Latest Post

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA) — Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – Repeal of SICA and Abatement of Proceedings – Companies whose proceedings were pending before BIFR/AAIFR could approach NCLT within 180 days of IBC enactment – Failure to do so results in abatement and revival of earlier orders, like winding up recommendation. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) — Demand and Acceptance of Bribe — Ingredients for establishing guilt of public servant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) include proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are sine qua non — While acceptance of bribe was admitted, the proof of demand was the crucial aspect in this case. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Banking — Cheque Presentation — Bank’s failure to re-present cheques within their validity period after they were returned due to a bank strike constitutes negligence and a deficiency in service, as banks have a duty of due diligence in handling customer deposits.Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Deficiency in Service — Banking — Cheque Presentation — Bank’s failure to re-present cheques within their validity period after they were returned due to a bank strike constitutes negligence and a deficiency in service, as banks have a duty of due diligence in handling customer deposits. Air Force Act, 1950 — Section 19 — Air Force Rules, 1969 — Rule 16 — Administrative action after discharge from criminal court — Initiation of administrative action for disciplinary purposes is not permissible if the matter has already been decided by a criminal court by way of discharge, as discharge signifies no sufficient grounds for proceeding, placing the individual on a better footing than acquittal and thus ending the matter. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) — Disproportionate Assets — Chargesheet splitting — Allegations of acquiring disproportionate assets and tribal lands misuse — Two separate chargesheets filed from the same FIR, R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(B) and R.C — Case No 04(A)/2010-AHD-R(C) — Overlapping allegations in both cases — Plea of double jeopardy raised — Supreme Court noted overlapping allegations and previous conviction with suspended sentence, inclined to grant bail in the present case as well.

Kerala Motor Transport Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1985 – Section 8A – – are only intended to ensure that the vehicle owner/permit-holder does not remain in arrears of either the welfare fund contribution or the vehicle tax both payable under the State enactments. These provisions are in no way in conflict with the law made by the Parliament

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ALL KERALA DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION, KOTTAYAM UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before :…

Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962 – Section 33(2) – HELD effect that initiation of proceedings for acquisition invoking the power under Section 33(2) of the KHB Act without the housing scheme being in existence or the housing scheme not having been sanctioned under Section 24(2) thereof, would not render such proceedings null and void- unless sanction is obtained from the State Government for execution of any scheme therein, in terms of Section 24(2) of KHB Act, the actual act to complete the process, viz., execution shall not be effected thereon.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari and…

Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973 – Sections 17 and 20 – Land Acquisition – Compensation to land owners – Constitutional validity of Section 20 – While considering the validity of Section 20 of the 1973 Act, it may be necessary to consider the question as to whether the expression “material resources of the community” would include private property. Matter remanded to HC.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. B.R. MURALIDHAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.…

Maxim lex fori, the Section provides that rules of limitation provided in a foreign jurisdiction are not applicable – However, the exception to this Rule is provided in Section 11 (2)(a), when the Contract i.e., the right itself expires – Similarly, Section 27 also recognizes the principle of extinguishment of Right to Property being an exception to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S BHAGWANDAS B. RAMCHANDANI — Appellant Vs. BRITISH AIRWAYS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed