Checkmate Services P. Ltd Vs CIT (Supreme Court) The factual narration reveals two diametrically opposed views in regard to the interpretation of Section 36(1)(va) on the one hand and proviso to Section 43(b) on the other. If one goes by the legislative history of these provisions, what is discernible is that Parliament’s endeavour in introducing […]
Supreme Court held that the appellant-JSPL is duly complying with the prescription in Explanation to Rule 3 of Distribution License Rules and hence cancellation of licence is unjustified.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that a preliminary enquiry shall be conducted by the High Court on the issue whether the dispute is arbitrable or not while deciding an application made under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrators.
In present facts of the case, it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court of India that an NGO could not have filed writ petition before Honble High Court as it do not have any locus standi in present facts of the case as it was not an aggrieved party. Also, it was observed that the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
In present facts of the case, while allowing the appeal it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud and the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity.
Non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. Therefore, the judgment or decree obtained by fraud was to be treated as a nullity as the respondent had not only suppressed a material fact but had also tried to mislead the High Court.
In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Writ under Article 32 would be maintainable as after the Apex Court, no litigant has any opportunity of approaching any higher forum to question its decision. The only remedy available to the petitioners would be to approach this Court by way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for protection of the fundamental rights (Right to Privacy in this case) of citizens of India.
In present matter, the Honble Supreme Court observed that once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties and no contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal.
The Orders of the Registrar of Companies cannot be altered after 16 years of the declaration of the Company as defunct especially when the Complainant has no locus standi as he is neither a Company, nor a member and nor a creditor, hence he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved to question the Order of RoC is striking off the Companys name under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956.
In present case, the Honble Supreme Court invoked the provision of Article 142 of the Constitution of India and reduced the rate of Interest awarded by the arbitral tribunal by considering the fact that the long duration has been passed since filing of the claim.
