In present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced the Compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, by considering the income of the deceased under the heads of Income from Business and other investments and Income from Property and Agricultural Land as the deceased was having specialized skills in administering the business and was having good managerial skills.
Since the expression ‘salary’ included benefit of leave encashment which was nothing but salary for the unavailed leave to the credit of the employee, therefore, the condition that carry forward of balance privilege leave, was barred and requiring employees to seek encashment from their previous employer was an arbitrary and unconscionable condition.
Balkrishna Rama Tarle Dead Thr LRS & Anr. Vs Phoenix ARC Private Limited & Ors. (Supreme Court) On a fair reading of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it appears that for taking possession of the secured assets in terms of Section 14(1) of the SARFAESI Act, the secured creditor is obliged to approach the […]
Commissioner, Trade Tax Vs Radico Khetan Ltd (Supreme Court) Section 34 of U.P. Trade Tax Act shall be applicable only in a case where there is a transfer of immovable property belonging to the original assesee, during the pendency of any proceedings under the Act with the intention of defrauding any such tax or other […]
Maitreya Doshi Vs Anand Rathi Global Finance Ltd. (Supreme Court) Apex Court held that If there are two borrowers or if two corporate bodies fall within the ambit of corporate debtors, there is no reason why proceedings under Section 7 of the IBC cannot be initiated against both the Corporate Debtors. Needless to mention, the […]
Ashok G. Rajani Vs Beacon Trusteeship Ltd. & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) This Appeal under Section 62 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is against an interim order dated 18th August 2021 passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench at New Delhi in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. […]
There is no rule which requires SEBI to furnish the opinion under Rule 3 to the noticee in its entirety. The documents relied upon for formation of opinion were not required to be disclosed to the noticee unless relied upon in the inquiry.
SC Held that the numerical strength of the Judges taking a particular view is not relevant, but the Bench strength is determinative of the binding nature of the Judgment.
Held that the initiation of winding up proceedings in Madras High Court would not save limitation for initiation of proceedings for initiation of CIRP in the NCLT under Section 7 of the IBC.
State of Maharashtra Vs Greatship (India) Limited (Supreme Court) 1. Assessing Officer passed the assessment order determining the tax liability along with interest and penalty under the MVAT Act and CST Act 2. Assessee preferred Writ before Hon. Bombay High Court which quashed the Assessment Order and the Demand Notice 3. Against which Revenue filed […]
