Dilip Hariramani Vs Bank of Baroda (Supreme Court of India) It is common knowledge that complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques are usually made against the directors of the company or the partners of the partnership firm and the company or the partnership firm are not arraigned […]
Union of India Vs Mukesh Kumar Meena (Supreme Court) it is observed that the CBDT introduced the grace marks policy with the purpose of enabling the marginally failing candidates to pass in the examination. Once the respondent – original applicant passed in his own category, there was no question of allowing/granting him any further grace […]
PCIT Vs Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) As the impugned order passed by the High Court is a nonspeaking and nonreasoned order and even the submissions on behalf of the revenue are not recorded, the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal is unsustainable. Under the circumstances, the impugned […]
Jacob Puliyel Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The Petitioner was a member of the National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization (NTAGI) and was advising the Government of India on vaccines. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner highlighted the adverse consequences of emergency approval of vaccines in India, the need for transparency […]
Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana (Supreme Court) Facts- By an earlier order dated 15.5.2009 [reported in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. 2009 (7) SCC 363], we had referred to the ill – effects of what is known as General Power of Attorney Sales […]
The rule of contra proferentem thus protects the insured from the vagaries of an unfavourable interpretation of an ambiguous term to which it did not agree.
Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. Vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Supreme Court of India) The High Court overlooked the fact that there was no independent instrument of PoA and that in any case, the power of sale of a secured asset flowed out of the provisions of the Securitisation Act, 2002 and not out of […]
Invent Asset Securitisation And Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. Vs Girnar Fibres Ltd (Supreme Court of India) Time and again, it has been expressed and explained by this Court that the provisions of the Code are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such. The intent […]
ESI Court held that the conveyance allowance paid to the employees by the appellant herein does not include the wages, the employer has preferred the present appeal.
Bar of voting as per Section 188 of the Companies Act, 2013 on related parties operated only at the time of entering into a contract or arrangement,
