[ad_1]
1) The arbitration agreement will be concluded only when the parties are notified. In all important terms: The court considered that the contract can be considered to be concluded only when the contracting parties advertise all the important terms of the contract.
In this case, an appeal was filed by the Karnataka Power Transmission Company Limited (KPTCL) against the order. which passed by the Karnataka High Court. The issue raised is that there was a binding agreement between the appellant and KPTCL regarding the tariffs prior to the commencement of the Karnataka Electricity Reforms Act, 1999, which came into force on 1st June, 1999, in terms of explanation in section 19 and proposed. Article 27(2) of the law.
Cause Name: Karnataka Electricity Transmission Company Limited v. JSW Energy Limited
Judgment Date: November 22, 2022
Coram: Justice KM Joseph, Justice Aniruddha Bose & Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Read more…
2) Conditions of acquisition are not satisfied – SC has issued an order to declare the lapse of land acquisition : While noting that the conditions of land possession are not satisfactory, the court issued an order to declare land use according to Article 24(2) of the right to fair compensation and transparency in the Law on Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement. 2013.
The Bench observed that it was a specific case on behalf of the authority that possession of the land in question had already been taken.
Cause Name: Secretary, Department of Land and Construction and Assoc. v. Anjeet Singh (deceased) through LRs. and Anr.
Judgment Date: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
Read more…
3) The order of regularization cannot be passed based on the continuation of service for a longer period on the basis of the contract: The court in the matter of service observed that the order of regularization cannot be passed on the basis of continuous service for a long period as per the contract, especially when the policy decision is taken to serve other drivers.
The Court held that the High Court had committed a grave error in ordering the regularization and termination of the order, that in the contract awarded to the agency outside the company, the service of the respondent No. 1 had come to an end.
Cause Name: Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Thane & Ors. v. Santosh Tukaram Tiware & Ors.
Judgment Date: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
Read more…
4) Arbitration is a collateral form of contract that is separate from the essential terms but is part of it – SC stressed that: The Court reiterated that arbitration is a collateral provision of a contract that is separate from its main terms but is part of it.
The court considered that the High Court was wrong in dismissing the petition according to Article 11(6) of the Law on Referral Absence and reconciliation filed by the petitioner in the case by commenting on the invention of the purchase contract The shares between the two parties will have a positive effect on the good of the dispute between the parties.
Cause Name: Miss. Meenakshi Solar Power Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Abhyudaya Green Economic Zones Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Judgment Date: November 23, 2022
Coram: Justice BR Gavai & Justice BV Nagarathna
Read more…
5) The word “otherwise” in Section 45(4), IT Act also covers the case of a partner transferring property to a retired partner – SC confirmed the view of the Bombay HC: The court confirmed the view of the Bombay High Court AN Naik Associates and Ors.In which it was noted that the word “otherwise” used in section 45 (4) of the Income Tax Act takes into account not only the case of dissolution, but also the case of a partner of a partner, the transfer of property in terms of. Retired partner.
the bench Justice MR Shah And Justice MM Sundresh is dealing with the question of applicability of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act introduced by the Finance Act, 1987.
Cause Name: Commissioner of Income Tax – 23 v. M/s. Mansukh Dyeing and Printing Mill with Anr.
Judgment Date: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
Read more…
6) The State Electricity Board has full authority to manage tariffs; States and the Center have only an advisory role: The court held that the State Electricity Board has full authority to determine and regulate tax collection, in While the central and state governments have only an advisory role.
In addition, the court emphasized that “The provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 do not prescribe a dominant method to determine the tariff. Section 63 operates after the bidding process has been conducted.”
Cause Name: The TATA Power Company Limited Transmission v. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors.
Judgment Date: November 23, 2022
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice AS Bopanna & Justice JB Pardiwala
Read more…
7) SC restores the order of the reference court to increase the compensation for the owner of the land used for 40 years before: While the court is proceeding with the case that has a history of repeated litigation of the land owner, the owner of the land has recovered Fu the order of the reference court that increases the compensation for the owner of the land used 40 years ago.
The Bench observed that the High Court committed an error in calculating the compensation @ Rs. 100 per square meter regardless of the documents produced by the land owner.
Cause Name: Revenue Department Officer & Anr. v. Ismail Bhai and others
Judgment Date: November 22, 2022
Coram: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Justice JK Maheshwari
Read more…
8) GPMC Act- Educational Institutions, Societies run by Public Charitable Organizations cannot be treated as hospitals/hospitals: The court observed that under the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act 1949 (GPMC Act) and related rules, educational and social institutions run by public charities cannot be treated as hospitals and maternity homes under the taxation rules.
The Bench held, ““Sub-section (iv) to section (a) to sub-rule (4) of Rule 8B of the Taxation Rules applies to educational and social institutions operated by public charitable funds for the welfare of women, the aged, deaf, blind, blind, physically handicapped or mentally retarded, these are separate categories and cannot be confused and treated as well and equal to hospitals, clinics, homes, etc., as described in sub-section (i) to clause ( a) sub. Rule (4) of Rule 8B of the Taxation Rules.”
Cause Name: Parivar Seva Sanstha v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation
Judgment Date: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Justice JK Maheshwari
Read more…
9) Proceedings regarding the purchase of land will not fail if an award is not received upon initiation. Act LA 2013- SC emphasizes that: The court in the case of land purchase noted that the purchase proceedings will not disappear if not received Giving a decision according to the 2013 Land Purchase Law as of January 1, 2014.
The Bench placed reliance Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal and Ors. There it was observed, “According to the provisions of Article 24(1)(a) in the event that the awarding is not carried out on 1-1- 2014, is the starting date of the 2013 law, there is no trial. Compensation must be determined under the provisions of the 2013 Act.”
Cause Name: Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr. & Ors. v. Shiv Dutt Sharma and Anr.
Judgment Date: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice MR Shah & Justice MM Sundresh
Read more…
10) When the evidence is sufficient, the disciplinary authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the offender- SC reaffirms: The court reiterated that: in finding sufficient and reliable evidence during the department’s investigation , the disciplinary organization has the discretion to punish the employees who violate the law and maintain tension. of wrongdoing.
The Bench observed that both the Disciplinary and the Magistrate have exclusive jurisdiction to examine the evidence forming part of the investigation report.
Cause Name: Union of India and others v. Subrata Nath
Judgment Date: November 23, 2022
Coram: CJI DY Chandrachud & Justice Hima Kohli
Read more…
11) Service conditions of employees and non-commissioned officers of UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad-SC confirm: The Court adopted the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Preetam Singh & Ors., And confirmed that the service conditions of the employees and the employees do not constitute the duties of the UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.
In that context, it was clarified that “The government can always determine the rules for the use of power according to clause (nn) of section (1) ) of Article 94 of 1965 determining the service conditions of officers and employees of the Board Commission. between clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 95 and between clause (nn) of sub-section (1) of section 94, the rule shall have effect and in To the extent that, the provisions of the existing regulations. Respect for the regulations will be void.”
Cause Name: State Up & Ors. vs Virendra Kumar & Ors.
Judgment Date: November 25, 2022
Coram: Justice SK Kaul, Justice Abhay S. Oka & Justice Vikram Nath
Read more…
12) The determination of the market value of the land by the HC was not sustainable- SC referred the issue to the HC to re-determine the compensation: The court in the land acquisition case allowed the petition filed by the state of Madhya Pradesh and sent it back to the High Court for determination. The evaluation of compensation should be reconsidered according to the law and agreed principles.
The Bench is dealing with an appeal against an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore through which the State’s appeal was dismissed by reducing the deductions made by the reference court for irrigated and non-irrigated land respectively.
Cause Name: State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Radheshyam & Ors.
Judgment Date: November 24, 2022
Coram: Justice S. Abdul Nazeer & Justice Krishna Murari
Read more…
[ad_2]
Source link
