Transparency in expenses – Intent behind specifying total expense ratio and the performance disclosure for mutual funds is to bring greater transparency in expenses and to not confer any right on the mutual fund distributors to claim expenses under clause (b) to Regulation 41(2), which pertains to the procedure and manner of winding up.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH FRANKLIN TEMPLETON TRUSTEE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. AMRUTA GARG AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer…
There is a clear distinction in law between junior resident doctors and regularly recruited ESIC doctors – The in-service quota is, therefore, justifiably made available to the latter category – Petitioners cannot claim parity with regularly recruited insurance medical officers in seeking the benefit of the in-service quota.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH HEMANT KUMAR VERMA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and…
Respondent-claimant earlier initiated the arbitration proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act in the Court at Vishakhapatnam – Only the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati would have jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 11(6) of the Act – Appeal allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GENERAL MANAGER EAST COAST RAILWAY RAIL SADAN AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah…
Appeal against grant of anticipatory bail HELD It is a peremptory direction affecting a third party. The adverse impact of the direction goes to the very livelihood of the appellant. It has also civil consequences for the appellant. Such a peremptory direction and that too, without even issuing any notice to the appellant was clearly unjustified
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH KANCHAN KUMARI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Criminal…
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 11(6) – Appointment of sole arbitrator – No arbitration agreement between the parties – Invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11(6) of the 1996 Act was not valid.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S IVRCL AMR JOINT VENTURE — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and A…
Consumer complaint – Loss or damage of JCB Excavator – Compensation – HELD due to the collapsing of the road, which resulted in the vehicle falling into a deep ditch in a hilly terrain of the State of Uttarakhand – Direction issued to Insurer to pay a sum of Rs 13.50 lakh to the appellant, together with interest.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SHARDA ASSOCIATES — Appellant Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A S Bopanna, JJ.…
Service Law – Rejection of candidature – RPF Constable – Candidate has used different language for filling up of the application form and the OMR answer book, therefore, his candidature was rightly rejected.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MAHENDRA SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…
GST – HELD mega notification only exempts service provided by way of conduct of any religious ceremony – Service haj group organiser to the Haj pilgrims does not form that no part of the package offered by haj group organiser involves a service by way of conduct of any religious ceremony –
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL INDIA HAJ UMRAH TOUR ORGANIZER ASSOCIATION MUMBAI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay…
Where a higher charge is not framed for which there is evidence, the accused is entitled to assume that he is called upon to defend himself only with regard to the lesser offence for which he has been charged
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GHULAM HASSAN BEIGH — Appellant Vs. MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL MAGREY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Abhay S. Oka and J.B. Pardiwala,…
Prevention of Money – Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17 and 19 – Constitutional validity of Sections 5, 8(4), 15, 17 and 19 of the Prevention of Money – Laundering Act, 2002 is upheld – Directorate of Enforcement (ED) has powers to arrest, attachment, search and seizure – At the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and C.T.…