Justice J.S. Khehar, speaking for the two-judge bench stated that in instances where a issue between the same parties is already under adjudication in a court which has the jurisdiction to pass judgement over the matter, then a law suit involving the same two parties will not be allowed to proceed in another court or legal forum. He added that the judgement reached by the first court would be valid for both instances and must be acceptable to both parties.
A two judge bench of the Apex Court, comprising of Justices J S Khehar and C Nagappan was examining a plea filed by FSSAI in which the food authority had asked to modify the stay order passed by the Bombay High Court. Appearing on behalf of the FSSAI, senior advocate Paras Kuhad had earlier argued that the food authority had been handicapped from examining any food product by the said stay order, stating that the order was affecting the entire industry and that the entire food safety mechanism had been rendered ineffective.
As per the Provident Fund regulations, PF is calculated at 12 per cent against the basic wages. INR 6,500 is the standard limit against which the PF is computed. Both the employer and employees can make decisions to make PF contributions on salary payments that exceed INR 6,500 per month. However, in such cases, the main issue was the availability of an option to return to lower levels of contributions. The EPFO has now put forward a method for the purpose of clarifying the
The court further said that the airline should be allowed to run by the management of Air India Ltd. in whichever way they think will serve their cause the best. Any decision made by the court in the matter will complicate issues. The court also confirmed that the Implementation Committee is already examining the Dharmadhikari Committee Report and trying to put the best method forward.
Memon, whose mercy petition was rejected by the President of India, filed a petition in the apex court seeking a stay on his execution. The SC has referred the case to a constitution bench that will assess whether or not the review petition should be heard in an open court.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had frozen the assets last year under the Provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after a criminal case was filed taking recognition of the 2011 Delhi Police FIR that was made on the compliant of misguided investors.
The Aurangabad bench comprising Judges BR Gaval and CV Bhadang said that the appellant cannot be held guilty on the basis of the evidence put forward. It is thereby found that the guilt of the appellant could not be proved by the prosecution and that suspicion cannot substitute proof .
However, it was clarified by the Supreme Court that the state government is allowed to take disciplinary actions against Singh by excluding the period of litigation for the process of calculation of the time limit.
The convicts, as per the verdict on the matter, will also have pay a fine of INR 1,000/. Only one of the 24 lawyers – Harjeet Singh, will require spending one month in jail. The others will have to spend up to three months in jail as per court order. Embarrassingly, Ghanashyam Agnihotri, the district bar association secretary, was fined INR 2000/ in a second case.
In its fresh proposal, the Sahara Group asked the court to allow depositing INR 3,000 crore in cash within five days and the next INR 2,000 crore in the next 30 days. A bank guarantee will be furnished by the Group for the remaining INR 5,000 crore in 60 days after it has sold its equities in a hotel in London and two in New York.