Dismisses appeal, upholds CLB's order for undisputed gratuity payment under consent term
HC dismisses company appeal, states that there is no infirmity in CLB order for ordering gratuity payment by Appellant Company to Respondent (director of appellant co.) under consent terms; Notes that the details and basis of gratuity calculations were not contested by appellant company, holds that CLB was entitled to accept gratuity calculation as presented by parties; Observes that CLB order was passed u/s 402 of Companies Act, 1956 wherein payment of gratuity was part of it, holds that CLB has complete jurisdiction to pass such order and direct its implementation, states that "it cannot be suggested that CLB ought to have treated this as dispute concerning gratuity arising under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1971 & ordered parties to approach authorities for resolving dispute"; Rejects appellant co.'s submission that respondent being a director holding more than 5% of voting right is not entitled to be treated as 'employee' under scheme of gratuity registered LIC, holds that Section 4(5) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1971 (relating to payment of gratuity) does not affect employee's right to receive better terms of gratuity under any employer's contract; HC acknowledges the letters addressed by LIC relating to total accumulation value of gratuity payable and communication between appellant company & respondent, observes that Respondent was entitled to receive such gratuity as suitable provisions were made by appellant co. for making gratuity payment:Bombay HC
The ruling was delivered by Justice S.C. Gupte.
Advocate Mayur Khandeparkar argued for Appellants while Advocates P.D. Sampat and Vilas A. Jadhav argued for respondents.
Dear Patrons,
Recently, Bombay High Court granted a John Doe order to Phantom Films in apprehension of breach of its copyright in movie 'Masaan' by certain websites. Similarly, Delhi High Court granted a John Doe order to Fox Star Studios, for likelihood of infringement of its copyright in film 'Bombay Velvet' against various websites indulged in hosting /streaming infringing and illegal content [LSI-551-HC-2015-(DEL)].
Observing the recent trend of John Doe orders, Mr. Kartik Chawla of SpicyIP writes, "Our Courts seem to be making a habit of giving out John Doe orders on the basis of the 'likeliness' or 'possibility' of piracy, with a very minimal standard of evidence". He also points out that not only such orders are given on the basis of minimal evidence, but ex-parte too. Citing the British case law Bloomsbury Publishing Plc v. Newsgroup Newspapers wherein guidelines with regard to John Doe Orders are laid down, Mr Chawla states, "The practice is heavily problematic, but it would seem that our Courts are intent on moving forward with this regime despite its very fundamental legal flaws".
Click here to read this IP Corner story : "The Trend and Tumour that is a John Doe Order"
Best Regards,
LSI Team
On Friday, 31 July 2015 1:43 AM, "info@cliofindia.com" <info@cliofindia.com> wrote:
Attention ITR ONLINE users:
ITR ONLINE is now part of
TLOL Suite 3.0
and so is
COMPANY CASES
and
soon VAT and Service Tax cases
and
Goods and Service Tax Reports too.TLOL SUITE 3.0 -
The Complete Tax and Company Law Reference
Click here to view subject index
www.cliofindia.com info@cliofindia.com
COMPANY CASES (CC) HIGHLIGHTS
F Where wilful disobedience of order of CLB amounts to contempt of court subordinate to High Court, no remedy and order of conviction restored : E. Bapanaiah v. K. S. Raju p. 246
F Sale of shares to be only through stock exchange and subject to sections 77 and 77A of the 1956 Act : EDC Ltd. v. GKB Ophthalmics Ltd. (Bom) p. 262
F Asset reconstruction company permitted to be substituted as party in place of financial institution as secured creditor and to take possession of assets of company : Pashupati Haryana Woolens Ltd. (in liquidation), In re (P & H) p. 276
F Where no fund or assets for realisation, company in liquidation ordered to be dissolved : Electronic Circuits Ltd. (in liquidation), In re (Raj) p. 282
F Pendency of reference before BIFR in respect of petitioner not ground for delay in initiating action against company within limitation : Supriya Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. (P & H) p. 284
F No right in guarantor to apply for revival of company : Kirtivan D. Kotian (Dr.) v. Mohan Singh (Karn) p. 288
F Where company unable to clear its debts and neglecting to satisfy demand without any sustainable reasons, petition admitted : SIMS Metal Management Ltd. v. Sabari Exim P. Ltd. (Mad) p. 293
F Bar in section 10A(6) of 1949 Act does not operate in respect of appointment of director made in compliance with requirements under sub-section (2) : Mrs. YES Bank Ltd. v. Madhu Ashok Kapur (Bom) p. 312
F Registration and issue of certificate of sale under SARFAESI Act-Looking into legal aspects-G. S. Dubey p. 62
F Territorial jurisdiction under dishonour of cheques : A puddle of muddle-Ashutosh Mishra p. 49
To Unsubscribe : Reply back with "Unsubscribe" in subject followed by the key word "ITR" or "CC" or "VST" or "ITR (Trib)" or "GSTR", respectively or "All" if you do not want any Email. ITR : Income Tax Reports, CC : Company Cases, VST : VAT and Service Tax Cases, GSTR : Goods and Service Tax Reports, ITR (Trib) : ITR'S Tribunal Tax Reports. Also send your feedback or comments to info@cliofindia.com
COMPANY LAW INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT. LTD.
No. 2, Vaithyaram Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017.
Phone: (044) 24350752 - 55
Fax: (044) 24322015
info@cliofindia.com
__._,_.___
ReplyDeleteFor genuine and Serious inquiry of any form of banking instrument (BG/SBLC/MTN/DLC/LC) Which can be engage in PPP Trading, Discounting, signature project(s) such as Aviation, Agriculture, Petroleum, Telecommunication,automobile, construction of Dams, Bridges, Real Estate and all kind of projects,please Contact : Mr. Mahendra Jain ,Email :Draj.bgbroker@gmail.com Skype ID: Jaindra.bglease