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...
Explore the impact analysis of the recent Supreme Court verdict in Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT-1 on the treatment of delayed Employee PF Contribution payment under the Income Tax Act. Understand the background, adjustments in summary proceedings, Finance Act 2021 amendments, and the way forward for ongoing litigation.
Supreme Court held that the appellant-JSPL is duly complying with the prescription in Explanation to Rule 3 of Distribution License Rules and hence cancellation of licence is unjustified.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed that a preliminary enquiry shall be conducted by the High Court on the issue whether the dispute is arbitrable or not while deciding an application made under Section 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrators.
In present facts of the case, it was observed by the Honble Supreme Court of India that an NGO could not have filed writ petition before Honble High Court as it do not have any locus standi in present facts of the case as it was not an aggrieved party. Also, it was observed that the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
In present facts of the case, while allowing the appeal it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud and the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity.
Non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud. Therefore, the judgment or decree obtained by fraud was to be treated as a nullity as the respondent had not only suppressed a material fact but had also tried to mislead the High Court.
In the present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Writ under Article 32 would be maintainable as after the Apex Court, no litigant has any opportunity of approaching any higher forum to question its decision. The only remedy available to the petitioners would be to approach this Court by way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for protection of the fundamental rights (Right to Privacy in this case) of citizens of India.
In present matter, the Honble Supreme Court observed that once the order of termination was approved by the Industrial Tribunal on appreciation of evidence led before it, thereafter the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal were binding between the parties and no contrary view could have been taken by the Labour Court contrary to the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal.
The Orders of the Registrar of Companies cannot be altered after 16 years of the declaration of the Company as defunct especially when the Complainant has no locus standi as he is neither a Company, nor a member and nor a creditor, hence he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved to question the Order of RoC is striking off the Companys name under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956.
In present case, the Honble Supreme Court invoked the provision of Article 142 of the Constitution of India and reduced the rate of Interest awarded by the arbitral tribunal by considering the fact that the long duration has been passed since filing of the claim.
