Rakesh Jain Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Punjab & Haryana High Court) There is a merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the respondent-CBI that Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation in part, has collected various documents from the financial institutions like Banks, Income Tax Department, schools or insurance companies etc., which have […]
Held that when two choices are available, one under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act and the other under such arrangement with the employer and if the latter offers better terms, the employee cannot be denied the right to receive those higher benefits.
Held that offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 420 of IPC are distinct from each other because ingredients of the two offences are different. Person can be prosecuted under both the said sections.
Held that the respondent i.e. Yes bank being a private Bank is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Riadi Steels LLP Vs State of U.P. (Allahabad High Court) The GSTN authority is required to consider the feasibility of providing an additional field in the online form to be filled by dealers/transporters to obtain E-way bill, such that an additional field may be provided to feed the vehicle type i.e. normal or ODC etc., […]
Held that the power to grant bail is not to be deployed as a mechanism for imposing sentence even before a guilt is yet to be proved and established.
Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) The Hon’ble High Court, Bombay in the matter of M/s Smarte Solutions Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India [Writ Petition no. 503/2021 dated July 27, 2022] directed the department to consider the application for Services Export from India Scheme (“SEIS”) benefits on the ground […]
Held that Manual issued by the Government suggesting settlement of dispute by arbitration would not amount to execution of arbitration agreement between the parties. Application u/s 11(4) & 11(6) dismissed as no arbitration agreement exists between the parties.
Held that the machine and two DG sets are under seal for more than two years. The impugned action of the department is wholly without jurisdiction for which the petitioner is liable to be compensated
Held that as per the reply notice, the petitioner has waived the right to settle the dispute in an arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, if the right is once waived it cannot be allowed to be reclaimed.
