Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Promotional trailers are unilateral and are only meant to encourage a viewer to purchase the ticket to the movie, which is an independent transaction and contract from the promotional trailer. A promotional trailer by itself is not an offer and neither intends to nor can create a contractual relationship.”
The High Court opined that pension being a very valuable right, the legislature in its wisdom, had incorporated Rule 22 of the 1969 Rules, so that a pensioner survives till the allegations attain finality.
“The slight difference in defendants’ spelling, i.e., SHRINATH or SHREENATH really makes no difference to the aspect of infringement, as plaintiffs holds a registration for the word mark ‘SHRINATH’ per se.”
“The authorities rejected petitioner’s refund claim by mentioning that payments in respect of some of the invoices are received in advance, but respondents have not referred to any particular instance where payments in respect of any invoices are received prior to the date of invoices.”
“Interpretative tools should be employed to make a statute workable and not to reach to a particular outcome.”
The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 was promulgated just eight days after the Constitution Bench had decided on the issue of administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants in the NCTD.
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† and Megha Saha††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 46
On 19-5-2023, the Ministry of Law and Justice notified the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 giving back
In the spirit of cooperative federalism, the Union must exercise its powers within the boundaries created by the Constitution. NCTD, having a sui generis federal model, must be allowed to function in the domain charted for it by the Constitution. The Union and NCTD share a unique federal relationship. It does not mean that NCTD is subsumed in the unit of the Union merely because it is not a “State”.
Supreme Court said that NCTD like other states also represents the representative form of government, the involvement of Union of India in the administration of NCTD is limited by Constitution provisions and any further expansion will be contrary to the constitutional scheme of governance.
by Siddharth R. Gupta† and Prakriti††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 29
The Delhi High Court set aside the demand for service tax of Rs. 56 crores against MTNL holding that the surrender of any right to use the spectrum before 14-5-2016, the date on which the Finance Act, 2016 came into force, will not be chargeable to service tax.
The Delhi High Court held that Ernst and Young Ltd. is not an ‘intermediary’ under the IGST Act, as it does not arranges or facilitates services to overseas EY entities from the third parties but only renders services to them.
The Delhi High Court upheld the order of the Labour Court wherein it was held that since the messenger boy of a Bank was unable to establish that he moved an application for absorption in the service in pursuance of the Bipartite Settlement, therefore, he was not entitled to regularisation of service. Further, the Dehi High Court held that regularisation was not a matter of right and therefore, this Court could not direct the respondent Bank to regularize the services of the messenger boy.
Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thane: In a significant decision delivered in August over a complaint alleging deficiency of
Tamil Nadu Authority for Advance Ruling: T.G. Venkatesh, Additional Commissioner, and K. Latha, Joint Commissioner held that concerning vessel support services provided
National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi: The Bench of Ashok Bhushan J., Chairperson, Rakesh Kumar Jain and Rakesh Kumar, JJ,
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (CESTAT): The Coram of Dilip Gupta (President) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member),
Supreme Court: In an interesting case where the Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul* and M.M. Sundresh, JJ., was to answer whether
Bombay High Court: Holding that mere repeal of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the 2019 Act, without anything more, would not