Accident benefit could have been claimed and availed of only if the accident had taken place subsequent to the renewal of the policy. The policy in the instant case was lying in a lapsed condition since 14th October, 2011 and, therefore, was not in force as on 06.03.2012, resultantly, the claim over Accident benefit was not payable to the respondent as per the conditions of the contract of insurance.
Transport Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs Employees State Insurance Corpn. (Supreme Court of India) Non-challenge of validity of Regulation 31-A confirms interest demand under the same Facts- The subject matter of the present dispute is demand made by the Employees State Insurance Corporation by way of contribution payable by the appellant for the period from […]
In absence of any specific averment, the prosecution in the present case doesn’t and cannot reply on section 22C(2) of the Act. Unless the company as a principal accused has committed the offence, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) would not be liable and cannot be prosecuted.
The brief facts of the case were that the Respondent was facing several problems while their filing of GSTR Form 3B due to the several glitches that were occurring in the Online GST Portal. Amidst these glitches, the Respondent filed their GST returns for the period of July, 2017 to September, 2017 with excess amount of ₹ 923 Crores and therefore, they have sought the refund accordingly.
Held that a Will cannot be revoked by an agreement and can be revoked only as per the modes specified under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act.
The nomenclature that the legislature had ascribed to the tax did not determine either the nature of the levy or its true and essential character. The tax had been labelled as the water tax or a sewerage tax simply because it was imposed by the Jal Sansthan constituted under the UP Water Supply and Sewerage Act. That did not alter the nature of the levy which in substance was a tax on lands and buildings within the meaning of Entry 49 of List II of the Seventh Schedule.
The workmen working in the Dewas factory of the appellant were transferred to Chopanki, District Alwar. Being aggrieved the workmen made a reference of the same to the Labour Court claiming that the employer has transferred them without any justifiable reason and such transfer amounts to illegal change under section 9A of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
V. Anantha Raju Vs T.M. Narasimhan (Supreme Court of India) Section 91/92 Evidence Act- Written instruments are entitled to a much higher degree of credit than parol evidence Recently, Judgement dated 26th October, 2021 [in the matter of V ANANTHA RAJU & ANR V T.M. NARASIMHAN & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6469 of 2021)] has […]
V Nagarajan Vs SKS Ispat and Power Ltd.& Ors. (Supreme Court of India) When will the clock for calculating the limitation period run for proceedings under the IBC? The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (‘IBC’) envisages a comprehensive dispute resolution process in Chapter VI. The NCLT is the empowered ‘Adjudicating Authority’ under Section 60 of […]
Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (Punsup) & Anr. Vs Ganpati Rice Mills & Anr. (Supreme Court of India) The issue in the present appeal is limited to rate of interest. The Arbitrator had granted interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 01.01.2003 till the date of realization. On consideration of the objections […]
