February 2, 2026 8:14 pm

Supreme Court directs DHFL fixed depositors to approach CoC, Administrator for release of deposits

Bysclaw

Feb 8, 2020

This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.

By sclaw

Related Post

Advocates Act Corporate

Advocates Act, 1961 — Section 38 — Appeal against Bar Council of India judgment — Professional misconduct — Failure to act with reasonable diligence and absence from Court hearing leading to dismissal of quashing petition — High Court ordered quashing of FIR subject to deposit of costs — Costs not deposited in time, FIR quashing order recalled and petition dismissed — Application to recall dismissal order allowed, quashing restored subject to enhanced costs — Compromise reached between advocate and complainant, misunderstanding about costs resolved — High Court waived enhanced costs — FIR quashed — Complainant filed affidavit withdrawing complaint due to misunderstanding about costs and expressing satisfaction with advocate’s services — Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India held advocate guilty of professional misconduct despite withdrawal affidavit — Supreme Court held that disciplinary committee ignored vital aspect of withdrawal affidavit and satisfaction of complainant — Substratum of complaint ceased to exist once dispute was resolved and withdrawn — Finding of professional misconduct unsustainable.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Constitution Corporate

Expression ‘date of this Notification’ means date of publication in Official Gazette – Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 — Section 3 — Notification — Publication in Official Gazette — Essential requirement for enforceability — Delegated legislation requires publication for accessibility, notice, accountability and solemnity — Not an empty formality but transforms executive decision into law — Strict compliance with publication requirement is a condition precedent — Law must be promulgated or published in a recognisable way. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19)

Jan 22, 2026 sclaw

Finance Act, 1994 — Section 65(105)(zu) — Event Management Service — Service Tax cannot be imposed if the activity does not fall strictly within the definition of “event management” as provided in the statute. Strict interpretation of taxing statutes is crucial.

Jan 17, 2026 sclaw

Categories

Archives

You missed

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw