Digi - Legal Insights
TAXATION
Details
2024 Amendment Rules do not include savings clause for pending proceedings following the omission of certain Rules under CGST Act hence, all pending proceedings related to omitted Rules, including show cause notices, will lapse.
TAXATION
Details
Employees’ contribution to funds, if paid before due date of filing of return of income, would be allowed as a deduction.
ARBITRATION
Details
Section 34 Court maintains that an arbitral award should not be challenged if it yields a plausible outcome and reasons for it can be inferred.
ARBITRATION
Details
Court does not have jurisdiction in matter and these petitions cannot be entertained hence, all captioned Petitions and attendant Interim Applications are dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
ARBITRATION
Details
Section 85(2)(a) of 1996 Act indicates that 1940 Act does not apply to proceedings initiated after January 25, 1996, date the 1996 Act came into effect.
ARBITRATION
Details
If Arbitrators findings, based on hearsay rather than concrete evidence, are flawed and award is deemed shocking to Courts conscience then it must be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of Act.
PROPERTY LAW
Details
Appellants holding various agreements cannot make independent claims against Society or its affiliates once prior developers rights have been lawfully terminated under Development Agreement.
PROPERTY LAW
Details
Circular from an administrative department does not constitute law simply because it was issued by a government officer.
PROPERTY LAW
Details
Evidence presented by Plaintiff was inadequate to prove joint cultivation of property by sisters hence, decisions made by Trial Court and first Appellate Court were quashed, leading to dismissal of Regular Civil Suit.
RENT CONTROL
Details
Defendant, significantly contributing to flats purchase and loan repayment, was true owner hence, Appellate Courts findings regarding Defendants acquisition of flat were deemed credible and did not require revision.
CIVIL LAW
Details
Death occurred while on duty is incorrect, as there is no proven connection between death and employment under Section 3 of Act therefore, findings are set aside and claim is dismissed.
ARBITRATION
Details
Absence of ad idem agreement on this issue indicates that execution of Development Agreement cannot be regarded as a mere formality consequently, Developer has not sufficiently demonstrated a case for protective relief under Section 9 of Act.
ARBITRATION
Details
Despite Marines dissatisfaction with the outcome, their alternative interpretation of evidence does not render Impugned Award invalid under Section 34 of Act.
SERVICE LAW
Details
Order against Petitioner is deemed illegal due to lack of due process in disciplinary proceedings leading to her suspension hence, Petitioner would be entitled for remainder portion of her salary from date on which suspension order was served upon her until today, by treating her ‘on duty’.
ARBITRATION
Details
Impugned order lacked reasoning, which is crucial for fairness and judicial review and unreasoned order cannot uphold legal standards, justifying withdrawal based on unspecified complaints does not rectify original flaws in order.
ARBITRATION
Details
Former Chief Justice of High Court is appointed as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon disputes and differences between parties arising out of and in connection with Mortgage Deeds and in terms of arbitration clause-agreement contained.
ARBITRATION
Details
Offering of a lower post instead of a clerk position contradicts guidelines, as does the managements reliance on past allegations and delays hence, Petitioner is entitled to clerk position, deeming managements rejection arbitrary and unsustainable.
PROPERTY LAW
Details
If sale instance is of period of one year and more prior to acquisition of land, addition to consideration is required to be given.
SERVICE LAW
Details
Pension is not a matter of charity or discretion, it is a legal right to which the employee is entitled on account of his long and dedicated service.
SERVICE LAW
Details
Decision to conduct fresh inquiry was deemed unjustifiable, as Corporation did not adequately address evidence or conclusions from initial inquiry, rendering second inquiry impermissible by law.