Bombay High Court
Service Law—Upgradation of Pay—Petition against denial of financial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACPS) and the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), allowed and payment of arrears, ordered, [Mahesh B. Kaliwal v. State of Goa,
Labour Law— —S. 2(s)—Workman—Employees who are engaged purely on sales promotion activities cannot be treated as “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, [Kiran P. Pawar v. Bata India Ltd.,
Service Tax—Limitation—Fees collected by SEBI from entities under its control —Court observes the findings of Tribunal to be proper and no reference in show cause notice to any instance of fraud, collusion, misstatement or suppression of facts indulged in by the Board, [CCE (GST) v. SEBI,
Service Law— Pension—Entitlement to Pension— Reiterated, pension is a right and payment of it does not depend on the discretion of the Government and would be governed by the rules, [Jayram Baburao More v. State of Maharashtra,
—Service Tax—The Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 is part and parcel of the Finance Act, [Deelight Fortune (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,
Delhi High Court
Labour Law— —S. —Workman —Supervisory Managerial Functions—The definition of “workman” indicates that a person would come within the purview of Section 2(s) of the ID Act if he is employed in an industry and performs any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. A person would not be covered under the definition if (i) he is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity; or (ii) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding ten thousand rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerial nature, [Food Corpn. of India v. State (NCT of Delhi),
—GST—Registration—Cancellation —Order affirming cancellation of assessee’s GST Registration was bereft of reasons, hence, petition allowed, and the GST registration was ordered to be restored, [Pratibha-Mosinzhstroi Consortium v. Commr. (CGST),
— Ss. , and — Bail — While considering a bail application in case of economic offences, seriousness of charge is of pertinent consideration, but it cannot be sole test or factor for determining bail, [Sunny Bathija v. CBI,
— A. — Circumstances under which disputed question of fact can be entertained/ adjudicated — While the High Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 have power to adjudicate on facts and law, they shall ordinarily not question highly contested and disputed facts. However, such powers to enter into questions of fact are discretionary and shall be exercised in exceptional circumstances, [Seema Thakur v. R.D. International School,
— S. — Abetment of Suicide — There was absolutely nothing in suicide note or FIR which could be suggestive of abetment to commit suicide on the part of the respondents, hence, order discharging respondents, upheld, [State (NCT of Delhi) v. Hanuman Singh Bisht,
— S. — Determining factors for enlarging accused on bail—Scuffle took place under the influence of alcohol and on the spur of moment. No prima facie intention on the part of the petitioner to either cause death or cause such bodily injury likely to cause death, was made out, hence, regular bail, granted, [Tek Raj Saud v. State (NCT of Delhi), ]
—Art. —Writ of certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of High Court—The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record and in such cases, the court has to take into account the circumstances and pass an order in equity and not as an appellate authority, [B.K. Khataniar v. Punjab National Bank, ]
Contract and Specific Relief— —S. —Arbitration and Conciliation Act—Claimant carried out work after the issuance of Advance Purchase Order (APO) and within the knowledge of BSNL. Finding in the impugned award that claimant was entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred by it notwithstanding absence of a concluded contract was predicated upon Section 70 of the Contract Act, which incorporates the doctrine of quantum meruit, was not liable to be interfered with, particularly on the touchstone of Section 34 of the A&C Act, 1996, [BSNL v. Vihaan Networks Ltd., ]
The post appeared first on .