Corporate Law : A detailed analysis of the Supreme Court's verdict on the Tata Sons vs. Cyrus Mistry case, covering corporate governance, minority...
Corporate Law : Calls for a High Court Bench in West UP remain ignored. SC urged to intervene in judicial disparities affecting millions. Know the...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, stating consensual relationship, even with breach of promise, doesn't automatically constitute ra...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court emphasizes strict scrutiny of FIRs under stringent laws like the UP Gangsters Act to prevent misuse in property ...
Custom Duty : The Supreme Court rules DRI officers as proper officers for customs under Section 28, overturning past judgments and reshaping tax...
Corporate Law : Key IBC case law updates from Oct-Dec 2024, covering Supreme Court and High Court decisions on CoC powers, resolution plans, relat...
Income Tax : Government addresses Supreme Court judgment on tax exemptions for clergy and its implications on Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) u...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rejects regularisation of illegal constructions, irrespective of occupancy or investments, and calls for action agai...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court Collegium recommends three advocates—Ajay Digpaul, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, and Shwetasree Majumder—for ...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Service Tax : Supreme Court held that activity of lottery distributor doesn’t constitute a service and hence imposition of service tax on dist...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court clarified procedures for summons, warrants, and bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), emphasizin...
Income Tax : Supreme Court emphasizes reasonable cause for TDS non-deduction under Section 271C. Highlights interplay of Sections 4, 5, 9, and ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court reaffirms that charitable trust registration under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act should be based on proposed ac...
Corporate Law : Smt. Syeda Rahimunnisa and Syed Hyder Hussaini are wife and husband whereas the respondent no. 1(a) to 1(f) are the legal heirs of...
Income Tax : CBDT raises monetary limits for tax appeals: Rs. 60 lakh for ITAT, Rs. 2 crore for High Court, and Rs. 5 crore for Supreme Court, ...
Corporate Law : No restrictions on joint bank accounts or nominations for the queer community, as clarified by the Supreme Court and RBI in August...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court of India introduces new procedures for case adjournments effective 14th February 2024, detailing strict guidelines a...
Corporate Law : Explore the updated FAQs on the implementation of the EPFO judgment dated 04.11.2022. Understand proof requirements, pension compu...
Income Tax : Comprehensive guide on CBDT's directives for AOs concerning the Abhisar Buildwell Supreme Court verdict. Dive into its implication...
Rajendra Narottamdas Sheth & Anr Vs Chandra Prakash Jain (Supreme Court) In the present case, Mr. Praveen Kumar Gupta has been given general authorisation by the Bank with respect to all the business and affairs of the Bank, including commencement of legal proceedings before any court or tribunal with respect to any demand and filing […]
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Apex court while allowing the Appeal have made distinction between ‘resignation’ and ‘voluntary retirement’ and have held that having tendered the ‘resignation’, the respondent has to suffer the consequences and now cannot be permitted to take ‘U’ turn and say that what the respondent wanted was ‘premature retirement’ and not ‘resignation’.
Supreme Court recalls its Suo-Moto extension to limitations w.e.f. October 02, 2021 Brief background: Due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in March, 2020, this Court took Suo Motu cognizance of the difficulties that might be faced by the litigants in filing petitions/ applications/ suits/ appeals/ all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed […]
Malook Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others (Supreme Court of India) Facts- The petitioner claimed the benefit of ad hoc service rendered by them towards their seniority as against regularly recruited clerks appointed after them. Conclusion-The decision in Direct Recruits stands for the principle that ad hoc service cannot be counted for […]
General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of Accused Companies, without any specific role attributed and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by Accused.
Supreme Court has observed that if the signature on the cheque is admitted, then presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt will be raised. Upon such presumption being raised, it is incumbent upon the accused to rebut the same.
New Victoria Mills & Ors. Vs Shrikant Arya (Supreme Court of India) In this resignation had already been accepted on 28.05.2003 before the respondent endeavoured to withdraw the same on 01.06.2003. It has, thus, rightly been contended by the appellants that the mere delay in relieving the respondent from duties would not impact the acceptance […]
Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the levy. The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that an alternative remedy of a statutory appeal was available. An appeal against these orders was filed before this Court. The […]
National Gandhi Museum Vs Sudhir Sharma (Supreme Court) In the case of Talwara Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. (supra), this Court has held that the fact whether an employee after dismissal was gainfully employed is within his special knowledge and therefore, considering the principles laid down in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, […]
Since the delay in filling the application for refund in the instant case was due to the prolonged proceedings before the NCDRC, the application cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. A litigant has no control over judicial delays. A rejection of the application for refund would violate equity, justice and fairness where the applicant is made to suffer the brunt of judicial delay.
