A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court), comprising Hon’ble Justice N.V. Ramana, Hon’ble Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon’ble Justice Ajay Rastogi has, vide its judgment dated 11 May 2020 passed in the matter of South East Asia Marine Engineering and Constructions Ltd (SEAMEC Ltd) v Oil India Limited (Civil Appeal No.
As several countries including India remain in lockdown and continue to follow strict social distancing measures, the question on everybody’s mind today is how quickly will we return to “business as usual”, after nearly eight plus weeks of standstill?
The division bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Devan Ramachandran and Hon’ble Mr Justice T R Ravi passed an interim order on 24 April 2020 in the matter of Balu Gopalakrishnan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. expressing its reservations particularly towards the terms related to data confidentiality under the contract entered into between the Kerala government and Sprinklr Inc., a foreign data analysis company (hereinafter Sprinklr).
The division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice UU Lalit and Hon’ble Mr Justice Vineet Saran, in its decision in Quippo Construction Equipment Ltd v Janardan Nirman Pvt Ltd, on 29 April 2020 has inter alia analyzed the provision under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act) regarding waiver of right to object by a party.
The division bench of Kerala High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Devan Ramachandran and Hon’ble Mr Justice T R Ravi passed an interim order on 24 April 2020 in the matter of Balu Gopalakrishnan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. expressing its reservations towards the foreign jurisdiction clause in an information technology contract between the state of Kerala and Sprinklr, a data analysis company. The High Court also directed the Kerala government to take prior consent from the citizens apprising them that their data will be processed by a third-party foreign entity.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court), comprising Mr Justice Arun Mishra, Mr Justice Vineet Saran and Mr Justice M R Shah has, vide judgment dated 29 April 2020 passed in the matter of Christian Medical College Vellore Association v.
Under Indian income tax law, an individual’s tax residency is determined by his physical stay in India during a Financial Year (FY) (i.e. 1 April to 31 March) as well as his stay in the preceding years. The residential status then determines whether his global income would be taxable in India or not.
It has been more than a month since the announcement of the lock-down in India by the Central Government, and longer in many other parts of the world.
In the judgement V. Padmakumar v Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (Respondent) & Anr (12 March 2020, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No 57 of 2020), a four member bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has, inter alia, held that entries in the balance sheet of the company do not constitute an acknowledgement of liability in terms of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act). This is for the purpose of filing an application for initiation of the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).
In an unprecedented decision, the Delhi High Court in the case of Brand Equity Treaties Limited v Union of India and Another (Writ Petition Civil No 11040 of 2018) has held the credit of taxes paid on inputs to be a vested right. In the lead petition (which was argued by us), the Court has concluded that the time limit prescribed under Rule 117 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (CGST Rules) is directory and not mandatory.
