Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने Justdial लिमिटेड बनाम पीएन विग्नेश मा...
Corporate Law : SC slams High Court for 'playing it safe' on bail in Manish Sisodia's case, emphasizing that bail should be the norm, not the exce...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court quashes rape case, ruling consensual relationship. Calls for legal reforms to prevent misuse of penal laws against m...
Corporate Law : सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने राज्य बार काउंसिलों द्वारा अत्य...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore critical GST case laws from July 2024, including SCN issuance, personal hearing rights, appeal delays, and more. Essential...
Corporate Law : SC rules on Special Court jurisdiction; NCLAT redefines financial debt; HC upholds IBBI regulations and addresses various insolven...
Excise Duty : Supreme Court admits Ecoboard Industries Ltd.'s appeal on excise duty for intermediate products, questioning Tribunal's duty impo...
Excise Duty : Case Title: M/s. Marwadi Shares and Finance Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 27124/2023; Dat...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore Supreme Court's scrutiny of whether supplying cranes for services like loading, unloading, lifting, and shifting qualifies...
Goods and Services Tax : Explore the case of Pradeep Kanthed v. Union of India where the Supreme Court issues notice to the Finance Ministry regarding the ...
Income Tax : Supreme Court rules Vodafone Idea is not liable for TDS on payments to foreign telecom operators. The decision aligns with earlier...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court overrules India Cement case, ruling that MADA judgment should not be applied retrospectively to avoid disrupting pas...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court held that the Purchase Price as defined u/s. 2(18) of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 would not include purcha...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that Banks/ Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) are obliged to adopt restructuring process of MSME as conte...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that State Bar Councils (SBCs) cannot charge an enrolment fee or miscellaneous fees above the amount prescribed...
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...
Income Tax : Supreme Court's circular outlines guidelines for filing written submissions, documents, and oral arguments before Constitution Ben...
Corporate Law : The establishment M/s Radhika Theatre, situated at Warangal, Telangana was covered under ESI Act w.e.f. 16.01.1981 on the basis of...
The Supreme Court has ruled that mandatory death penalty for an offender under the Arms Act was unconstitutional as it violated fundamental rights guaranteed to a citizen.A bench of Justices Asok Kumar Ganguly (since retd) and J S Khehar said Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, which imposed mandatory death penalty, was also “ultra vires and void” as it restricts the powers of the court in awarding sentences to an accused in such cases.
B. Chandramathi Vs. N. Prakash (SC)- Appellant is about 51 years of age. She is a poor widow who is eking out a living for herself and her family by making jowar rotis and selling them. She is the only earning member of her family. She has two children to look after. It appears that the appellant is unwell. She is stated to have suffered from depression. As of today, the appellant has undergone the sentence for a period of about 2 months before she was released on bail.
The Supreme Court has cancelled 122 licenses for mobile networks issued during A Raja’s tenure as Telecom Minister and has asked the telecom regulator TRAI to make fresh recommendations on allotment of the licenses through auction within four months. In a second crucial verdict, the court refused to order an investigation into the role of Home Minister P Chidambaram in the telecom scam, asking a CBI trial court to decide on this instead within two weeks.
Whether a complaint can be filed by a citizen for prosecuting a public servant for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the 1988 Act’) and whether the authority competent to sanction prosecution of a public servant for offences under the 1988 Act is required to take an appropriate decision within the time specified in clause I(15) of the directions contained in paragraph 58 of the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and the guidelines issued by the Central Government, Department of Personnel and Training and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) are the question which require consideration in this appeal.
State of Gujarat & Ors Vs Essar Oil Ltd. & Anr (Supreme Court) – This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 22.04.2008 in Special Civil Application No.24233/2007, whereby the Respondent No. 1 herein, Essar Oil Limited (hereinafter ‘Essar’) was given the benefit of Sales Tax incentive under the Government of Gujarat ‘Capital Investment Incentive to Premier/Prestigious Unit Scheme, 1995-2000’ (hereinafter ‘the said Scheme’).
Yograj Infrastructure Ltd Vs. Ssang Yong Engineering & Construction Company Ltd. & ANR. (SC) – The Supreme Court last week dismissed the appeal of Yograj Infras Ltd against the ruling of the Madhya Pradesh high court in its dispute with Ssang Yong Engineering & Construction Co. The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) awarded a Rs 750 crore contract for a road project to Ssang. It also entered into an agreement with Yograj for supply of adequate manpower, material, machinery and all other resources, including finance. In case of disputes, arbitration was to be conducted in English in Singapore in accordance with the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) Rules. Disputes did arise, the contract was terminated and Yograj alleged fraud by Ssong. However, the high court quashed the criminal complaint. Yograj moved the Supreme Court seeking injunction against invoking bank guarantee, but its appeal was dismissed in view of the facts of the case.
Vodafone International Holdings B.V. (VIHB), a Dutch based Vodafone entity, acquired a controlling stake in Hutchison Essar Limited [(HEL), now known as Vodafone Essar Limited VEL)], an Indian company, from Cayman Islands based Hutchison Telecommunications International Limited (HTIL) by acquiring shares of CGP Investment (CGP), a Cayman Islands company [which belonged to (HTIL)] in February 2007. CGP held various Mauritian companies, which in turn held a majority stake in HEL.
In a 2.5 billion dollar sigh of relief for Vodafone, and for other companies eyeing assets in India, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of Vodafone. The court has said that the Indian tax department cannot tax the transaction that saw Vodafone acquire 67 per cent stake in Hutchison Essar, a mobile phone operator in India in 2007. The deal was for 55,000 crores or $11.5 billion.
Denel (Proprietary Limited) Vs. GOI, Ministry of Defence (SC) – Exercising its powers under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reiterated that right to appointment of an Arbitrator does not get automatically forfeited after expiry of 30 days as prescribed under Section 11(4) & 11(5) of the Act unless petition is filed for appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act prior to appointment by opposite party. The SC appointed an independent Sole Arbitrator due to apprehensions of bias and impartiality, contrary to the clauses of the contract necessitating appointment of DGOF or government servant, as the Sole Arbitrator.
RPFC Vs. The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors.(SC) – .The question which falls for consideration before this Court in this case is whether the employer of an establishment which is an ‘exempted establishment’ under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, ‘the Act’ ) is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an ‘exempted establishment’. The question was raised by the respondent before the High Court and both the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court have recorded a finding in favour of the respondent and held that the respondent being an ‘exempted establishment’ cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section 14(B) of the Act.
