Author name: G.R. Hari

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Authority in Bond Dispute: SIDBI vs. Sibco Investment (2022)

/ Banking Regulation Act, 1949, Banking Regulation Act, 1949 with Section 35-A, Companies Act, 1956, Companies Act, 1956 with Section 441(2), Companies Act, 1956 with Section 531, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Subhash Reddy, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45-JA, Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 with Section 45-MB

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Authority in Bond Dispute: SIDBI vs. Sibco Investment (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) directives regarding the transfer of bonds are binding on financial institutions. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Banking Law. Case Name: Small Industries Development Bank of India vs. M/s. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd. Judgment […]

Supreme Court Upholds RBI’s Authority in Bond Dispute: SIDBI vs. Sibco Investment (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: I-Pay Clearing Services vs. ICICI Bank (2022)

/ Arbitral Award, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Subhash Reddy, Recourse Against Arbitral Award

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act in I-Pay Clearing Services vs. ICICI Bank (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 3, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 1 Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a court send an arbitration award back to the arbitrator for clarification if the award

Supreme Court clarifies the scope of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: I-Pay Clearing Services vs. ICICI Bank (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Assessment Orders: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Pitchi Reddy (2022)

/ Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, Appellate Procedure, Assessment Orders, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges, M. R. Shah

Supreme Court Upholds Assessment Orders: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Pitchi Reddy (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition against a fresh assessment order when an alternative remedy of appeal is available and when suo moto revisional proceedings are pending. CASE TYPE: Tax Law, specifically related to assessment orders

Supreme Court Upholds Assessment Orders: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Pitchi Reddy (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Deductibility of State Levies Under Section 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 289, Hrishikesh Roy, Income-tax Act, 1961, Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 143(3), Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 40, Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 40(a)(iib), Judges, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies Deductibility of State Levies Under Section 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 03, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a state-owned corporation deduct payments made to the state government, such as license fees and

Supreme Court Clarifies Deductibility of State Levies Under Section 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022) Read Post »

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for employees refusing promotions in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022)

/ Approbate and Reprobate, Assured Career Progression Scheme, Doctrine, Financial Upgradation, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Office Memorandum, Office Memorandum with 18.7.2001, Office Memorandum with 9.8.1999, Promotion, R. Subhash Reddy, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies Assured Career Progression Scheme: Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees who refuse promotions are eligible for financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Manju Arora & Anr. Judgment Date: 3 January 2022 Introduction

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for employees refusing promotions in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Section 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022)

/ Amounts Not Deductible, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 289, Hrishikesh Roy, Income-tax Act, 1961, Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 40, Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 40(a)(iib), Judges, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court clarifies Section 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022) Date of the Judgment: January 03, 2022 Citation: 2022 INSC 4 Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J. Can a state government undertaking claim deductions for fees paid to the state? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this

Supreme Court clarifies Section 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Deductibility of Fees and Taxes for State-Owned Liquor Corporation: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022)

/ Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 289, Hrishikesh Roy, Income-tax Act, 1961, Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 143(3), Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 40, Income-tax Act, 1961 with Section 40(a)(iib), Judges, R. Subhash Reddy

Supreme Court Clarifies Deductibility of Fees and Taxes for State-Owned Liquor Corporation: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether certain fees and taxes paid by a state-owned corporation are deductible expenses under Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. CASE TYPE: Income Tax Law Case Name: Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing & Marketing Corporation

Supreme Court Clarifies Deductibility of Fees and Taxes for State-Owned Liquor Corporation: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022) Read Post »

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation in service matters (2022)

/ Assured Career Progression Scheme, Financial Upgradation, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Promotion, R. Subhash Reddy, Service Law

Supreme Court clarifies Assured Career Progression Scheme for Central Government Employees LEGAL ISSUE: Whether employees who refuse promotions are eligible for financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Manju Arora & Anr. Judgment Date: 3 January 2022 Introduction Date of the Judgment:

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation in service matters (2022) Read Post »

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation upon refusal of promotion in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022)

/ Assured Career Progression Scheme, Financial Upgradation, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, O.M. dated 18.7.2001, O.M. dated 9.8.1999, Office Memorandum, Promotion, R. Subhash Reddy, Service Law

Supreme Court Clarifies Assured Career Progression Scheme: Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an employee who refuses a promotion is entitled to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India & Ors. vs. Manju Arora & Anr. Judgment Date: 03 January 2022

Assured Career Progression Scheme: Supreme Court clarifies eligibility for financial upgradation upon refusal of promotion in Union of India vs. Manju Arora (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in 498A IPC Case After Parties Reconcile: Rajendra Bhagat vs. State of Jharkhand (2022)

/ Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with Section 482, Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Offences Against Marriage, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in 498A IPC Case After Parties Reconcile: Rajendra Bhagat vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 can be quashed when the parties have reconciled and are living together peacefully. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Rajendra Bhagat vs. State of

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in 498A IPC Case After Parties Reconcile: Rajendra Bhagat vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction under Section 498A IPC in Matrimonial Dispute After Settlement: Rajendra Bhagat vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) INSC 1

/ Dinesh Maheshwari, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 323, Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 498A, Judges, Offences Against Marriage, Vikram Nath

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction in 498A IPC Case After Marital Settlement Date of the Judgment: 3 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath Can a conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 be quashed after a couple resolves their marital disputes

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction under Section 498A IPC in Matrimonial Dispute After Settlement: Rajendra Bhagat vs. State of Jharkhand (2022) INSC 1 Read Post »

Supreme Court overturns reinstatement order in MSRTC driver dismissal case: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay (2022) INSC 5 (03 January 2022)

/ B. V. Nagarathna, Criminal Law, Criminal Law with Section 279, Disciplinary Proceedings, Dismissal from Service, Industrial Disputes, Judges, Labour Law, M. R. Shah, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 with Section 1(g), Schedule IV, Reinstatement, Service Law, Unfair Labour Practices

Supreme Court overturns reinstatement order in MSRTC driver dismissal case Date of the Judgment: 03 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 5 Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and B. V. Nagarathna, J. Can an Industrial Court interfere with a disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss an employee, especially when the employee’s misconduct led to a fatal accident?

Supreme Court overturns reinstatement order in MSRTC driver dismissal case: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Dilip Uttam Jayabhay (2022) INSC 5 (03 January 2022) Read Post »

Scroll to Top