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...
Videocon Industries Limited Vs- Union of India and Anr – Supreme Court of India rejects petition under Section 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 holding that application of Part I of the Act has been excluded. The judgment is indeed another good sign in the line of progressive and positive decisions in cases of international commercial arbitration. It comes soon after the Dozco Case and holds that when the substantive law of the arbitration agreement is a foreign law as selected by the parties, it necessarily implies that the parties had agreed to exclude the provisions of Part I of the Act. This judgment too, like the Dosco Case comes as another positive decision portraying the changing outlook of Indian judiciary towards international arbitrations.
Mr. Bharat Gandhi, Advocate, Mumbai has informed us that in respect of the parties whose cases are pending in DRTs, if one approaches the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court is issuing ex-parte stay orders restraining further action under the SARFEASI Act. The matters are tagged with the case of Khaja Industries in respect of which the vires of notification has been challenged, issued by the Central Govt in 2003, by which the co-operatives banks are invoking provision of SARFEASI Act. Mr. Bharat Gandhi has obtained such stays in few cases recently.
Mohammad Ahmad & Anr. Versus Atma Ram Chauhan & Ors. One half of the lis between landlord and tenant would not reach courts, if tenant agrees to pay the present prevalent market rate of rent of the tenanted premises to the landlord. In that case landlord would also be satisfied that he is getting adequate, just and proper return on the property. But the trend in the litigation between landlord and tenant shows otherwise. Tenant is happy in paying the meagre amount of rent fixed years ago and landlord continues to find out various grounds under the Rent Acts, to evict him some how or the other. This case appears to be another classic example of the aforesaid scenario.
The Supreme Court last week ruled that the criminal trial of directors of a company accused of forging documents to get loan from a bank could not be quashed merely because the loan has been repaid with interest. In this case, Sushil Suri vs CBI, some directors of a pharmaceutical firm, Morpen Laboratories Ltd of Delhi, were charge-sheeted for fabricating false invoices to obtain a hire purchase loan from Punjab & Sind Bank. On information, CBI investigated and charged the directors with fraud, forgery, conspiracy and other criminal offences. Some directors moved the Delhi high court seeking to quash the charge sheet. They argued that they had repaid the loan with interest and therefore the bank or anyone else has not suffered any loss. The high court dismissed their petition. The Supreme Court stated that the high court was justified in doing so as a prima facie case for trial has been made out despite the repayment of the loan.
The Supreme Court last week set aside a Delhi high court judgment holding that the high court had no power to entertain an international arbitration petition in the appeal case, Videocon Industries Ltd vs Union of India. A production sharing contract was entered into between the government and a consortium of four companies consisting of […]
In a landmark judgment, Supreme Court restores Rs. 5,05,053 compensation for permanent injury in motor accident, emphasizing pain and suffering.
SKS Microfinance today challenged in the Supreme Court the special act passed by the Andhra Pradesh government to regulate micro finance institutions in the state after allegations that their high interest rates and strong-arm recovery methods led to suicides by farmers. A bench of justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Mishra issued notice to the state government, directing it to file reply and posted the matter for hearing in the third week of July.
The Supreme Court today banned the production, sale and use of controversial pesticide Endosulfan in the country for the next eight weeks, holding that human life is more important than anything else. Keeping in mind various judgements of this court under Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution and particularly keeping in mind the precautionary principle we, hereby, direct and pass ad-interim order for immediate ban on production and use of Endosulfan all over India, a bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia said.
The company had challenged the government policy of not allowing existing operators to bid for the immediate next terminals. According to the policy, The court asserted that the government has the right to make a policy to prevent companies from bidding for the immediate next terminals so that no monopoly of cargo firm is created. The court upheld the policy. APM Terminals B.V. Vs. Union of India & ANR. (Supreme Court -11.05.2011)
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. – The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Allahabad high court, stating that the high court had inserted words in a Uttar Pradesh notification which it had no power to do. The court should only interpret provisions of tax laws; it should not take over the role of the supervisor or legislator, the court stated in the judgment, State of UP vs Mahindra & Mahindra. The case arose when the tractor manufacturer moved the high court seeking exemption in the sale/excise duty for tractor engines specifying cubic capacity not exceeding 1800 cc. The high court allowed the writ petition. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. It remitted the matter to the excise tribunal for reconsideration, asking it not to alter the scope of the state notification.
