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.
Shibu. L.P. Vs Neelakantan (Kerala High Court) Law is settled on the point that a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be presented through the power of attorney holder and the power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the court in order to […]
K.P. Shaneej Vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals) (Kerala High Court) Revenue very fairly submits that there are certain judgments of this Court which take the view that without the authenticated copy of the assessment order, an appeal cannot be filed and such authentication will be recognised by the system only when a demand is raised pursuant […]
Whether order of the Adjudicating Authority (‘NCLT’) can be challenged in a proceeding under Article 226, has been, recently, analysed in the matter of Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs. National Company Law Tribunal (1st February, 2022) in W.P. (C) Nos. 27636 of 2020 & 14158 of 2021 before Kerla High Court.
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.
