Category: Corporate

Advocates Act, 1961 – Sections 16 and 23(5) – – Classification of advocates and the mechanism to grant seniority to advocates is not based on any arbitrary, artificial or evasive grounds – Such a classification is a creation of the legislature, and there is a general presumption of constitutionality, and the burden is on the petitioners to show that there is a clear transgression of the constitutional principles – something which they have miserably failed to discharge

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MATHEWS J. NEDUMPARA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.T. Ravikumar and…

Infringement of copyright – Acquiescence is a defence available in action for the infringement of copyright – – Even assuming that the allegation of deceptive similarity in the labels used by the respondent was established by the appellant, one of the three elements which the appellant was required to prove, has not been proved

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BRIHAN KARAN SUGAR SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. YASHWANTRAO MOHITE KRUSHNA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and…

Contract Act, 1872 – Section 73 – Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract – It is undeniable that the measure of damages, per Section 73 of the Contract Act, is the difference between the price at which goods sell at the marketplace on the date of breach, and the contract price

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH H. J. BAKER AND BROS. INC. — Appellant Vs. THE MINERALS AND METALS TRADE CORPORATION LTD. (MMTC) — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra…

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 – Section 15 – Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 – Rules 4(10) and 7(3) – When a decision is taken by a competent authority in public interest by evolving a better process such as auction, a right, if any, to an applicant seeking lease over a Government land evaporates on its own – An applicant cannot have an exclusive right in seeking a grant of license of a mineral unless facilitated accordingly by a statute

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SHARWAN KUMAR KUMAWAT ETC. ETC — Respondent ( Before : A.S Bopanna and M.M Sundresh,…

Paid-up capital – Appellants cannot be described as having acted in a defective or in an unfair manner, in the matter of allotment of further shares particularly when the contention of the respondents about the bona fides of the decision to increase the authorised capital has been found in favour of the appellants

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR. — Appellant Vs. AMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and B.V.…

HELD purported to project a case of mismanagement and oppression by the appellants in the Petitions styled under Sections 397 and 398 of the Companies Act, By Order dated  the NCLT, Ahmedabad Bench disposed of the petitions with the following directions –In this set of facts, it is not just and equitable to order winding up of the company

HASMUKHLAL MADHAVLAL PATEL AND ANR. vs. AMBIKA FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. AND ORS. WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8195 OF 2018 J. [K.M. JOSEPH] …………………………………………J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA] Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.