
Durga Charan Rautray Versus State of Orissa & Anr. (Supreme Court) – The appellant, while accepting payment on the preparation of the final bill, did not undertake that he would not raise any further claims. As such, we are satisfied that the judgment rendered in Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., case (supra) leads to the irresistible conclusion, that despite receipt of payment on the preparation of the final bill, it was still open to the appellant to raise his unsatisfied claims before an arbitrator, under the contract agreement. Thirdly, it was no longer open to the respondents to contest the claim of the appellant on the instant issue after the appellant had obtained the court order dated 15.5.1981 which referred the disputes raised by the appellant to an arbitral tribunal.
Swami Vivekanand College of Education & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court) – When Regulations 2007 were enacted, the Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 were retained. In the aforesaid circumstances by Regulation 8(5) it was clarified that if any institution has been granted additional intake in B.Ed. and B.P.Ed. teachers training courses after enactment of Regulations 2005 i.e. 13th January, 2006, such institution is required to be accredited itself with NAAC with a Letter Grade B. It is needless to say that Regulations 8(3) and 8(4) of Regulations 2005 dated 27th December, 2005 having retained, it was always open to NCTE to remind the institutions that they were required to follow Regulations 8(3) and 8(4), if were allowed additional intake after 13th January, 2006. For the reason aforesaid the Regulation 8(5) cannot be held to be retrospective. The second question is, thereby, answered in negative against the appellants.
Sanjeev Kumar Jain Versus Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)- In view of the above, the order dated 20.1.2010 of the High Court, to the extent it levies costs of Rs. 45,28,000/- on the appellant is set aside and in its place it is directed that the appellant shall pay the costs of the appeal before the High Court as per Rules plus Rs. 3000/- as exemplary costs to the respondents.
The material facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: The appellants, one late Harshad S. Mehta, their other family members and the corporate entities belonging to the family members had purchased more than 90 lakh shares in Apollo. Except for the holding of two family members, the entire holding came to be attached by a notification on 6th June, 1992. Under the said notification, 29 entities both individual and corporate were notified under Section 3(2) of the Special Court Act.
Provided that if a limited liability partnership has closed the financial year on the 31st March, 2011, it shall file the Statement of Account and Solvency in Form 8 with the Registrar, within a period of sixty days from the end of six months of the financial year to which the Statement of Account and Solvency relates.
Dr.Henk Bleker, Minister for Agriculture and Foreign Trade, Kingdom of Netherlands along with his delegation, had a meeting with Shri R.P.N.Singh, Minister of State for Corporate Affairs here in New Delhi today. Mr.Bob Hiensch, Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to India, and Shri Naved Masood, Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs were present, along with others.
Notification No.L-3(2)/Regln:Gen.,(Amdt.)/2011/CCI, dated 8-11-2011- In exercise of the powers conferred by section 64 of the Competition Act, 2002 (12 of 2003), the Competition Commission of India hereby makes the following regulations further to amend the Competition Commission of India (General) Regulations, 2009, namely:—
Fashion Television India Pvt Ltd v/s fTV BVI (Delhi High Court) – The Court lays down important principle that an interim relief to enforce a negative covenant under a contract would be refused if the same would render a party to a contract idle unless it continues to perform the positive obligations under the contract. It was held that mere existence of a negative covenant is enough to persuade a court to grant an interim injunction to enforce it. Under Section 14 (1) (c) SRA a contract which is in its nature determinable cannot be specifically enforced.
