Civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit structured on the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Ac. The decree favouring the plaintiff is a legal nullity and the finding of the High Court to this extent is upheld.
D.K. Agrawal Vs Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Supreme Court of India) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Council of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (Respondent) needs to necessarily record reasons in its report as to why a CA must be de-registered. It has been held that the Respondent needs to […]
CIT Vs Mohammed Meeran Shahul Hameed (Supreme Court) On a fair reading of subsection (2) of Section 263 it can be seen that as mandated by subsection (2) of Section 263 no order under Section 263 of the Act shall be ‘made’ after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year […]
In a case relating to compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court held that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee is not even borne in service.
The decision of the Labour Court should not be based on mere hypothesis. It cannot overturn the decision of the management on ipse dixit. Its jurisdiction under Section 11A of the Act 1947 although is a wide one but it must be judiciously Judicial discretion, it is trite, cannot be exercised either whimsically or capriciously. It may scrutinize or analyse the evidence but what is important is how it does so.
Gimpex Private Limited Vs Manoj Goel (Supreme Court of India) A complainant cannot pursue two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying transaction. Once a settlement agreement has been entered into by the parties, the proceedings in the original complaint cannot be sustained and a fresh cause of action accrues to the complainant under the terms […]
UOI contended that since the particular provision has already been challenged and the proceedings are pending across the Country, along with ramifications of huge amounts payable under the CGST Act are involved, it should be appropriate for the Hon’ble Supreme Court to hear the matter.
Appellant contended that CBI Manual does not make it mandatory to conduct a Preliminary Enquiry (PE) before the registration of the FIR. It was stated that a PE cannot be made mandatory for all cases of corruption and is only conducted when the information received is not sufficient to register a regular case.
Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya Vs Gharrkul Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Supreme Court of India) The issue for determination before us is whether the role of the appellants in the capacity of the Director of the defaulter company makes them vicariously liable for the activities of the defaulter Company as defined under Section 141 of the NI Act? In that perception, […]
V. Prabhakara Vs Basavaraj K. (Dead) By Lr. & Anr. (Supreme Court) A testamentary court is not a court of suspicion but that of conscience. It has to consider the relevant materials instead of adopting an ethical reasoning. A mere exclusion of either brother or sister per se would not create a suspicion unless it […]
