Corporate Law : Supreme Court restores citizenship of Muslim man after 12 years, ruling it a 'grave miscarriage of justice' due to lack of evidenc...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court mandates that bail orders must furnish reasons, presuming non-application of mind otherwise, emphasizing judicia...
Corporate Law : Learn about the Supreme Courts landmark judgment allowing Muslim women divorced via triple talaq to claim maintenance under Sectio...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court rules that bail conditions cant mandate police to track accused's movements, upholding the right to privacy under Ar...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court has issued guidelines to ensure respectful and accurate portrayal of persons with disabilities in visual media, prom...
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 ...
Goods and Services Tax : > The dismissal of Department’s SLP against order of Hon’ble Calcutta Hight Court by the Hon’ble Supreme Cour...
Corporate Law : Explore the Collegium's recommendations for filling vacancies in the Supreme Court of India. Learn about the selection criteria an...
Goods and Services Tax : Supreme Court verdict on Maruti Wire INDS. Pvt. Ltd. vs S.T.O. examines penal interest under Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. L...
Custom Duty : Supreme Court's judgment in Pratibha Processors vs Union of India clarifies the interpretation of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act...
Income Tax : Understand the Supreme Court ruling on whether interest paid under the U.P. Sugarcane Cess Act, 1956 qualifies as a deduction unde...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging the 2018 judgment on the Aadhaar Act being classified as a 'Mone...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court's verdict on whether a company's purchase of a car for a director's personal use falls under 'commercial purpose' as...
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 only requirement of law, for such process of decision making by the tender inviting authority, is that it should not be suffering from illegality, irrationality, mala fide, perversity, or procedural impropriety. No such case being made out, the decision of the tender inviting authority (NVS) in the present case was not required to be interfered with on the reasoning that according to the writ Court, the product ‘Smart Phone’ ought to be taken as being of similar category as the product ‘Tablet’.
Supreme Court held that an arbitrator allowing an application to modify an original award in exercise of powers under section 33 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was not sustainable if there was no arithmetical and/or clerical error in the award.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs R.D. Sharma (Supreme Court of India) It may be noted that Supreme court has consistently held that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation […]
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Private Ltd. Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India) Learned ASG has pointed out that insofar as our direction (v) of our order dated 16.11 2021 we had dealt with the aspect of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) in Motor Accident Claims at two different rates from 10% to […]
Competition Commission of India Vs State of Mizoram (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court has ruled that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) cannot be prevented from investigating anti-competition Element in the tendering process of lotteries on grounds of lottery business outside the ambit of commercial intercourse. We must take note of the expansive […]
Jayahari Vs State of Kerala (Supreme Court of India) he facts thus show that a transaction was entered into between the complainant and the appellants, in terms of which the property belonging to the appellants was sought to be purchased by the complainant; and in order to enable him to effectuate such purchase, certain loan […]
Bank of Baroda & Anr. Vs MBL Infrastructures Limited & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) Facts- Corporate insolvency resolution process was initiated against respondent No. 1. Two resolution plans were received by the resolution professional (respondent no. 2). Committee of creditors decided seeking an appropriate resolution plan at the hands of respondent no. 3. Section […]
The person claiming the exemption has to fulfil and satisfy all the eligibility criteria/conditions mentioned in the exemption notification. The respondent (ESL) was not eligible at all for exemption from payment of purchase tax as in fact power generating companies (EPL) were put in the list of ‘ineligible industries’. Therefore, by such a modus operandi, the benefit, which was not available to the EPL was made available by such transfer of raw materials by the ESL to EPL.
The Arbitrator is the final arbiter of the disputes between the parties and it is not open to a party to challenge the Award on the ground that he has drawn his own conclusions or has failed to appreciate certain facts.
Ajaya Kumar Das Vs Divisional Manager (Supreme Court of India) Section 4A of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 stipulates that the Commissioner shall direct the employer to pay interest of 12% or at a higher rate, not exceeding the lending rates of any scheduled banks specified, if the employer does not pay the compensation within […]
