Judgements Uploaded By Users In Category: Other Laws
These judgements are uploaded by our esteemed readers. If you have a judgement on an important topic that you would like to share with others, please use this form to upload it
The Delhi High Court has held that Restrictive covenants in employment contracts which operate after cessation of employment are unenforceable (i) It is now well settled that post-service restrictive covenants in employment contracts, which operate after cessation of employment, are unenforceable under Indian law. (ii) The doctrine of restraint of trade, as embodied under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872,… Read More ...
The SUPREME COURT has held that Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. S. 7: Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process-Limitation-Acknowledgement of debt-Balance sheet entries-Validity of acknowledgment under S. 18 of the Limitation Act even where name of creditor is not specifically mentioned-Liberal interpretation-Prior financial statements and cash flow disclosures may be relied on- Substantive jural relationship and continuing liability inferred- COVID-19 extension-Applicability… Read More ...
The SUPREME COURT has held that Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. (BNSS) S. 35 : When police may arrest without warrant-Notice by Investigating Agency-Inquiry-Electronic communication-Liberty of individual involved-Cannot be served via WhatsApp or electronic communication-Standing order must follow CrPC/BNSS modes only -Application to modify earlier order rejected-State must ensure personal service-Application dismissed. [S. 2(i), 2(k), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6),39, 63, 64(2),… Read More ...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 S. 9 : Eviction of tenants-Partnership firm-Tenancy created in individual capacity-Non-joinder of firm or other partners immaterial-Landlord’s bona fide need proved-Tenant cannot dictate choice of premises-Writ not maintainable-Petition dismissed. [S. 2(i),21, Succession Act, 1956, Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Order 14 Rule 5, 30 CPC, Ss. 2(i), 21, Art. 226]… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA, Act) S. 43 : Real Estate Appellate Tribunal-Powers of Tribunal-Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority-Right to legal representation-A Hybrid system of hearing-Execution of orders-Delay in enforcement-Virtual-only hearings-Hybrid hearing not offered-Absence of mechanism for urgent listing and execution-Access to justice is an important of any courts / Tribunals exists,… Read More ...
The Bombay High Court has held that Companies Act, 2013. S. 2(62) : One person company–The separate legal personality and limited liability shield of an One Person Company (OPC) under Indian corporate law-The separate legal personality and limited liability shield of an OPC under Indian corporate law- Set aside the direction of the Arbitration Tribunal against Mr. Savan Prasad. [S. 3(1), Arbitration… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that Section 42 of the Partnership Act, 1932: In the case of a firm with more than two partners, if one of the partners dies or retires, there is change in the constitution of the firm but there is no dissolution (i) It is settled in law by virtue of Section 42 of the Partnership Act,… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that What is "manufacture"? Whether the process carried out by using soyabean as raw material and ending in the product crude degummed soyabean oil is manufacturing? (1) To constitute manufacture, the following are the essential features: i. There must be a process or series of process. ii. The original commodity or raw material undergoes a transformation… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that If a judgement is overruled, the overruling judgement operates retrospectively. Any transaction would then be covered by the law declared by the overruling decision. If the Court desires that the overruling judgement should operate prospectively, it must be expressly stated (i) A judicial decision acts retrospectively. It is not the function of the court to… Read More ...
The Supreme Court has held that Framework for distinguishing between works protected under the Copyright Act, 1957, and designs eligible for protection under the Designs Act, 2000 (i) The expression ‘artistic work’ under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act has a very wide connotation and may also include abstract work(s) comprising a few lines or curves arbitrarily drawn, which could be… Read More ...