Appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act – Limitation – Reason for providing a time limit of 45 days for filing an application under Section 17 can easily be inferred from the purpose and object of the enactment – SARFAESI Act is enacted for quick enforcement of the security.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH BANK OF BARODA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S PARASAADILAL TURSIRAM SHEETGRAH PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
Once the orders of retrenchment are set aside, the workmen will naturally be entitled to continuity of service with order of back wages as determined by a Tribunal or a Court of law.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH ARMED FORCES EX OFFICERS MULTI SERVICES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. — Appellant Vs. RASHTRIYA MAZDOOR SANGH (INTUC) — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…
Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial? Larger bennch.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH J. VEDHASINGH — Appellant Vs. R.M. GOVINDAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…
HELD High Court has quashed the final report without adverting to either the facts or law by a cryptic order, it would be appropriate for us to set aside the order and restore the petition to the file to the High Cour
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M.P. RAMANI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal…
HELD ends of justice would be met if we direct the appellant/buider herein to refund the amount of Rs. 3,24,780/- (Rupees Three Lakh Twenty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty only) with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to the original complainant and put an end to the entire litigation.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S SIDDHYVINAYAK INFRASTRUCTURE — Appellant Vs. KAMALAKAR JAYANT SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. )…
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…