COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTS
F Amendment of definition of "non-performing assets" u/s. 2(1)(o) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 is constitutionally valid : Keshavlal Khemchand and Sons P. Ltd. v. Union of India p. 452
F Constitution of NCLT and NCLAT valid : Madras Bar Association v. Union of India p. 484
F Where appointment of Technical Members to NCLT, directions given by Supreme Court in earlier judgment to be followed : Madras Bar Association v. Union of India p. 484
F Acts :
Companies (Amendment) Act, 2015 p. 81
Repealing and Amending (Second) Act, 2015 p. 86
F Regulations :
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirement) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2015 p. 95
Securities and Exchange Board of India (Public Offer and Listing of Securitised Debt Instruments) (Amendment) Regulations, 2015 p. 89
F Appointment of managerial personnel in private company-Application of Companies Act, 2013 and Schedule-V-A. M. Sridharan p. 52
F Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction process for company under present laws-Prashant Pranjal p. 61
F Company's inability to pay its debts : Applicability of "cash flow test" and "balance-sheet test" in Indian legal framework-Gautam Mohanty and Arbaaz Hussain p. 33
| COMPANY LAW INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD. No. 2, Vaithyaram Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017. Phone: (044) 2435075 |
 | |||||||
Exemption u/s 54 for asset purchased in different name -... New asset purchased in another personname or in joint name whether exemption u s 54 54F available Query The querist has sold a plot which was in his name The sa | |||||||
Preview by Yahoo | |||||||
Read Article on section 54 for asset purchased in different names............
For determining whether agriculture land is urban or rural now areal distance from municipal limit to agriculture land situated is to be ascertained. How we can ascertain areal distance ? Is there any competant authority who gives certificate of areal distance. It is required to ascertain whether capital gain is exempted due to rural agriculture land. How can we prove the areal distance ? - See more at: http://canextstep.com/forums/topic/how-can-we-prove-the-areal-distance/#.VXd3-lKZbIU
In my considered view, the best person to answer this question is the Author of the Section and none else( i.,e. the one who authorised). One of my Retired Army officer friend was cutting a joke: `In Army one should know only 2 things and not 3 things: One: To give a command not knowing or aware of its implementation and Two: to hear the command and go ahead with implementation, irrespective of outcome i.e., positive or negative. Persons carrying out orders i.e, second one cannot question the Boss. The present issue is akin to this. Is tress passing permitted any where? Has the law framers ever though of this? Collection of Revenue is the their only goal, it seems. Never apply the mind. - See more at: http://canextstep.com/forums/topic/how-can-we-prove-the-areal-distance/#.VXd3-lKZbIU
unjust enrichment
Also found in: Financial, Wikipedia.
Unjust Enrichment
A general equitable principle that no person should be allowed to profit at another's expense without making restitution for the reasonable value of any property, services, or other benefits that have been unfairly received and retained.
Although the unjust enrichment doctrine is sometimes referred to as a quasi-contractual remedy, unjust enrichment is not based on an express contract. Instead, litigants normally resort to the remedy of unjust enrichment when they have no written or verbal contract to support their claim for relief. In such instances litigants ask a court to find a contractual relationship that is implied in law, a fictitious relationship created by courts to do justice in a particular case.
Unjust enrichment has three elements. First, the plaintiff must have provided the defendant with something of value while expecting compensation in return. Second, the defendant must have acknowledged, accepted, and benefited from whatever the plaintiff provided. Third, the plaintiff must show that it would be inequitable or Unconscionable for the defendant to enjoy the benefit of the plaintiff's actions without paying for it. A court will closely examine the facts of each case before awarding this remedy and will deny claims for unjust enrichment that frustrate public policy or violate the law.
In some circumstances unjust enrichment is the appropriate remedy when a formally executed agreement has been ruled unenforceable due to incapacity, mistake, impossibility of performance, or the Statute of Frauds. In certain states, for example, contracts with minors are Voidable at the minor's discretion because persons under the age of majority are deemed legally incapable of entering into contracts. But if the minor has received a benefit from the other party's performance before nullifying the contract, the law of unjust enrichment will require the minor to pay for the fair market value of the benefit received. If the adult used duress or Undue Influence to induce the minor to enter the contract, however, the court will deny recovery in unjust enrichment because the adult lacked "clean hands."
In other circumstances unjust enrichment is the appropriate remedy for parties who have entered a legally enforceable contract, but where performance by one party exceeds the precise requirements of the agreement. For example, suppose a homeowner and a builder have entered into a legally binding contract under which the builder is to construct a two-car garage. One day the owner returns to her residence and discovers that in addition to constructing a two-car garage, the builder has paved the driveway. The owner says nothing about the driveway but later refuses to compensate the builder for the paving job. The builder has a claim for unjust enrichment in an amount representing the reasonable value of the labor and materials used in paving the driveway.
Suppose, instead, that after completing half the job, the builder tells the owner that he cannot finish the garage as originally agreed, but that he wants to be paid for the work he has done. The owner balks at this demand, arguing that the builder has breached his contractual obligations and is entitled to nothing. A minority of jurisdictions would allow the builder to recover the reasonable value of his services, minus any damages suffered by the owner as a result of the breach. A majority of jurisdictions, however, adhere to the rule that a party who fails to perform contractual obligations has no remedy regardless of the amount of hardship he might endure.
The doctrine of unjust enrichment also governs many situations where the litigants have no contractual relationship. For example, the law finds an implied promise to pay for emergency medical treatment that is neither requested nor consented to by a patient. In some jurisdictions the law finds an implied promise to pay for life-saving medical treatment even when a patient objects to receiving it. The law also requires parents to reimburse a person who voluntarily supplies necessaries such as food, shelter, and clothing to their children. As these examples demonstrate, unjust enrichment is a flexible remedy that allows courts great latitude in shifting the gains and losses between the parties as Equity, fairness, and justice dictate.
Further readings
Calamari, John D., and Joseph M. Perillo. 1999. Contracts. 3d ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West.
Dagan, Hanoch. 1997. Unjust Enrichment: A Study of Private Law and Public Values. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Hurd, Heidi M. 2003. "Nonreciprocal Risk Imposition, Unjust Enrichment, and the Foundations of Tort Law: A Critical Celebration of George Fletcher's Theory of Tort Law." Notre Dame Law Review 78 (April).
Restatement of the Law, Restitution and Unjust Enrichment: Tentative Draft. 2001. Philadelphia, Pa.: Executive Office, American Law Institute.
Smith, Stephen A. 2003. "The Structure of Unjust Enrichment Law: Is Restitution a Right or a Remedy." Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 36 (winter).
DIPP : Initiates State level assessment for 'ease of doing business' with 280+ parameters
Dept. of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), Ministry of Commerce & Industry, releases "Assessment Framework for State Level Reforms enabling Ease of Doing Business (2015)", with an aim to unlock huge economic potential of nation through structured reforms; Key objectives of assessment include - (i) to assess implementation of various factors enabling ease of doing business in a State, and (ii) to do a comparative study of various States w.r.t. implementation status; Questionnaire includes 285 questions covering following areas – (1) setting up business, (2) allotment of land and obtaining construction permit, (3) complying with environment procedures, (4) complying with labour regulations, (5) obtaining infrastructure related utilities, (6) registering and complying with tax procedures, (7) carrying out inspections, and (8) enforcing contracts; Assigns equal weightage to all areas and clarifies that final result would be an indication of implementation status of various factors enabling ease of doing business in totality, not a reflection of any one area over another, in relative or absolute terms; Seeks feedback from State Govts via office of Chief Secretary latest by June 20th: Ministry of Commerce & Industry
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment