We are constrained to observe that a party to the litigation cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for availability of the reasons for the order of the Court.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Dacite Furnishing Limited (Supreme Court) For deciding the application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration Act, 1996, the court is required to ensure that an arbitrable dispute exists and has to be prima facie convinced about the genuineness or credibility of the plea and not be too particular about the nature […]
High Court in the present case has been in error in assuming that the Director of a Company, who had been receiving remuneration for discharge of duties assigned to him, may not fall within the definition of an employee for the purpose of the ESI Act.
John Thomas Vs Dr. K. Jagdeesan (Supreme Court of India) A renowned hospital in the Metropolis of Madras (Chennai) has been caricatured in a newspaper as the abattoir of human kidneys for trafficking purposes. When the Director of the Hospital complained of defamation, the publisher of the newspaper sought shelter under the umbrage that the […]
Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation V. Mesco Kalinga Steel Ltd. & Ors (Supreme Court) Lease of industrial land from government authority – Lessee neglected to execute lease deed for years – Lease cancelled and land resumed lessee obtaining order from High court for the allotment of land. The Apex Court held that the lessee has […]
Whether forfeiture of gratuity, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, is automatic on dismissal from service, is issue for consideration in this case.
A plain reading of the definition of Section 2(22) of the ESI Act makes it amply clear that wages means all remuneration paid or payable in cash to an employee, if the terms of the contract of the employment, expressed or implied, were fulfilled and includes other additional remuneration, if any, paid at intervals not exceeding two months.
The Honble Supreme Court held that that strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases. In other words, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.
Supreme Court in JCIT v. M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited held that the term tax under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should also include cess.
The Honble Supreme Court have considered disability as permanent and have enhanced compensation under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 as the disability report showed that there is Permanent Partial Disability of about 58% of the limb, which corresponds with 26% whole body. There is no dispute that the appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature. The disablement has incapacitated the appellant from doing the work which she was capable of doing.
