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...
he claim of the contractor company for reimbursement of the amount of sales tax levied on the taxable turnover of the works contracts executed by it, i.e., with reference to the expression ‘completed item of work’ in the said Clause 45.2 and with reference to the stipulations contained in Clauses 13.3 of ITB and 45.1 of GCC, were wholly untenable and appellant and its contracting offices were under obligation to honour the claim so made by the contractor company.
Quippo Construction Equipment Limited Vs Janardan Nirman Pvt. Limited (Supreme Court); Civil Appeal No. 2378 of 2020; Dated: 29/04/2020 FACTS The Respondent, a business of infrastructure development activities approached the Claimant who is engaged in a business of providing equipment for infrastructure activities. The Claimant gave certain equipment on rent to the Respondent in lieu […]
CHOGORI INDIA RETAIL LTD Vs UOI-SLP Before Supreme Court on GST Transitional Credit issue : With a view to challenge the above order passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, revenue filled a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the same before the apex court.
The Court herein has settled that when the party has been given enough opportunity accorded to them and has failed to take advantage of the same during the arbitral proceedings, it cannot later go on to say that fair hearing was not given to the party.
Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited & Anr. Vs. Srigdhaa Beverages (Supreme Court) 1. M/s. SB Beverages, owner of a piece of land, failed to repay a loan to Syndicate Bank (creditor). 2. To this measure, on 25.05.2017 the Bank (secured creditor) brought the property to auction under the SARFAESI Act. 3. The land […]
Due to Covid 19, many parties were not able to fulfill their commitments and obligation to attend the court, tribunals, etc to file their suits and appeals within the prescribed time lines as per the law. The law in this case is the ‘ ‘The law of limitation’. The Law of Limitation in India comprises […]
In re Problems and Miseries of Migrant Labourers (Supreme Court) We take suo motu cognizance of problems and miseries of migrant labourers who had been stranded in different parts of the country. The newspaper reports and the media reports have been continuously showing the unfortuanate and miserable conditions of migrant labourers walking on-foot and cycles […]
Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule Vs Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari (Supreme Court) (1) (a) The co-operative banks registered under the State legislation and multi-State level co-operative societies registered under the MSCS Act, 2002 with respect to ‘banking’ are governed by the legislation relatable to Entry 45 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of […]
Multi-National Companies (‘MNCs’) are allowed to set up their presence in India subject to the Foreign Direct Investment policy and other relevant regulations. One such presence that MNCs typically try to build is in the form of a liaison office (‘LO’) in India. Such offices are set up by foreign enterprises to understand the Indian market and to carry out certain pre-defined limited activities. For setting up an LO, necessary approval is required.
An arbitral tribunal must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground. Construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide unless the arbitrator construes the contract in such a way that it could be said to be something that no fair minded or reasonable person could do.
