2023 SCC Vol. 7 Part 5
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
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*
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 72
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.
JSS Law College, Autonomous, Mysuru and Surana & Surana, International Attorneys cordially invite you to compete in the 20th Surana & Surana
Madras High Court reiterated that wearing “gown” is only optional and not mandatory before any Courts other than the Supreme Court or the High Courts. Thus, it held that the order of the National Company Law Board imposing a dress code for Advocates for appearance before the Tribunal is without authority and hence, illegal.
by Tushar Behl† and Shreshtha Garge††
Devna Arora* and Didon Misri**
Calcutta High Court | Krishna Rao, J., held that under Companies Act, 2013, Civil Courts have jurisdiction to enquire into
In a matter relating to criminal proceedings against Reliance Industries, SEBI had failed to comply with the Supreme Court’s order directing it to furnish a copy of documents, leading to initiation of contempt proceedings against SEBI.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 14(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) r/w Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) — Application seeking termination of