Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Feb-26-2021
..... permission in a given case. the sale or gift could be given effect and taken forward only after such permission is accorded by the rbi. there is no possibility of ex post facto permission being granted by the rbi under section 31 of the 1973 act, unlike in the case of section 29 as noted in life insurance corporation of india (supra). before grant of such permission, if the sale deed or gift deed is challenged by a person affected by the same directly or indirectly and the court declares it to be invalid, despite the 33 document being registered, no ..... .1 had no clear title to transfer the same to dr. thomas chandy vide purported sale deed dated 15.09.2005. it is not necessary for us to dilate on the argument of the appellant that such a sale deed 43 in any case could not have been executed by respondent no.1 in favour of dr. thomas chandy in contravention of interim order passed by the high court on 07.04.2005 and the effect thereof.37. as noticed above, the ..... obligation may be invalidated or discharged by exchange control legislation if (a) such legislation is part of the proper law of the contract; or (b) it is part of the law of the place of performance; or 22 (1956) 1 ch 323 32 (c) it is part of english law and the relevant statute or statutory instrument is applicable to the contract: provided that foreign exchange legislation will not be applied if it is used not with the object of protecting the economy of the foreign state, but as an instrument of oppression or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Nov-18-2021
..... of which the right, title and interest is vested in the central government under section 7, shall vest in the government company specified in the direction made under section 9(1). 43 sections 4, 7 and 9 indicate that the undertaking of metal corporation stood transferred to, and vested absolutely in the central government. section 9 further empowers the central government to vest the undertaking in a government company. once the metal corporation stood vested in a government company, the provisions of the then companies act 1956 and present companies act 2013 become applicable. thereupon, the government company would be entitled to exercise all such ..... the rights available to such a shareholder. there is no reason why the state as a shareholder should be expected to state its reasons when it seeks to change the management, by a resolution of the company, like any other shareholder. the constitution bench held that the notice by the life insurance corporation requisitioning a meeting of the company was not liable to be questioned on any of 30 (1986) 1 scc26444 part e the grounds set out in the writ petition. this principle has been followed as a 31 precedent by various decisions of this court . the union government, in the present .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jul-14-2021
..... union of india & ors., (1978) 2 scc5033 mandamus was issued by the calcutta high court. the payment of bonus (amendment) ordinance, 1975 was thereafter promulgated in september, 1975. the payment of bonus act was not applicable to the life insurance corporation by virtue of section 32 of the said impugned act. this court found that the impugned act did not set at naught the entire settlement relating to payment of annual cash bonus of class iii and class iv employees and that too from april, 1 1975. ..... such direction, the legislature is within its jurisdiction to determine the minimum eligibility age for the purpose of appointment.35. mr. r. gandhi, the president of madras bar association challenged the provisions of the companies act, 1956 as amended by central act 11 of 2003 when part 1b and part 1c were inserted constituting national company law tribunal and the appellate tribunal respectively before the madras high court. the high court allowed the ..... open to the legislature to say that a judgment of a court properly constituted and rendered in exercise of its powers in a matter brought before it shall be deemed to be ineffective and the interpretation of the law shall be otherwise than as declared by the court.43 the test of judging the validity of the amending and validating enactment is, whether the legislature enacting the validating statute has competence over the subject-matter; whether by validation, the said legislature has removed the defect which the court had found .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-10-2021
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.29432944 OF2020KALPRAJ DHARAMSHI & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS KOTAK INVESTMENT ADVISORS LTD. & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.31383139 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL No.29492950 OF2020CIVIL APPEAL No.847848 /2021 [D.NO.24125 OF2020 JUDGMENT B.R. GAVAI, J.1. Leave to file Civil Appeal in Diary No.24125 of 2020 is granted. 22. All these appeals, assail the judgment and order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as NCLAT) dated 5.8.2020, passed in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 344345 of 2020.3. By the said judgment and order dated 5.8.2020, NCLAT has allowed the appeals filed by Kotak Investment Advisors Limited (hereinafter referred to as KIAL), respondent No.1 herein, aggrieved by two separate orders dated 28.11.2019 passed by National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (hereinafter referred to as NCLT or Adjudicating Authority) in M.A. No.10...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-22-2021
..... act, 1950, which is a complete code. in nityananda m. joshi and others v. the life insurance corporation of india and others5, a three judge bench of this court speaking through sikri, j.held that article 137 of the limitation act only contemplates applications to courts.47. various statutes have, however, adopted the provisions of the limitation act, by incorporation or reference, either in its entirety or to a limited extent. for example, section 37 of the arbitration act ..... court held that section 14 of the limitation act would apply to an application for setting aside of an arbitral award under section 34 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 by virtue of section 43 of the said act, which made the limitation act applicable to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in court. this court found that in the absence of any provision in the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996 excluding the applicability of section 14, a party was ..... act, 1993, and hereinafter referred to as the debt recovery act , the sarfaesi act, and the companies act, 2013.34. these statutes provided for multiple forums, such as the board of industrial and financial reconstruction (bifr), debt recovery tribunal (drt) and national company law tribunal (nclt) and their respective appellate tribunals. liquidation of companies was handled by the high courts under the provisions of sections 271 and 272 of the companies act, 2013 corresponding to sections 433, 434 and 439 of the companies act, 1956 .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-26-2021
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).4613 OF2013P.B. NAYAK & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHILAI STEEL PLANT & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. The appellants impugn the Judgment of the High Court rendered in a Writ Petition filed, under Article 226 and 227, by respondents 1 and 2. By the impugned Order, the Order dated 18.01.2002, passed by the Appellate Authority, under Section 58(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Shops & Establishments Act, 1958 (for short, the Act), came to be set aside. The appellants, along with certain others, invoked the jurisdiction of the 1 Appellate Authority under Section 58(2) complaining that their services were terminated illegally by the respondents which complaint was accepted by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority directed the Respondent No.1 and 2 to reinstate the appellants with full back wages from 15.04.1997 till the date of reinstatement. In the alternative...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-03-2021
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.802-803 of 2021 (arising out of SLP(C)Nos.18118-18119 of 2019) SUBODH KUMAR ...APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SHAMIM AHMED ...RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.Leave granted 2.This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand dated 13.12.2018 allowing the Writ Petition (M.S.) No.418 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1 as well as the order dated 24.05.2019 rejecting the Review Petition filed by the appellant to review the judgment dated 13.12.2018. 23.The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, which are relevant for deciding the issues raised, need to be carefully noticed. The High Court in the impugned judgment although has noted few facts but certain relevant facts have been missed by the High Court which have bearing on the issues which had arisen before the High Court. 4.The facts of any case are the foundation on which the dispute between the parties arises. The ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-29-2021
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO................OF2021(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No.13868 OF2019 LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER .... APPELLANT(S) VERSUS SUNITA .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.1. Leave is granted.2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24th April, 2019 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the NCDRC) in Revision Petition No.897 of 2018, whereby the NCDRC while allowing the said Revision Petition, has set aside the order passed by the State Commission and has confirmed the order passed by the District Forum.3. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Mr. Pradeep Kumar, the husband of the respondent herein (original 1 complainant) had taken/purchased a life insurance policy under the Jeevan Suraksha Yojana on 14.04.2021 from the appellant-Life Insurance Corporation, under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-08-2021
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (C.) No.811/2021 The Employees State Insurance Corporation ...Petitioner (s) Versus M/s Texmo Industries Respondent (s) ORDER1 This Special Leave Petition is against a judgment and order dated 8th October 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dismissing the appeal being C.M.A. No.1527 filed by the Employees State Insurance Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Corporation, under Section 82(2) of the Employees State Insurance Act, and affirming the order dated 31st July 2020 passed by the Employees State Insurance Court, Coimbatore allowing E.S.I.O.P No.1/2016 filed by the Respondent Company under Section 5 of the Employee State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short, ESI Act).2. The Respondent Company manufactures different kinds of agricultural pumps and other products and has ten branches in 1 Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The ESI Act is applicable to the factories and est...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Oct-29-2021
1 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.3135 OF2011THE TRANSPORT CORPN. OF INDIA LTD. THROUGH SANTNU PATRA MANAGER - LEGAL .. APPELLANT v. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT ABHAY S. OKA, J.1. The appellant has taken an exception to the Judgment and Order dated 29th March 2010 passed by a Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in a Letters Patent Appeal. The first respondent is the Employees State Insurance Corporation (for short the Insurance Corporation) established under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short the said Act of 1948).2. By a notice dated 6th April 1990, a demand was made by the Insurance Corporation in the sum of Rs.8,01,510/- by way of contribution 2 payable by the appellant for the period from 30th July 1975 to 31st March 1988. The contribution was demanded as per the provisions of Regulations 29, 31 and 33 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 (for sh...
Tag this Judgment!