BCH Electric Limited Vs Pradeep Mehra (Supreme Court) In a notable judgment in the field of gratuity law, the Supreme Court held that Section 4(5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will apply only when there are alternative options for the employee under the Act and under the terms of contract with the employee. […]
It was possible for the respondent to raise submissions that arbitration pertaining to each of the agreements be considered and dealt with separately. It was also possible for him to contend that in respect of the agreement where the venue was agreed to be at Kolkata, the arbitration proceedings be conducted accordingly.
Authorities was not justified in holding that it was a turnkey project, importation of equipment and post-importation project implementation exercise were mutually dependent as reading such implied conditions into the contracts would be impermissible in the absence of any other material to demonstrate subsistence of such conditions.
That fiction is that the movement of goods, from one State to another shall terminate, where the good have been delivered to a carrier for transmission, at the time of when delivery is taken from such carrier.
There can be no manner of doubt that any citizen of the country can criticise the judgments delivered by any Court including this Court. However, no party has the right to attribute motives to a Judge or to question the bona fides of the Judge or to raise questions with regard to the competence of the Judge.
Mohd. Asif Naseer Vs West Watch Company (Supreme Court) It may be so that mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, may not be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, the […]
The Court was satisfied that enforcement of such foreign award shall be against the public policy of India and therefore, the award was denied enforcement. This Court further held that the award could be enforced as per Section 7 (1) (a) (i) of the Foreign Awards Act which protects the parties who are under inability to perform their obligations because of laws applicable or because of invalidity of the agreement.
Union of India & Others. v/s V.V.F. Limited & Others (Supreme Court) Promissory Estoppel on Govt. Clarifications, applied retrospectively in the Public Interest (Supreme Court 3 Judge Bench Judgment) Decided on 22.4.2020 Questions Framed (Important Points) :- 1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the subsequent notification No. 16 of 2008 dated […]
Subsequent notifications/industrial policies were issued in public interest and in the interest of the Revenue and they seek to achieve the original object and purpose of giving incentive/exemption while inviting the persons to make investment on establishing the new undertakings and they did not take away any vested rights conferred under the earlier notifications/industrial policies and therefore could not be said to be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the same was to be applied retrospectively and they could not be said to be irrational and/or arbitrary.
In our view this is not a fair or proper procedure. If not in the first notice, at least at the time of furnishing the reasons the assessee should have been informed that the revenue relied upon the second proviso. The assessee must be put to notice of all the provisions on which the revenue relies upon.
