Supreme Court of India

SC refers Doctrine of Group of Companies to Larger Bench for relook

Cox And Kings Limited Vs Sap India Private Limited (Supreme Court of India)

Cox And Kings Limited Vs Sap India Private Limited (Supreme Court of India) Supreme Court referred following aspects of application of doctrine of ‘Group of Companies’, which is mostly utilised to bind non-signatories to an Arbitration Agreement, to a larger Bench for relook- A. Whether the Group of Companies Doctrine sh...

Read More

Scuttling of criminal process at pre-trial stag not merited: SC

Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court of India)

Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court) The issue to be answered here is whether summons and trial notice should have been quashed on the basis of factual defences. The corollary therefrom is what should be the responsibility of the quashing Court and whether it must weigh the evidence presented [&hellip...

Read More

SC Quashes Prosecution under PMLA after considering Income Tax Dept & CBI report

J. Sekar @Sekar Reddy Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Supreme Court of India)

J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Supreme Court of India) It is most relevant to note that CBI after investigation in the main case in RC MA1 2016 A0040 submitted the closure report before the Additional Sessions Judge, CBI Court, Chennai in exercise of power under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The said report […]...

Read More

Excess Payment to Employee due to Erroneous Interpretation of Rule Not Recoverable : Supreme Court

Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India)

Thomas Daniel Vs State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India) This Court in a catena of decisions has consistently held that if the excess amount was not paid on account of any misrepresentation or fraud of the employee or if such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the […]...

Read More

Prosecution of Partners/Directors without arraigning firm/company as accused for dishonour of cheque not maintainable u/s 138 of NI Act: SC

Dilip Hariramani Vs Bank of Baroda (Supreme Court of India)

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 [&helli...

Read More

CBDT grace marks policy not applies to person who passed in his own category: SC

Union of India Vs Mukesh Kumar Meena (Supreme Court of India)

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 gra...

Read More

SC dismisses non­-speaking and non-reasoned order of HC

PCIT Vs Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India)

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 [&h...

Read More

Article 21 encompasses right to individual to refuse vaccination

Jacob Puliyel Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India)

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 fo...

Read More

Sale agreement/ General power of Attorney/ Will transactions are not ‘transfers’ or ‘sales’.

Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Haryana (Supreme Court)

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 […]...

Read More

Rule of contra proferentem protects insured from unfavourable interpretation of an ambiguous term

Haris Marine Products Vs Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) Limited (Supreme Court of India)

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....

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (6,025)
Company Law (8,245)
Custom Duty (9,170)
DGFT (4,772)
Excise Duty (4,694)
Fema / RBI (5,137)
Finance (5,545)
Income Tax (40,796)
SEBI (4,433)
Service Tax (3,937)

Search Posts by Date

May 2022
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031