Cochin University of Science and Technology Vs DR. P. V. SASIKUMAR (Kerala High Court) The Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act, 2009, widened the definition of ’employee’ under the Act in order to extend the benefit to the teachers with effect from the date on which the provisions of the Act were made applicable to educational […]
Held that the limitation period of six months is applicable from 1st April 2022. Accident in this case had occurred on 23.05.2019. Accordingly, limitation period of six months u/s 166(3) of Motor Vehicles Act doesn’t apply.
There was no right to apply for reference of a dispute to arbitration until there was a clear and unequivocal denial of the right asserted by one party by the other.
Chit funds are liable to pay service tax only after amendment to definition of word ‘service’ brought in i.e., wef 15-6-2015 as held by SC in UOI v. Margadarshi Chit Funds (P.) Ltd.
The Court below ought to have granted the petitioners an opportunity to cure defect in the written statement, instead of taking the drastic step of rejecting the application. It is trite, Courts should make every endevour to dispose of a case on merits rather than on default.
The intention of the parties is a key factor in determining the nature of the transaction. Hence, when the husband purchased the property in favour of his wife, unless the contrary is proved, it will be treated as the property of the wife purchased for her benefit.
It is not possible for me at this stage to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged. The investigation is going on and the same is at a crucial stage. Bail application dismissed.
Inconvenience of power of attorney holder (whether he is male or female) is not a reason to deny transfer sought for by the wife.
Ratnamani George Vs Authorized Officer, Canara Bank (Kerala High Court) This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondent to confirm the sale of the property auctioned by the petitioners after accepting the balance bid amount. 2. According to the petitioners, lured by a publication in the website of the respondent intimating the […]
E. K. RAJAN Vs Authorized Officer (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Since there was a failure on the part of the respondent to serve notice of not less than 15 days upon assessee, therefore, the notice of sale proposing to auction the property of the was bad in law and the consequent sale was liable to […]
