Bridge & Roof Co. (India) Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI)

Citation: AIR1963SC1474 Decided On: 11.09.1962 Court: Supreme Court Facts The Appellant-company had a production bonus scheme in force which provided for payment of production bonus over and above wages fixed. Production bonus was to be paid on certain rates specified in the relevant scheme when the output reaches certain number of tons (say, x tons)…

Airfreight Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Citation: AIR 1999 SC 2459 Decided On: August 04, 1999 Judges: D.P. Wadhwa and M.B. Shah, JJ. Facts: The State Govt. of Karnataka issued a notification dated 19.08.1987 (“Notification“) under Section 27 of the Minimum Wages Act (“Act“) fixing the minimum rates of wages payable to certain categories of employees for “shops and commercial establishments”….

Jatinder Nath vs. Chopra Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Jatinder Nath vs. Chopra Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Jatinder Nath vs. Chopra Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Supreme Court AIR 2007 SC 1401 (Section 16 of CPC vis-à-vis Section 20 of CPC) Facts In this case, an agreement was entered into by the Developer with one Jatinder Nath (Appellant), residing at Faridabad at that time. Subsequently the appellant had shifted his residence…

|

National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.

National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. PTC (Suppl) (1) 475 (SC) Full Bench Brief Facts: Appellant, was a company registered in India. Respondent was a company registered in England carrying business of manufacturing cotton sewing thread. One of the trade marks used by the Respondent on such thread consisted of…

Supreme Court Strikes Down S.66A of Information Technology Act as Unconstitutional

Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India[1] Supreme Court in its landmark judgment, Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India on March 24, 2015, struck the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act (“Act“) which provided punishment for sending offensive messages through communication service, including internet. It is to be noted that Section 66A was not in the…

|

Eastern Book Company and Ors. v. D.B. Modak and Anr.

Eastern Book Company and Ors. v. D.B. Modak and Anr. (2008) 1 SCC 1 Facts: Appellants were involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law. One of the well-known publications was the law report “Supreme Court Cases”. The original Judgments were copy-edited by a team of assistant staff…

Do Directors Owe Fiduciary Duty to Shareholders?

Do Directors Owe Fiduciary Duty to Shareholders?

Scope and Definition of ‘fiduciary’, “fiduciary capacity” and “fiduciary relationship” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sri Marcel Martins vs. M. Printer and Ors.[1] defined the term ‘fiduciary’ as- “The word ‘fiduciary’, as a noun, means one who holds a thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the character of a trustee, or…

| |

Case List: Contract of personal services cannot be specifically enforced

A contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced in a civil suit. Case List Jitendra Nath Biswas vs. M/s. Empire of India and Ceylon Tea Co. and Anr., 1989, Supreme Court, (1989) 3 SCC 582; Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd. vs. Manorama Sirsi, 2004, Supreme Court; (2004) 3 SCC 172; Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. C.P. Sebastian, 2009,…

|

Rules for Interpretation of Contracts: Implied Terms of Contract

Conditions for using ‘Implied Terms’ for Interpretation  Lord Simon in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd vs. The Shire of Hastings [1978] 52 AJLR 20 held that- “…for a term to be implied, the following conditions (which may overlap) must be satisfied: it must be reasonable and equitable; it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the…

Miheer H. Mafatlal Vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

The scope of Company Court to sanction scheme of amalgamation is limited and therefore Court can intervene in matter only when it is not just and fair or prejudicial to the interest of share holders. Court can only go through scheme and examine whether it has complied requirements under Section 391 (2) and was passed requisite majority or not. Individual personal interest of minority share holders is of no concern unless it is affecting class interest of such equity shareholders.

|

Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Godrej Sara Lee Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2010) 2 SCC 535 Two Appeals were filed before the Delhi High Court, against order passed by the Controller of Designs, Kolkata, cancelling two registered designs under Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000. The question for determination before the High Court was…

Mcleod Russel India Limited vs. Reg. Provident Fund Commissioner

Find out what liabilities you can still incur as an acquirer of a company in respect of payment of provident fund dues even though the agreement explicitly excludes any liability on part of the transferee company. The judgment highlights the importance of due diligence regarding employment related liabilities prior to acquisition of one company by another.