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...
Ketan V. Parekh Vs. Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another (Supreme Court)- Ketan Parikh, Kartik Parikh and M/s. Panther Fincap and Management Services Ltd, were imposed a penalty of Rs. 80 Crores, 12 Crores and 40 Crores respectively by the Special Director of Enforcement, Mumbai for FEMA violations. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 50 percent of penalty. The appellants pursued the matter in Delhi and Bombay High Courts. The matter reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that there cannot be Forum Shopping and that the appellants deliberately concealed the facts relating to financial condition and directed the appellants to deposit the amounts as ordered by the Tribunal.
Haryana Urban Development Authority Vs. Viresh Sangwan & ANR(SC)- The housing development authority cannot be held responsible for the encroachments made after possession of the plot had been delivered to the allottees.. Neither the original allottee nor those who bought the property later, could accuse the development authority of deficiency in service in the matter of allotment of plot on the ground that some villagers had made encroachment on it. The appeal of the authority was against the National Consumer Commission order which confirmed the rulings of the state and district forums that there was deficiency in service of the authority as the plot had been encroached upon. The Supreme Court asserted that encroachments after the allotment and due to the negligence of the allottees cannot be subjected to consumer complaints.
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Man Singh (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court has stated that though the employer might have violated the retrenchment rules under the Industrial Disputes Act, daily wage employees who have worked for a long time in an establishment are not entitled to regularisation. They can only claim monetary compensation. In this case, the workers were on daily wages since 1984 and their services were terminated in 1991 due to non-availability of work.
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sinitha & Ors. (Supreme Court) – The Supreme Court last week dismissed National Insurance Company’s appeal against the award of compensation for the death of a youth, stating that the insurer has not proved that he was negligent while driving his motorcycle. It also did not bring evidence on the role of the youth – whether he was owner, agent, employee or representative, which was crucial to the case. The motor accident claims tribunal had awarded Rs 4.26 lakh to the widow, children and parents as against their claim of Rs 8 lakh. The company moved the Kerala high court and the Supreme Court and failed in each instance.
Union of India Vs. Col. L.S.N. Murthy & ANR. (SC) – An agreement to refer disputes to arbitration will not be void because a government instruction which makes the deal unprofitable. A contract in such cases will be valid unless it is unlawful. In this case, the government invited tenders for supply of fruits for the army. The successful bidder began the supply but stopped when the prices rose and the deal became unprofitable.
Sunil K.R. Ghosh & Ors. Vs. K. Ram Chandran & Ors. (Supreme Court)- Employees cannot be compelled to work under a new management and are entitled to retirement or retrenchment benefits, the Supreme Court has held. The apex court rejected the argument of Philip’s India Ltdthat since the employees had neither retired nor retrenched, hence they were not entitled to the benefits.
The disputes having arisen between the parties, the respondent, instead of challenging the existence of a valid arbitration clause, took the stand that the arbitration would not be cost effective and will be pre-mature. In view of the facts, this Court held that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and the petitioner was entitled to a reference under Section 11 of the Act and observed: No party can be allowed to take advantage of inartistic drafting of arbitration clause in any agreement as long as clear intention of parties to go for arbitration in case of any future disputes is evident from the agreement and the material on record, including surrounding circumstances.
Citi corp. Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi (Supreme Court)- Even in case of mortgaged goods subject to Hire-Purchase Agreements, the recovery process has to be in accordance with law and the recovery process referred to in the Agreements also contemplates such recovery to be effected in due process of law and not by use […]
M/s. Essel Propack Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-III – (Supreme Court) – The Commissioner has not recorded any clear finding as to whether for the tubes that were cleared by the appellant during the relevant periods in respect of which show cause notices were issued, the caps were supplied free of cost by the customers of the appellant and such caps were fitted to the tubes manufactured in the factory of the appellant. As we have already held, in respect of the tubes for which caps have been supplied by the customers free of cost, the assessable value of the tubes will not include the value of the caps.The Commissioner, therefore, will have to record a clear finding as to whether for the tubes cleared during the three relevant periods, the caps were supplied by the customers of the appellant free of cost and accordingly pass a fresh order. In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above; the impugned order of the Tribunal as well as the original order passed by the Commissioner are set aside.
Interpreting the Act, SC ruled: It is thus clear from the scheme of the BOCW Act that its sole aim is the welfare of building and construction workers, directly relatable to their constitutionally recognised right to live with basic human dignity, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The bench further held that levy of cess on the cost of construction incurred by the employers on the building and other construction works was for ensuring sufficient funds for the welfare boards to undertake social security schemes and welfare measures for the workers.
