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 : Article examines LLM risks in tax practice and outlines a framework for verification, confidentiality, citation checks, and profes...
Corporate Law : A UAE visa or company does not establish tax residency. Tax depends on residence tests, income, management, and supporting evidenc...
Corporate Law : P&H HC refused regular bail under the UAPA, holding prima facie material linked the accused to the alleged conspiracy and funding ...
Corporate Law : Article examines persistent exam paper leaks, their causes, impact on students, and suggests technology, stricter enforcement, eth...
Corporate Law : Explains how email exchanges may contribute to contracts under Indian law, covering the Indian Contract Act, IT Act, 2000, and Bha...
Corporate Law : PIB outlines the FCRA framework, proposed 2026 Amendment Bill and notified Rules covering registration, reporting, asset vesting a...
Corporate Law : PIB outlines the FCRA 2026 Amendment Bill and revised Rules, covering registration, reporting, asset vesting, renewal, investigati...
Corporate Law : DRI dismantled an alleged Mephedrone manufacturing facility in Ankleshwar, seized drugs, chemicals and ₹21 lakh, and arrested th...
Corporate Law : MSME Ministry outlines CGTMSE measures including ₹10 crore guarantee ceiling, reduced AGF, enhanced coverage and awareness initi...
Corporate Law : Government outlines FTAs, Export Promotion Mission, e-commerce export reforms and logistics initiatives to diversify export market...
Corporate Law : Kerala High Court held the property was not partible, upheld mandatory injunction for vacant possession, and dismissed the partiti...
Corporate Law : HC allowed the appeal against conviction under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after examining investigation,...
Corporate Law : HC upheld quashing of a vague wilful defaulter notice but allowed fresh proceedings under the RBI Master Circular with proper part...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court dissolved marriage under Article 142 citing irretrievable breakdown after over a decade of separation, while allowin...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that IBC moratorium against corporate and personal guarantors does not bar recovery proceedings against a princ...
Corporate Law : IRDAI directs insurers to submit SCNs within 7 days, additional documents within 3 days, and clear pending requests within 30 days...
Corporate Law : Instruction No. 124 dated July 23, 2026 directs RFID seals for SEZ export containers under valid LEOs to ensure uniform acceptance...
Corporate Law : Notification S.O. 4049(E) amends the PMLA Special Courts notification, designating additional courts and jurisdiction in Gujarat f...
Corporate Law : DPIIT Press Note No. 3 of 2026 permits inventory-based e-commerce for exports of goods made in India, effective from the date of t...
Corporate Law : Government notifies the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 2026, replacing the 1952 Scheme and introducing updated EPF, enrolmen...
HARSHENDRA KUMAR D. V. REBATILATA KOLEY ETC In our judgment, the above observations cannot be read to mean that in a criminal case where trial is yet to take place and the matter is at the stage of issuance of summons or taking cognizance, materials relied upon by the accused which are in the nature of public documents or the materials which are beyond suspicion or doubt, in no circumstance, can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 or for that matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code. It is fairly settled now that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 or revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code in a case where complaint is sought to be quashed, it is not proper for the High Court to consider the defence of the accused or embark upon an enquiry in respect of merits of the accusations. However, in an appropriate case, IF ON THE FACE OF THE DOCUMENTS
In a major top-level management restructuring, India’s second largest software firm Infosys today named veteran banker K V Kamath as the new chairman to succeed founder N R Narayana Murthy, who retires in August. The over USD 6-billion Infosys Technologies has also appointed current CEO S Gopalakrishnan as the Executive co-Chairman and promoted COO S D Shibulal as CEO and MD.
The government will notify the new rules for corporate mergers and acquisitions on May 5, following which it will be mandatory for companies to seek the Competition Commission”s approval for high voltage deals, Chairman Dhanendra Kumar said today. By May 3-4, the rules will be finalised and by May 5, we will notify the same. And by June 1, the provisions relating to mergers and acquisition approvals would come into effect, Kumar told reporters on the sidelines of an AMCHAM event here.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Anr. Vs. Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd. & Anr. (AIR 1996 SC 114; Date of Judgment 24/04/1995) held that Right to shelter is a fundamental right, which springs from the right to residence assured in Article.19 (1) (e) and right to life under Article. 21 of the Constitution.
Since long the public sector banks and financial institutions (hereinafter collectively referred to as ‘the Bank’ or ‘the Banks’) have unilaterally and arbitrarily developed a practice to execute personal guarantee agreements with the guarantors to secure the debts of a company. This view is supported by the judgement of hon’ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs N. Narasimahaiah & Ors. {2008 AIR 1797, 2008 (5) SCC 176, 2008 (4) JT 183; Date of Judgment: 13/03/2008}, wherein the court has observed as follows (in para 18)
The objective of creating an insurance repository is to provide policyholders a facility to keep insurance policies in electronic form and to undertake changes, modifications and revisions in the insurance policy with speed and accuracy in order to bring about efficiency, transparency and cost reduction in the issuance and maintenance of insurance policies.
Expenditure incurred by the company on account of stamp duty and registration fee for the issue of bonus shares is allowable expenditure. The Supreme Court has reiterated its view as already expressed in 1964 in CIT Vs. Dalmia Investment Co Ltd (1964) 52 ITR 567 (SC). However, the Gujrat High Court in Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Pvt Ltd Vs. CIT (1986) 162 ITR 800 (Guj) in 1986 and in other cases up to 1994 has taken a contrary view. Further, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd Vs. CIT (1988) 174 ITR 689 (AP) and (1990) 184 ITR 70 (AP) in 1988 and up to 1990 has also taken a contrary view. It is unfortunate that Hon’ble Gujrat High Court and Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court have clearly violated the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution; the concept is discussed in detail later on hereinafter.
The yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in the adjudication proceeding as well as proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceeding is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceeding, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.”
ARTICLE 142 of the Constitution of India DO NOT CONSTITUTE A BINDING PRECEDENT. Even therein, the scope and ambit of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 142 vis-`-vis existence of the statue and statutory rules and the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had not been taken into consideration.
Recently, hon’ble Supreme Court in RAJENDRA PRASAD GUPTA V. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA & ORS. {(2011) 2 SCC 705; Civil Appeal No(s). 984 of 2006-Decided on 12-01-2011} has held as follows (in para 2). Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives inherent powers to the court to do justice. That provision has to be interpreted to mean that every procedure is permitted to the court for doing justice unless expressly prohibited, and not that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted.
