GMMCO Limited Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Madras High Court); The Madras High court held that is not possible to countenance the contention raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 949 of 2020 that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Surya Roshni Ltd. -vs- Employees Provident Fund […]
Hind Kamgar Sanghatana Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Payment of due wages to a workman is a statutory right under section 5 of the Payment of Wages Act & is a fundamental right of a worker under Article 21 of the Constitution. Financial difficulties of employer cannot be a ground for non-payment or […]
Navneet Sahay Verma and another Vs. Registrar of Companies and another (Bombay High Court) The Petitioners, because of their disqualification, cannot apply under the Companies Fresh Start Scheme in respect of their companies. This Scheme is to end on 30 September 2020. They, therefore, seek a direction that they may be permitted to apply under […]
The issue under consideration is whether freezing the bank account for such a long period is justified in law?
LM Wind Power Blades India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of respondent No. 4 in encashing the bank guarantees without waiting for expiry of the appeal period is wholly illegal and should be declared as such by this court. He submits that respondent […]
whether depreciation is mandatory to be granted while determining the Appellant’s entitlement to the deduction under Section 80IB of the Act, even though the Appellant had not claimed such depreciation?
Kangana Ranaut Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. (Bombay High Court) Section 354A of the Act (which is invoked by the MCGM by issuing the impugned Notice dated 7th September, 2020), sets out the ‘power of Commissioner to stop erection of building or work commenced or carried on unlawfully.’ From the works set […]
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 does not impose any limitation that the goods categorized as ‘prohibited goods’ under Section 2(33) cannot be subjected to provisional release under Section 110A.
On 3rd September 2020, the Bombay High Court has passed a landmark ruling placing the wife in a position as a Guardian for her comatose (in the position of coma). The Bombay High Court thereby affirmed that a spouse could be the best Guardian for his/her spouse and thus, appointed the spouse of a comatose man as his guardian for making it easier […]
Tribunal in a detailed discussion contained in judgment, had rejected the contention of Revenue. Tribunal had taken into account the valuation of the existing machinery used at Daman and the valuation of the written down value of machinery transferred from Aurangabad to come to the conclusion that same did not exceed 20% of the total value of machinery. The entire issue was thus based on factual consideration and on appreciation of evidence on record. Thus, no question of law arose.
