Supreme Court declares the 25-year experience mandate for Chartered Accountants seeking ITAT positions unconstitutional, aligning with prior rulings on advocates.
The judgment confirmed that Section 11(2) of the EPF Act creates a first charge that overrides SARFAESI’s priority clause. Thus, provident fund contributions, interest, penalties, and damages must be paid before clearing secured creditors’ dues.
The Court ordered transfer of the pending company appeal to the NCLAT Principal Bench after concerns arose from a judicial disclosure. The ruling ensures impartial adjudication and places broader issues before the Chief Justice.
SC held that Act reintroduced provisions earlier struck down, violating judicial independence and constitutional principles. It restored earlier service conditions and protected prior appointments.
The Supreme Court held that assignment of a decree for specific performance does not create any present right or title in immovable property. Therefore, such assignment deeds do not require registration under Section 17(1)(e) of the Registration Act.
The Court held that when multiple authorities are required to communicate an EC, the appeal limitation period begins from the earliest communication. Subsequent notifications cannot extend the period, emphasizing timely action by aggrieved parties.
The Court held that cost directions based on earlier guidelines cannot be enforced as binding precedent. It set aside the imposed costs since the complainant sought no further payment and the appellant could not comply.
This case addressed the scope of judicial interference under the Arbitration Act regarding the interest awarded in a commercial dispute. The Court found no perversity in the Arbitrator’s decision to award the contractual 24% rate, rejecting the borrower’s claims under the outdated Usurious Loans Act, 1918. The ruling emphasizes that the Arbitration Act framework overrides State usury laws for NBFC lending and bars courts from reopening contractual rates.
SC found that issuing tax notices for periods before takeover violated the ruling that all non-included claims are extinguished upon approval of the resolution plan. The recovery proceedings were set aside.
The apex court removed the cost imposed to the State Legal Services Authority after parties settled a cheque dishonour dispute. The ruling confirms that prior Article 142-based cost schemes cannot mandate payment in every case. Takeaway: each settlement must be evaluated on its own merits, not by automatic precedent.
