-
CALL FOR BLOGS: CORPORATE LAW BOARD OF ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM ABOUT CORPORATE LAW BOARD
ABOUT CORPORATE LAW BOARD: The Corporate Law Board is an autonomous board of All India Legal Forum. It is an initiative to engage a discussion around corporate law and policy...
-
ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM PRESENTS A BLOG WRITING COMPETITION ON “CORPORATE, BANKING AND FINANCIAL LAWS”: Register by 31/03/2021.
ABOUT THE ORGANISER: All India Legal Forum, the brainchild of several legal luminaries and eminent personalities across the country and the globe, is a dream online platform which aims at...
-
Call for Blogs: All India Legal Forum: No submission fees; Submissions on Rolling Basis
About the Blog: All India legal Forum (AILF) is a platform to provide valuable contemporary assessment of issues and developments in the legal field and also put forward quality legal...
-
Job Opportunity: Legislegal, New Delhi
Legislegal is looking for a candidate with up to 2 years PQE in corporate commercial litigation and advisory. Role includes: Drafting, vetting of corporate commercial agreementsDrafting of cases specifically matters...
-
Jaikrishandas Manohardas Desai v. State of Bombay
Case Number Criminal Appeal No. 159 of 1957. Equivalent Citation (1960) 3 SCR 319 : AIR 1960 SC 889 : 1960 Cri LJ 1250 Bench S.J Imam, K.N Wanchoo and J.C...
-
State of Karnataka v. Basavegowda
Case Number Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 1994 Relevant Citation 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 665: (1997) Kant LJ 81 (DB): 1997 Cri LJ 4386 Bench M.F Saldanha and H.N Narayan,...
-
Sekar v. Arumugham
Case Number Cri. Revn. Case no. s 585, 586, 658 of 1999 Equivalent Citation 1999 SCC OnLine Mad 604: 2000 Cri LJ 1552: (2001) 1 BC 211 Bench Single judge...
-
TOOLKIT: NIKITA JACOB, SHANTANU MULUK GET INTERIM PROTECTION TILL 15 MARCH
A metropolis Court on Tues adjourned hearing within the preceding bail applications filed by Shantanu Muluk and Bombay based mostly attorney, Nikita Jacob in manoeuver with the urban center Police...
-
Copying and pasting orders is one of the computer age’s issue
On Friday, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud said, “I’m tired of seeing cut-and paste orders from High Courts.”For an order to be confirmed, there must be independent reasons given! There must be an independent mental application! The judge continued, “Cutting, copying, and pasting from the Tribunal’s judgement just adds to the number of pages but does not address the main problem of appeal!” The UPSC’s SLP was being considered by the bench, which also included Justice M. R. Shah, in light of an Orissa High Court decision upholding the order of the CAT, Cuttack Bench on the question of whether the respondent could be refused a position in the IAS due to a disciplinary penalty levied in 2011.The UPSC Rules under Article 320, not the DoPT guidelines, will hold sway in this case, and Justices Chandrachud and Shah set aside the HC order, restoring the plea before the HC. “The High Court should not apply its mind independently! Only the order of the Tribunal has been copied! “, Justice Chandrachud remarked.By reconvening the Selection Committee meeting, the tribunal ordered the appellant-UPSC to reconsider the case of the respondent for promotion to the IAS.” If the respondent was considered worthy by the Review Selection Committee, the respondent was to receive consequential benefits. The High Court, after being moved from the tribunal’s order, extracted the tribunal’s judgement and observed that “the tribunal has elaborately discussed the statute” and that “there is no jurisdictional error and no intervention is warranted,” the supreme court noted in its order.The petitioner-UPSC had primarily argued before the HC that the Tribunal had exceeded its authority by granting relief to the claimant, and that it had miserably refused to recognise that the induction is not a promotion. The DOPT guidelines are not applicable in this case; they are only applicable in cases of promotion. It was also said that the Tribunal had made a significant mistake by remanding the case back for reconsideration. It was argued that the applicant has no right to be elevated to I.A.S., and that he only has a right to be considered for I.A.S. induction. The petitioner’s attorney argued that the applicant has no right to be considered for induction into I.A. because of his misbehaviour. By Aishwarya Daftari
-
SC held that TDS not required on the import of shrink-wrapped software.
The Supreme Court in one of its judgments held that the payments made by resident Indian end-users or distributors on import of ‘shrink-wrapped’ software cannot be considered as a royalty...
Menu