This Appeal has been preferred by the son of Shri Jai Prakash, a deceased constable in Haryana Police, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds, as his father and another constable died while on duty on 22.11.1997.
Supreme Court held that cognizance of the offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the public servant without obtaining previous sanction under section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 untenable in law.
Supreme Court rules on whether mobile towers and prefabricated buildings qualify as “capital goods” for CENVAT credit in the telecom sector.
Supreme Court held that fresh application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is not maintainable in the absence of any liberty being granted at the time of withdrawal of the first application.
Supreme Court held that jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India invoked due to non-implementation of approved resolution plan even after five years of the approval. Accordingly, it is directed that the corporate debtor be taken in liquidation.
Supreme Court held that officers of DRI are entrusted with the functions of proper officer and thus has jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for recovery of duty under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Supreme Court held that the scope of inquiry under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is limited to ascertaining the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement. Thus, appeal allowed due to existence of arbitration agreement.
Supreme Court held that the financial decisions as have been taken by Committee of Creditors, especially with regard to viability or otherwise, while evaluating the resolution plan would prevail.
Supreme Court while adjudicating matters emphasized the need to follow the legal framework laid down by statutory provisions for the withdrawal of petitions and settlement of claims in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).
Supreme Court clears HDFC Bank officials of liability for allowing locker operation, quashes FIR due to lack of fraudulent intent and mens rea.
