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...

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...

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 […]...

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 […]...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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....