Whilst the court is not unduly bound by the texts or Order XXXVIII Rule 1 and 2 or Order XXXVIII Rule (5) or any other provisions of CPC, the substantial principles for grant of such interim measures cannot be disregarded.
About the GNLU Centre for Business & Public Policy GNLU Centre for Business & Public Policy [“GCBPP”] is one of the centres
On 27-10-2023, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified the Companies (Management and Administration) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 to amend the Companies (Management
On 27-10-2023, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs notified the Companies (Prospectus and Allotment of Securities) Second Amendment Rules, 2023 to amend the
by Govinda Asawa† and Pranay Agarwal††
Advocates — Senior Advocates — Designation of: Guidelines issued by Supreme Court in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766 for greater objectivity
At this juncture, examining whether the petition filed before the NCLT can be said to be a ‘dressed-up’ petition, would necessarily require a detailed exercise to be carried out by this Court to render findings either way clearly impinging upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT in deciding such a question.
Advocates Act, 1961 — Ss. 7(1)(g), (h), (l), (m), 24, 49(1)(ah): Bar Council of India, held, has jurisdiction and power to introduce
by Siddharth R. Gupta*
by Gunjan Modi†
by Sriram Venkatavaradan and Saai Sudharsan Sathiyamoorthy†
by Siddharth R. Gupta†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 53
The Supreme Court said that it cannot adopt a doctrinaire approach. Some sacrifices have to be always made for the greater good, and unless such sacrifices are prima facie apparent and ex facie harsh and unequitable as to classify as manifestly arbitrary, these would not be interfered with by the court. Thus, no priority can be given to workers’ dues after liquidation of the company under the IBC.
by Jahnavi Srivastava* and Samarth Agarwal**
Delhi High Court observed that while grave allegations have been made qua the applicant with regard to connivance/conspiring with the promoters and other co-accused, no allegation with regard to his receiving benefits has been made.
by Prerana Priyanshu† and Jishan Dediwal††
by Vikas Mehta†
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 — R. 54(14)(b) — Family pension: Although Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act entitles widow of a government servant
In Lulu v. Coolulu trademark dispute, the Karnataka High Court chided the competent authority for not considering the nuances of the dispute properly, which meant that the impugned order did not show even a semblence of application of mind.
Delhi High Court observed that in absence of any cogent, supervening circumstances necessitating cancellation of bail of the respondent/accused, the Court cannot merely cancel the bail so granted.