R. Subhash Reddy Archives

Supreme Court Orders Disbursement of ₹5000 Crores from Sahara-SEBI Refund Account to Sahara Cooperative Depositors (29 March 2023)

March 29, 2023 / C.T. Ravikumar, Cooperative Law, Court-Monitored Disbursement, Depositor Rights, Disbursement of Funds, Judges, M.R. Shah, Public Interest Litigation, R. Subhash Reddy, Sahara Group Cooperative Societies, Sahara-SEBI Refund Account

Supreme Court Orders Disbursement of ₹5000 Crores from Sahara-SEBI Refund Account to Sahara Cooperative Depositors LEGAL ISSUE: Disbursement of funds from the Sahara-SEBI Refund Account to legitimate depositors of Sahara Group Cooperative Societies. CASE TYPE: Cooperative Law, Public Interest Litigation. Case Name: Pinak Pani Mohanty vs. Union of India and Ors. [Judgment Date]: 29 March […]

Supreme Court Orders Disbursement of ₹5000 Crores from Sahara-SEBI Refund Account to Sahara Cooperative Depositors (29 March 2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Orders Release of ₹5000 Crores for Sahara Depositors: Pinak Pani Mohanty vs. Union of India (29 March 2023)

March 29, 2023 / C.T. Ravikumar, Cooperative Societies Law, Depositor Rights, Disbursement of Funds, Inherent Powers, Judges, M.R. Shah, R. Subhash Reddy, Sahara Group, Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Orders Release of ₹5000 Crores for Sahara Depositors (2023) Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2023 Citation: 2023 INSC 3202 Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J. Can thousands of small depositors get back their hard-earned money stuck in a long-standing financial dispute? The Supreme Court of India addressed this pressing issue

Supreme Court Orders Release of ₹5000 Crores for Sahara Depositors: Pinak Pani Mohanty vs. Union of India (29 March 2023) Read Post »

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

January 3, 2022 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Patent Illegality in Arbitral Award, R. Subhash Reddy, Remission of Arbitral Award

Supreme Court clarifies scope of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act in I-Pay Clearing Services vs. ICICI Bank (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of court’s power to remit an arbitral award to the tribunal under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited vs.

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

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Arbitration Award Remission: I-Pay vs. ICICI Bank (2022)

January 3, 2022 / Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with Section 34, Arbitration Law, Curable Defects, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, Patent Illegality, R. Subhash Reddy, Remission of Arbitral Award

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Arbitration Award Remission: I-Pay vs. ICICI Bank (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can remit an arbitral award to the tribunal under Section 34(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, when there is a lack of a finding on a key issue, or only when there are

Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision on Arbitration Award Remission: I-Pay vs. ICICI Bank (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds SIDBI’s Actions in Bond Payment Dispute: Small Industries Development Bank of India vs. M/S. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2022)

January 3, 2022 / 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 SIDBI’s Actions in Bond Payment Dispute: Small Industries Development Bank of India vs. M/S. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) was justified in withholding payments on bonds due to regulatory directives and concerns over fraudulent transactions. CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Case Name:

Supreme Court Upholds SIDBI’s Actions in Bond Payment Dispute: Small Industries Development Bank of India vs. M/S. Sibco Investment Pvt. Ltd. (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)

January 3, 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 »

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

January 3, 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 »

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

January 3, 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 »

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

January 3, 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 »

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

January 3, 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 Deductibility of State Levies Under Section 40(a)(iib) of Income Tax Act: Kerala State Beverages vs. ACIT (2022)

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 »

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

January 3, 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 »