“The principle aims of IBC are to promote investment, and resolution of insolvencies of corporate persons, firms, and individuals in a time bound manner. The IBC consolidated and amended a web of laws which had led to an ineffective and inefficient mechanism for resolution of insolvencies marked with significant delay”
“Fiscal legislation having uniform application to all registered persons, cannot be said to be violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and the question of such statutory provision being violative of Article 302 of the Constitution and in teeth of Article 13 of the Constitution of India does not arise at all.”
The petitioner has contended that S. 22 of RERA Act violates the Basic Structure of the Constitution and envisages Executive predominance.
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.
While Xiaomi’s petition was held to be maintainable on the fulcrum of Article 14, however, the impugned provision as per the High Court did not manifest any arbitrariness.
Supreme Court said that the State Government may examine the data of last few years, to come to a realistic finding as to what should be the extent of these reservations. A wholesale reservation is not serving any purpose, rather it frustrates the very purpose of the reservation
Supreme Court observed that if the interpretation that once an auditor resigns, the proceedings under Section 140(5) stand terminated and are no longer further required to be proceeded, an auditor may resign to avoid Tribunal’s final order and its consequence as provided under the second proviso to Section 140(5).
Supreme Court’s full bench declared the judgments in Arup Bhuyan, Indra Das and Raneef to be bad in law. Also, the High Courts Judgments which followed these precedents were overruled
Supreme Court directs appointment of Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners on advise of the committee consisting of the Prime Minister, leader of opposition and the Chief Justice of India
The Andhra Pradesh Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011 and the Telangana Micro Finance Institutions (Regulation of Money Lending) Act, 2011 are not unconstitutional and the NBFCs operating in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh registered with the RBI will be excluded from the purview of these two enactments.
Noting that there is no disqualification for a Sikkim man, who marries a non-Sikkimese after 01.04.2008, the Supreme Court observed that the discrimination is based on gender.
While MR Shah, J, has struck down the definition of “Sikkimese” in Section 10(26AAA) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Nagarathna, J, has called for saving the Explanation to Section 10(26AAA) and has created a stopgap ‘sub-clause (iv)’ till the Union of India makes the requisite amendment to the provision.
Patna High Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Karol, C.J. and S. Kumar, J. declared Bihar Municipal (Amendment) Act, 2021
Supreme Court: In the writ petitions challenging the constitutionality Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014, the division bench of Hemant Gupta* and
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao* and BR Gavai, JJ has held that the Kerala Revocation of Arbitration Clauses and
Meghalaya High Court: The Division Bench of Ranjit More, CJ. and H.S.Thangkhiew, J., dismissed a petition which was filed challenging the constitutional
“A claim to refund is governed by statute. There is no constitutional entitlement to seek a refund.”
Karnataka High Court: P.S. Dinesh Kumar J dismissed the petition being devoid of merits. The facts of the case are such that
“Vires of a relevant provision goes to the root of the matter.”
Supreme Court of Louisiana: While determining the constitutionality of statutory requisite under La. R.S. 40:1321(J) and La. R.S. 15:542.1.4(C) that, persons convicted