Court News from Madras High Court

Daily Archive: February 16, 2020

February 16, 2020

There should have been two arbitration acts — one for domestic and another for foreign awards — because the regimes are entirely different, Supreme Court judge Indu Malhotra said at a conference here on Saturday. Justice Malhotra was speaking on “Arbitration Highlights Need to Shift From Ad Hoc to Institutional Arbitration” at the 12th annual international arbitration conclave, organised by Nani Palkhivala Arbitration Centre (NPAC), according to a statement.

February 16, 2020

K Parasaran: Trusted and the trustee The Ram Janmabhoomi case had brought K Parasaran out of retirement after a period of 10 yrs. Now the 93-year-old is in the middle of all the action, from the Sabarimala case that is set to define the contours of right to religion, to the trust that will build the Ayodhya temple.

February 16, 2020

Contentions Raised: It was contended by the additional Advocate General narmada mam appearing for the appellants that the appellant was excluded from the scope of “employee” in terms of section 2 of the Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1981.

February 16, 2020

While encompassing the payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended employee under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Madras High Court has held that its non-payment shall violae the Fundamental Right. . A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising Chief Justice Amreshwar Pratap Sahi & Justice Subramonium Prasad has emphasized that subsistence allowance cannot be denied to employee(s) during the tenure of their suspension.u d

February 16, 2020

Ours is a society of people full of emotions and knee-jerk reactions. The moment a horrendous crime is committed, our hearts beat for the victim, and the moment the trial is over and the accused is convicted, our hearts beat for the convicts,” said Justice V. Ramasubramanian of the Supreme Court here on Saturday.

February 16, 2020

Justice C. Saravanan while partly allowing the petition held, “. . . There is no dispute that the Petitioner is a Motor Car Dealers tax and had received trade discounts from the manufacturer from whom it had purchased the cars for retail sales at its showrooms. The trade discount which has been offered by the dealer is an incentive given by the manufacturer based on the performance of the Petitioner in the retail market.

WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com