Book 2 - MCS Saarthi DVS

Chapter 1
Company Law
Regular Cases 66 1 to 66
Additional Cases 2 AC 1 to AC 2
*All images here are purely for representative and educational purposes only.
62 63 64 65 66 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
10
61 9
8 22
60 7
6
23
59 5
4 24
58
3 25
57
2
26
56
1 Oppression and Amalgamation BIFR/SICA 27
55 Mismanagement and Merger Winding up
/Sick Company
54 28
53 29
52 30
51 31
50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 33 32
62 63 64 65 66 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
10
61 9
8 22
60 Government 7
company 6
23
59 5
4 24
58
3 Striking off 25
57
2
26
56
1 Refusal to Income Tax Act Lease Constitution
55 27
register shares (Article 19)
54 28
53 29
52 30
51 31
50 49 48 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 33 32
SHUBHAMM SUKHLECHA MENTORSHIP (7820898477)
Chapter 2
Securities Law
Regular Cases 14 (67 – 80)
Additional Cases 3 AC 3 to AC 5
67 Factors for determining quantum of penalty. (Illustrative or
exhaustive)
Intermediaries
(broker/under 68 Penalty becomes payable on adjudicating officers order
writer related)
69 Merely for violation for .04% of shares, penalty of giving open offer is
disproportionate
70 cheques for margin money were collected but not deposited/credited
71 matching trades/ synchronized trading/ circular trading
Powers of 72 Issue of Non-convertible debentures

SEBI / A.O.
73 SEBI can take cognizance on its own for any default
Acquirer (Individual or company) can not appoint director on the target
74 company during the offer period
Takeover code
75 administrative orders/circulars by SEBI can not be appealed in SAT
76 Calculation of offer price (laurel vala case)
77 Interest will be charged only up till the date of the order
78 Merger for complying with minimum net worth

underwriter discharged his obligation by procuring applications from third
79 party, there is no default on part of the company
80 SEBI’s circular regarding implementation of the policy.

Chapter 3
Economic Law
Additional Cases - -
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
92
93
IPR PMLA
94
95
96
Cheque dishonor cases
97
98
124 99
123 100
Consumer
122 Protection Act
101
Insurance related cases
121 102
120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91
92
93
94
Arbitration Act
95
International Arbitration
(Foreign Award) 96
97
98
124 99
123 100
122 101
121 102
120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103
Chapter 4
Insolvency Law
Additional Cases 5 AC 6 – AC 10
125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137
Recovery of debt Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 SARFAESI Act, 2002
due to Banks and FI
Act, 1993
138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
Chapter 5
Competition Law
Additional Cases - -
151. Airtel case 169. Picasso case 187. MIDC electricity case 205. Indian Oil Corp. case
152. Mahyco Biotech case 170. Newspaper case 188. Transport department C 206. IPL Broadcasting case
153. Snapdeal case 171. BOCAD license case 189. Coal case 207. Shoppers stop case
154. Vedanta Bio case 172. DLF case 190. Haryana Dev. authority C 208. Panasonic battery case
155. Suger cartel case 173. Container terminal case 191. Dwarikesh suger Ind. C 209. Timex group case
156. Sana Realtors case 174. Indiabulls case 192. Kerela state electricity C. 210. Raj. cylinder case
157. Indiabulls case 175. Ghaziabad development C. 193. Gujrat energy case 211. Mobile phone case
158. Oil green pipe case 176. The Mahabharat case 194. Coal India Ltd. case 212. Flipkart case
159. Railway disk brake case 177. Kotak bank case 195. Jet Airways case 213. Railways rounding off C
160. Asianpaints case 178. MSEB case 196. Honda case
CASE DISMISSED
161. Doordarshan case 179. Roche Group’s medicine C. 197. Everyday batteries case
162. Meru v Uber case 180. Hyundai motors case 198. Haryana town case
163. Britannia case 181. Airtel case 199. India Suger Mill ass. case
INVESTIGATION
164. Unauthorized marathon C 182. Gail India case 200. Banking sector (SMC) ORDERED
165. NSDL case 183. Container terminal system C. 201. BMW case
166. Magicbricks.com case 184. Coal bid-rigging case 202. Wealth mang. co case
DECISION GIVEN
167. Rural electrification case 185. Airport CASS case 203. Deposit requirement C (IMP)
168. JCB case 186. Skoda case 204. F&F housing dev case
204 205 205 206 207 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166
203 208 157
167
202 156 Real estate
209
Government 168
201 related 210 155
169
200 211 154
Bank/NBFC
212 153 170
199
213 152 171
198 E-commerce
Battery 151 172
197
Container related
Automobile (car/bikes) 173
196
195 Airlines 174
Telecom Electricity related

194 Coal 175
193 176
192 191 190 189 188 187 186 185 184 183 182 181 180 179 178 177
Green Cases
Where no violation has been
proved against the OP and
hence the case has been
dismissed.
156 Ms. DEJEE SINGH & ORS v. SANA REALTORS PVT LTD [CCI] Sana Realtors case
157 KANHAIYA SINGHAL v. INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LTD & ORS [CCI] Indiabulls case
160 BELARANI BHATTACHARYYA v. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. [CCI] Asianpaints case
162 MERU TRAVEL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD v. UBER INDIA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD & ORS [CCI] Meru v Uber case
163 TAMIL NADU CONSUMER PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION v. BRITANNIA Britannia case
INDUSTRIES LTD & ORS [CCI]
166 CONFEDERATION OF REAL ESTATE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. Magicbricks.com case
MAGICBRICKS.COM & ORS [CCI] As there is competition in the
168 SOUTHWEST INDIA MACHINE TRADING PVT LTD v. CASE NEW HOLLAND JCB case relevant market,
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT INDIA PVT LTD [CCI dominance can not be
169 PICASSO ANIMATION PRIVATE LTD v. PICASSO DIGITAL MEDIA PVT LTD [CCI] Picasso case established,
170 RAKESH SANGHI v. BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY LTD & ANR [CCI] Newspaper case and hence there is no
question of violation of
171 VEER PRATAP NAIK v. AVEVA INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDIA PVT LTD [CCI] BOCAD license case
section 4.
173 INDIAN COMPETITION REVIEW v. GATEWAY TERMINALS INDIA PVT LTD & ORS Container terminal
[CCI] case
177 ADITYA AUTOMOBILE SPARES PVT. LTD & ORS v. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD Kotak bank case
[CCI]
181 BHARTI AIRTEL LTD v. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD & ANR [CCI] Airtel case
201 PARSOLI MOTOR WORKS PVT. LTD v. BMW INDIA PVT. LTD & ORS [CCI] BMW case
202 JAIDEEP UGRANKAR v. CLIENT ASSOCIATES [CCI] Wealth mang. co case
209 M/S COUNFREEDISE v. TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD [CCI] Timex group case
153 JASPER INFOTECH PVT LTD (SNAPDEAL) v. KAFF APPLIANCES (INDIA) Caution notice on the website does not
PVT. LTD [CCI] prove RPM. (not enough evidence)
Snapdeal case
155 RAVI PAL v. ALL INDIA SUGAR TRADE ASSOCIATION & ANR [CCI] Dissemination of already available
Suger cartel case information about bids does not
amount to any violation.
158 OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR LTD. v. MAHARASHTRA SEAMLESS LTD [CCI] OP did not respond to the quotation
Oil green pipe case
mail as OP was itself an applicant for the
tender invited by ONGC.
159 DEPUTY CHIEF MATERIALS MANAGER, RAIL COACH FACTORY, In an oligopolistic market,
(210) KAPURTHALA, PUNJAB v. FAIVELEY TRANSPORT INDIA LTD & ORS. merely identical bids does not
[COMPAT]
Railway disk brake case amount to bid rigging.
161 PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA) v. TAM OP is in dominant position, but is
MEDIA RESEARCH PRIVATE LTD [CCI] not abusing its dominant position.
Doordarshan case
If NSDL intends to enter into RTI/STA
165 REGISTRARS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA v. NSDL & ORS [CCI] market, it can, and any action can not
NSDL case be taken at the initial stage where
NSDL is in preliminary stage of the plan
167 XYZ v. REC POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD [CCI] As there are other consultancy firms
Rural electrification case also in the market, there is no denial of
market access.
174 ONICRA CREDIT RATING AGENCY OF INDIA LTD v. INDIABULLS Pre-payment penalty clause in the loan
HOUSING FINANCE LTD [CCI] agreement does not violate section 3.
Indiabulls case
178 VIDHARBHA INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION v. MSEB HOLDING COMPANY I alleged various violation against MSEB,
LTD [CCI] which were one by one answered and
MSEB case
no violation was proved.
185 INTERNATIONAL AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION v. AIR CARGO OP did not want to implement CASS, no
AGENTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA [CCI] coercion was proved on Airlines and
Airport CASS case hence no violation.
186 AKHIL R. BHANSALI v. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR [CCI]
Poor quality of service by authorized
Skoda case
dealer, no competition law issue exist,
hence dismissed.
187 MAHARASHTRA ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION v. Tender was given to OP despite
MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION & ANR
[CCI]
ineligible as per conditions, no
MIDC electricity case competition law issue exist.
188 ASSOCIATION OF REGISTRATION PLATES MANUFACTURERS OF Tailor made pre eligible criteria for
INDIA. v. SHIMNIT UTSCH INDIA PRIVATE LTD & ORS [CCI]
Transport department C
bidding along with collusion of transport
department, no competition law issue.
189 VIJAY MENON v. MAHARASHTRA STATE POWER GENERATION CO LTD If enquiry is pending, one can not bid.
[CCI]
Coal case
Such condition is allowed to invite bids.
191 DWARIKESH SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD v. WAVE DISTILLERIES & Government policy to sell certain % of
BREWERIES LTD & ORS [CCI] molasses within state, does not violate any
Dwarikesh suger Ind. C
provision of Competition Act.
192 C.P. PAUL v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR [CCI] Hotel electricity tariff was upgraded and
Kerela state electricity C connection was cut for non payment, no
competition law issue exist.
194 INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE ASSOCIATION v. COAL INDIA LIMITED & Case against govt. decision for Coal linkages
ORS [CCI] to be e-auctioned, held highly pre mature.
Coal India Ltd. case
199 INDIA GLYCOLS LTD v. INDIAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ORS Government policy to only sell petrol
[CCI] blended with ethanol, and creating artificial
India Suger Mill ass. case
market for ethanol, held no violation exist.
200 ANTI-COMPETITIVE PRACTICES PREVAILING IN BANKING SECTOR Similar SBIT across all banks, not a cartel.
[CCI]
Banking sector (SMC)
205 XYZ v. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS [CCI] While inviting bids, giving a price band is
Indian Oil Corp. case allowed.
207 RAJENDRA AGARWAL v. SHOPPERS STOP LIMITED [CCI] Issue regarding terms of a discount voucher
Shoppers stop case is a consumer dispute, no competition law
issue exist.
211 TAMIL NADU CONSUMER PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTORS Vivo’s policy that its dealer can not sell mobile
ASSOCIATION v. FANGS TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD phones of Oppo and honour,
(Vivo) & ANR [CCI]
Mobile phone case
Held that the restriction is just foe two brands and
not for all the brands, hence no violation.
212 ALL INDIA ONLINE VENDORS ASSOCIATION v.
FLIPKART INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR [CCI] The allegation was that flipkart is giving preference to
Flipkart case certain products produced by its group companies,
abusing its dominance, it was held that a few
competitors exist and also that the entry barriers is
very less and hence there is no dominance.
Red Cases
Where prima facie
violation has occurred and
hence investigation has been
ordered.
164 DEPARTMENT OF SPORTS v. ATHLETICS FEDERATION OF AFI decided to take action against the
INDIA [CCI] unauthorized marathons, without
Unauthorised marathon case their permission, - abuse of dominant
position, I.O.
175 SATYENDRA SINGH v. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT OP made flats for EWC and later
AUTHORITY [CCI] demanded 7 L. instead of 2 L., - abuse
Ghaziabad development case of dominant position, I.O.
179 BIOCON LTD & ORS v. F. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE AG & ORS Roche group degrading the name of
[CCI] informant in the medicine market
Roche groups medicine case among doctors, - abuse of dominant
position, I.O.
182 SHRI RATHI STEEL (DAKSHIN) LTD v. GAIL (INDIA) LTD [CCI] Roche group degrading the name of
Gail India case informant in the medicine market
among doctors, - abuse of dominant
position, I.O.
190 GURGAON INSTITUTIONAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION v. Transfer of flat will require prior
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [CCI] permission of OP, - abuse of dominant
Haryana development authority case position, I.O.S
193 HPCL-MITTAL PIPELINES LTD v. GUJARAT ENERGY Right to choose its electricity supplier
TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD & ORS [CCI] was not given by OP, - abuse of
Gujrat Energy case dominant position, I.O.
Honda scooters is in dominant

196 VISHAL PANDE v. HONDA MOTORCYCLE AND SCOOTER position, as seen by market share, and
INDIA PVT LTD [CCI] imposing unreasonable conditions on
Honda case its dealers, - abuse of dominant
position, I.O.
198 CREDAI-NCR v. DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY Development agreement was entered
PLANNING, HARYANA & ORS [CCI] between Informant and OP, where
Haryana town case unreasonable conditions were put to
the benefit of OP, - abuse of dominant
position, I.O.
204 STARLIGHT BRUCHEM LTD v. FLORA AND FAUNA Manufacturer can not sell liquor
HOUSING & LAND DEVELOPMENTS PVT LTD& ORS [CCI] directly to reseller, and OP is procuring
Liquor case liquor only from their related
companies. - abuse of d. position, I.O.
213 MEET SHAH & OTHER v. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF Railways rounding off the fair to the
RAILWAYS & ORS [CCI] next multiple of 5.- abuse of d.
Railways rounding off case position, I.O.
Blue Cases
Where final decision has been
given / cases of appeal
151 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. If there is an alleged anti-competitive agreement between telecom
BHARTI AIRTEL LTD & ORS [SC] companies, CCI can not directly take up the case and make order,
Airtel case – TRAI v CCI TRAI has to first look into it and then if TRAI finds any violation of
Competition Act, only then a reference to CCI will be made and the
CCI will handle the case.
152 MAHYCO MONSANTO BIOTECH (INDIA) PVT LTD. HC held that Section 48 will be applicable on violation of section 3
v. COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ORS and 4 as well.
[DEL]
Mahyco Biotech case- Section 48
154 VEDANTA BIO SCIENCES v. CHEMISTS AND any trade association can not keep the requirement of NOC to be
DRUGGISTS ASSOCIATION OF BARODA [CCI] obtained to deal in any product or fix margins for its members.
Vedanta Bio case – Trade association
172 ASHUTOSH BHARDWAJ v. DLF LTD & ORS [CCI]

DLF case DLF did not deliver the flats on the due date, progress was also
slow and asked for additional money as well – held to be abusive.
176 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. CO-
ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF ARTISTS AND Barring any TV serial to be dubbed in another
TECHNICIANS OF W.B. FILM AND TELEVISION & language amounts to violation of section 3(3).
ORS [SC]
Mahabharat case
180 FX ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD v.

HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD [CCI]
Hyundai motors case – RPM, oil and lubricant HMIL imposed a “Discount Control Mechanism” which amounted
to Resale Price Maintenance” and also made mandating the
dealers to use recommended oil/lubricant also violated section 3.
183 COCHIN PORT TRUST v. CONTAINER TRAILER OP implemented a ‘Turn System’ under which
OWNERS COORDINATION COMMITTEE [CCI] they not only unilaterally fixed the prices for
Container terminal system C coastal container services, but also led to
limiting and controlling of such services at the
Informant Port, held violated section 3.
184 WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD v. SSV COAL
Identical bids by the coal carriers in the four tenders were
CARRIERS PVT LTD & ORS [CCI]
much above the average estimated costs portray that the
Coal Transport bid-rigging cassse
same could not have been the result of independent decision
making, held violation of section 3.
195 EXPRESS INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF INDIA v. JET
AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. & ORS [CCI] FCS charged by all the airlines together, violated of section 3.
Jet Airways case – Fuel surcharge case (cartelization)
197 CARTELISATION IN RESPECT OF ZINC CARBON All major battery companies agreed to uniform price increase
DRY CELL BATTERIES MARKET IN INDIA AGAINST and control supply, violated section 3. (cartelization)
EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD & ORS [CCI]
Everyday batteries case
203 M/S. B. HIMMATLAL AGRAWAL PARTNER v. 10% deposit was asked by appellant court for the stay application,
COMPETENT COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR [SC] when amount not deposited, the appellate court dismissed the
Deposit requirement Case case, SC held that the AC is wrong is dismissing the case, they can
maximum dismiss the stay granted.
206 CARTELISATION BY BROADCASTING SERVICE Lesser Penalty Application:

PROVIDERS v. ESSEL SHYAM COMMUNICATION • Making true and complete disclosure, extending full cooperation
LTD & ORS [CCI] is considered as mitigating factor and hence penalty is reduced.
IPL Broadcasting case – Lesser Penalty • Conducting a forensic audit or compliance programme after
Application identifying the default is not a mitigating factor.
• First time defaulter is also not a mitigating factor.
208 ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT IN THE DRY-CELL
BATTERIES MARKET IN INDIA AGAINST Lesser Penalty Application:
PANASONIC CORPORATION, JAPAN & ORS [CCI] Making true and complete disclosure, extending full cooperation is
Lesser Penalty Application considered as mitigating factor and hence penalty is reduced.
210 RAJASTHAN CYLINDERS & CONTAINERS LTD v. UOI

(159)
& ORS [SC] In an oligopolistic market, merely identical bids does not amount to
Oligopoly- identical bids case bid rigging.
Chapter 7
Interpretation of Law
214 Police officers power to seize 227 Show cause notice after 13 years 240 Forgery by banks clerk
215 Contract of service terminated 228 Panchayat Tax 241 Advocate can not file case for 138
216 Adverse possession 229 Life Insurance Claim 242 Guidelines for grant of stay.
217 Second application for defense 230 No question of law 243 Land acquisition without
considering objections.
218 Kerala, Tamil Nadu, DRT. DRAT 231 Port berth case Transportation and sale of Gutka
244
Pan masala, multiple Acts voilated
219 Porbandar Factory Case 232 Cooperative courts jurisdiction
245 ICAI case for misconduct.
220 False affidavit 233 Guidelines for BS-III vehicles.
221 Same parties, two cases 234 Experience of subsidiary

in two High Courts
222 Guidelines for Samaritans 235 Maharishi Markandeshwar University Important takeaways
223 Devi Consultancy Services 236 Exemption notification for Pharma cos
Facts oriented cases,
website
no takeaways
224 RBI rejected application for CIC. 237 Tread Pattern
Guidelines issued,
225 Jet Airways and Biman 238 Guidelines for compounding of no takeaways.
Airlines, Bangladesh offence for Section 138.
226 Owner Tenant case 239 Property Tax a part of rent
214 NEVADA PROPERTIES PVT LTD v. THE STATE OF
Police officer power to seizure under section 102 of CRPC does
MAHARASHTRA [SC]
not include power to seize an immovable property.
215 INTERTEK INDIA PVT LTD v. PRIYANKA MOHAN [DEL] The respondent is not claiming re-installment for the service
contract, She is claiming damages for illegal termination and so
the case will continue and the application of petitioner for
dismissing the suit is not allowed
216 RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL v. MANJIT KAUR [SC]
Suit can be filed on the basis of adverse possession for 12
years or more.
217 ANIL KHADKIWALA v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF
If an earlier application for defense has been rejected, still
DELHI [SC]
another application taking some other defense can be filed.
218 THOMAS CHACKO v. THE CHIEF MANAGER, BANK OF High Court of Kerala can order DRAT, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
INDIA & ORS [KER] exercising supervisory jurisdiction as the case has emanates
from DRT, Ernakulum
219 CEMENT WORKERS MANDAL v. GLOBAL CEMENTS Gujrat HC has the jurisdiction even if the registered office of
LTD (HMP CEMENTS LTD) & 0RS [SC] the company is in Calcutta, and DRT Calcutta has issued the
order, as the factory is situated in Gujrat and there is an
unexecuted order of labour court of Gujrat.
220 M/S SCIEMED OVERSEAS INC v. BOC INDIA LIMITED
HC was correct in imposing a cost of 10 lacs for false affidavit
& ORS [SC]
221
Since the issue involved and the remedies asked for are
VILLAYATI RAM MITTAL (P) LTD v. SHAMBHAVI
completely different in the two cases, both the cases can move
CONTRACTORS PVT LTD [DEL]
simultaneously. (one is Shimla and one in Delhi)
222 SAVELIFE FOUNDATION & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA &
ANR [SC] Guidelines for legal framework to protect Samaritans.
Ramesh Rajgopal has not entered any contract in his name,

223 RAMESH RAJAGOPAL v. DEVI POLYMERS PVT. LTD [SC] nor he has received any money in his account, he has just
created the website for the development of the company,
Hence no criminal intent.
224 RESERVE BANK OF INDIA v. ONICRA CREDIT
It is not mandatory for RBI to specify the maximum limit for
INFORMATION CO LTD [DEL]
credit information companies.
225 JET AIRWAYS (INDIA) LTD. v. DHANUKA Jet Airways can not take the benefit of limited liability. Jet
LABORATORIES LTD [DEL] Airways will be liable for the goods.
The owner satisfactorily explained that no other owned
226 BHUPINDER SINGH BAWA v. ASHA DEVI [SC] premise is suitable for the business, hence eviction was
ordered.
227 INNOVATIVE TECH PACK LTD. v. SPECIAL DIRECTOR OF (As the show cause notice was issued after 13 years of the
ENFORCEMENT [DEL] transaction, penalty can not be issued if the appellant was not
able to produce the bill of entry as the proof of import
228
An industrial undertaking can take exemption from tax by
MGR INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION & ANR v. STATE OF
panchayat only if the undertaking has been notified as
U P & ORS [SC]
industrial undertaking through a notification by the govt.
229 D.M.ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. SWAPNA
NAYAK & ORS [SC] Life insurance claim case, SC did not interfere, (no takeaway)
230 FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION v. IRON HC dismissed the case saying no question of law is involved, In
MASTER INDIA (P) LTD [SC] appeal SC pointed out the question of law involved.
231 JSW INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR v. KAKINADA SC interpreted a clause regarding private berth operators at
SEAPORTS LIMITED & ORS [SC] port. (no takeaway)
232 THE MAHARASHTRA STATE COOPERATIVE HOUSING Cooperative court does not have jurisdiction to handle service
FINANCE CORPORATION LTD v. PRABHAKAR SITARAM disputes between employer and employee.
BHADANGE [SC]
233 M.C. MEHTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [SC] Directions given for sale of BS-III vehicles. (no takeaways)
234 CONSORTIUM OF TITAGARH FIREMA ADLER S.P.A.
The holding company being a government owned entity can
TITAGARH WAGONS LTD. v. NAGPUR METRO RAIL
bid on the basis of experience of its subsidiary.
CORPORATION LTD and ANR [SC]
235 MAHARISHI MARKANDESHWAR MEDICAL COLLEGE If a college has already taken affiliation with any university, the
& HOSPITAL v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS state government can not ask the college to also take
[SC] affiliation with the state university.
SC interpreted an exemption notification for pharmaceutical
236 GLAXO SMITHKLINE PHARMACEUTICAL LTD v. companies, where it held that “manufacture” is relevant to
UNION OF INDIA [SC] take the exemption and not “sale price”.
237 APOLLO TYRES LTD. v. PIONEER TRADING Tread pattern of a tyre can be copyrighted.
CORPORATION & ANR [DEL]
238 METERS AND INSTRUMENTS PVT. LTD & ANR v. Guidelines laid down for compounding of offence for Section
KANCHAN MEHTA [SC] 138. (no takeaway)
239 ATMA RAM PROPERTIES PVT LTD. v. THE ORIENTAL Tax recoverable from the tenant under Section 67(3) of the
INSURANCE CO. LTD [SC] NDMC Act as arrears of rent by the appellant cannot be
considered to be forming part of the rent for the purpose of
seeking eviction.
240 CANARA BANK & ANR v. LALIT POPLI (THRIUGH LRs) If a bank has incurred some loss because of the misconduct
[SC] (fraud) of the employee, the ban can withhold the gratuity and
provident fund, to recover the amount.
241 B SUNITHA v. STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR [SC] The advocate can not file a case for section 138 of NI Act for
receiving an amount which is a percentage of decretal
amount. (against professional ethics)
242 ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PVT. LTD & Guidelines issued for grant of stay. (no takeaway)
ANR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [SC]
243 SHIV SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS The collector has not considered the objections filed by the
[SC] appellant, not given any opportunity of being heard, and not
even submitted the report to the govt. and directly passed an
order for land acquisition, SC dismissed collectors order.
244 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. SAYYED HASSAN SAYYED
Proceeding can be initiated under both FSS and IPC. (Food and
SUBHAN [SC]
Safety Standards Act, 2006)
245 COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED Even if the complaint has been settled, still ICAI can take action
ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA v. GURVINDER SINGH [SC] for misconduct of a CA.
Chapter 8
Governance Issues
(Labour Law)
246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259
260
PF related
261
ID Act
262
263
Employee Union related
264
265
Back wages related ESI Act 266
267
288
268
287 Gratuity related 269
286
270
285 284 283 282 281 280 279 278 277 276 275 274 273 272 271
246 POONA EMPLOYEES UNION v. FORCE The appellant union wanted to be the recognized union, and submitted that
MOTORS LIMITED & ANR [SC] 85% of the employees are its members, SC rejected the appeal of the union as
the workers were made to sign the affidavit under the assurance that it would
not be used in any court of law and that if the appellants got successful in
247 MANAGEMENT OF THE BARARA getting recognition, they would ensure that the workers got their dues repaid.
COOPERATIVE MARKETING-
CUMPROCESSING SOCIETY LTD. v. If a workman has received compensation in lieu of right of reinstatement, then
WORKMAN PRATAP SINGH [SC] of course later he can not file a case for reinstatement.
248 EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE Director is considered to be an employee under ESI, Act.
CORPORATION v. VENUS ALLOY PVT.
LTD. [SC] Respondent was removed from job. Respondent was ordered reinstatement by
labour court without back wages on 6.09.2010, but the employer actually
249 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v.
reinstated on 13.12.2014.
SATNARAIN [DEL]
The respondent claimed wages for 6.09.2010 to 13.12.2014.
HC held the wages for 6.09.2010 to 13.12.2014 have to be paid.
250 CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. The PF commissioner determined the dues for the workers through contractors
STANDING CONFERENCE OF PUBLIC also and directed the employer to pay, without summoning the contractors.
ENTERPRISES [DEL] HC directed the PF commissioner to summon all the contractors and then carry
out the requisite assessment again.
251 THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND In this case special allowance will fall in the category of Basic wages and
COMMISSIONER v. VIVEKANANDA contribution to PF has be calculated accordingly. (Any amount which is paid to
VIDYAMANDIR & ORS [SC] everyone will fall in basic wages, if there is any variable earning, paid on the
basis of efficiency, it will not form part of basic wages)
252
An employee of railways, who was a member of PF and has withdrawn all
MODERN TRANSPORTATION
his accumulations on superannuation, if joins another establishment later,
CONSULTATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. &
is not required to be a member of PF again.
ANR. v. C.P.F. COMMISSIONER [SC
253 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. The respondent driver during probation met with an accident and was
JASBIR SINGH [SC] removed by corporation.
The tribunal ordered reinstatement and 50% back wages.
SC set aside back wages and ordered merely reinstatement.
254 GLOBE GROUND INDIA EMPLOYEES
UNION v. LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES Holding Company can not be impleaded to a suit merely because it is the
& ANR [SC] holding company of the party of the suit.
255 THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. v. P.
A simple assault does not amount to an offence involving moral turpitude.
SOUPRAMANIANE [SC]
256 REGIONAL MANAGER, U.P.S.R.T.C. & ANR SC held that the appellant was correct in retiring the respondents at 58
v. MASLAHUDDIN (DEAD) [SC] years as they were placed under Category C because of their revised pay
scale.
257 EMPLOYEE STATE INSURANCE If any establishment is not covered under ESI Act for any particular period,
CORPORATION v. BATRA HOSPITAL & any investigation by ESI corporation can not take place for that period.
MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE & ORS
[DEL] The decision to close the establishment at Pondicherry was taken by the
Company at Aurangabad.
258 NANDRAM v. GARWARE POLYSTER LTD
SC held that both the Labour court at Pondicherry and Aurangabad had the
[SC]
Jurisdiction to entertain the case.
• Compensation has to be paid for death of the employee, even if the
259 JAYA BISWAL & ORS v. BRANCH employee was negligent.
MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL • HC can not reduce the compensation by half saying that it is in the interest
INSURANCE COMPANY LTD & ANR [SC] of justice.
260 ESIC v. A.K. ABDUL SAMAD & ANR
If the Act mentions the minimum fine to be 5,000, the Authority can not
[SC]
impose a fine for 1,000 for that offence.
261 ROYAL WESTERN INDIA TURF CLUB
LTD v. E.S.I.C & ORS [SC] Casual workers are covered under definition of employee as defined in
Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948
262 TAMILNADU TERMINATED FULL TIME
TEMPORARY LIC EMPLOYEES LIC was ordered to absorb workmen along with back wages and other
ASSOCIATION v. S.K. ROY, THE benefits, SC allowed the appeal of ICSI and the order was modified to make ir
CHAIRMAN, LIC [SC] practical, back wages was reduced to 50%.
263 PEPSU ROADWAYS TRANSPORT
On acquisition of a government department by a corporation, the employees
CORPORATION v. S.K.SHARMA & ORS
then ceases to be government employees.
[SC]
264 INDUSTRIAL PROMOTION & SC interpreted the clause in the policy and held that only a theft by forcibly
INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF entry will be covered in the policy.
ORISSA LTD v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
Public hearing is mandatory for Environment clearance, but in this case
CO. LTD & ANR [SC]
environment clearance was granted without public hearing, and hence the
265 ELECTROTHEM (INDIA) LTD v. PATEL court had ordered immediate closure of the plant, SC set aside the order of
VIPULKUMAR RAMJIBHAI & ORS [SC] the court and said that the plant can continue but public hearing has to be
done within next 3 months.
266 GEN SECRETARY, COAL WASHERIES
WORKERS UNION, DHANBAD v.
• Industrial tribunal ordered reinstatement of 35 WM with 30% back wages.
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO
• In appeal, the HC set aside reinstatement and ordered 50,000 to each WM.
MANAGEMENT OF DUGDA WASHERY
• In appeal, the SC increased the compensation to 1,50,000.
OF M/s.BCCL [SC]
267 DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. Excessive unauthorized leaves can be a ground for dismissal.
RAJENDER KUMAR [DEL]
An employee who resigned 3 months back, died while visiting the factory to
268 M/S SILVER TOUCH ENTERPRISES v. meet a friend. The court ordered the employer to pay compensation.
RADHA SHARMA & ANR [DEL] In appeal to HC, fresh adjudication was ordered.
269 JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI v.
To deny gratuity to an employee, there must be termination for an offence
DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER
involving moral turpitude.
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION [SC] Buildings And Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 will be
270 LANCO ANPARA POWER LTD v. STATE applicable on construction of a factory uptill the manufacturing process has
OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS [SC] started, Once manufacturing process has started, then it will be covered in
271 THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK Factories Act and no the above cess Act.
OF INDIA v. SMITA SHARAD Emplyee submitted a forged certificate of passing some examination and got
DESHMUKH & ANR [SC] raise.When found, dismissed from job.
In appeal HC reinstated her with 50% back wages on the ground she was ot
awre that the certificate was forged.
SC set aside the order of HC, as the report of Industrial tribunal clearly proves
that she was aware.
272 Appellant union was the recognized union of Escorts Yamaha, The company
ALL ESCORTS EMPLOYEES UNION v.
was taken over and named Yamaha Motors Ltd., The appellant union wanted
THE STATE OF HARYANA [SC]
to still be the recognized union so amended the constitution clause of its
union to allow employees of YM to be its members, for which the issue lies to
SC that can a union amend its constitution clause?
273 In between YM formed its own union which was held to be the recognized
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
union and hence case dismissed.
CORPORATION v. MANGALAM
PUBLICATIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD [SC] ESI contribution has to be paid over interim wages as well.
274 UTTARAKHAND TRANSPORT
Mere non-supply of the inquiry report does not automatically warrant re-
CORPORATION& ORS. v. SUKHVEER
instatement of the delinquent employee.
SINGH [SC]
275 P. KARUPPAIAH (D) THROUGH LRS. v. • The employee does not become entitled to claim back wages as of right
GENERAL MANAGER, unless the order of reinstatement expressly provides for back wages.
THIRIUVALLUVAR TRANSPORT • To claim back wages, the employee is required to prove with the aid of
CORPORATION [SC] evidence that from the date of his dismissal order till the date of his re-
276
joining, he was not gainfully employed anywhere.
NATIONAL KAMGAR UNION v. KRAN
RADER PVT LTD & ORS. [SC] IT held, more than 100 WM employed, ID Act is applicable.
277 BATRA HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION HC held, less than 100 WM employed, ID Act is not applicable.
v. BATRA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL SC held, more than 100 WM employed, ID Act is applicable.
RESEARCH [DEL] Even charitable hospitals are covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
278 THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL LTD v.
If there is an alternative remedy available, writ can not be entertained
GURVINDER SINGH [DEL]
279 PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED v.
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS [SC] If employer intends to make any material change to the terms of service of
workmen (e.g. retirement age), 21days notice and opportunity of being heard
has to be mandatorily given.
280 DTC SECURITY STAFF UNION (REGD.) The appellant argued that since the pay scale of Delhi Police Force has been
v. DTC & ANR [SC revised, the pay of appelants should also be revised, SC dismissed the case.
281 CHENNAI PORT TRUST v. The Chennai
Port Trust Industrial EMPLOYEES Canteen workers to be treated as regular employees of the port trust
CANTEEN WORKERS WELFARE
ASSOCIATION & ORS. [SC] The respondent was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages, interest,
increment, HRA, conveyance allowance, medical reimbursement, LTC and cost
282 ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD
of litigation as well, by the Labour court.
v. NEELAM BHUTANI [DEL]
HC in appeal modified the order and set aside the medical reimbursement and
283 M/S. G4S FACILITY SERVICES INDIA LTC.
PVT LTD v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT
FUND COMMISSIONER-I [DEL] Appellate tribunal under PF can order the appellant to deposit 50% or more of
the penalty amount to file the appeal.
284 MAHENDRA SINGH v. DELHI POWER
SUPPLY CO. LTD. [DEL] Dismissal is a fair punishment for accepting bribe.
285 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD & ORS v.
COMMISSIONER WORKMEN’S Employer has to pay compensation, even if the workman (iron smith) was
COMPENSATION [J&K appointed through a contractor and got injured during the work.
286 FEDERATION OF OKHLA INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIATION Notification revising the minimum wages was quashed be the
(REGD) & ORS v. Lt. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ANR HC.
[DEL]
287 UNION BANK OF INDIA v. C.G. AJAY BABU [SC] Forfeiture of gratuity is not automatic on dismissal from
service.
Forfeiture of gratuity is permissible only if the termination of
an employee is for any misconduct which constitutes an
offence involving moral turpitude, and convicted accordingly
by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Transferor company can not forfeit the service benefits even if

288 COAL INDIA LTD v. NAVIN KUMAR SINGH [SC] the inter-company transfer is at the request of the employee.

Book 2 - MCS Saarthi DVS

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Book 2 - MCS Saarthi DVS

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 1

71 matching trades/ synchronized trading/ circular trading

Powers of 72 Issue of Non-convertible debentures

76 Calculation of offer price (laurel vala case)

77 Interest will be charged only up till the date of the order

78 Merger for complying with minimum net worth

80 SEBI’s circular regarding implementation of the policy.

195 Airlines 174

Telecom Electricity related

160 BELARANI BHATTACHARYYA v. ASIAN PAINTS LTD. [CCI] Asianpaints case

202 JAIDEEP UGRANKAR v. CLIENT ASSOCIATES [CCI] Wealth mang. co case

Honda scooters is in dominant

172 ASHUTOSH BHARDWAJ v. DLF LTD & ORS [CCI]

180 FX ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD v.

206 CARTELISATION BY BROADCASTING SERVICE Lesser Penalty Application:

210 RAJASTHAN CYLINDERS & CONTAINERS LTD v. UOI

221 Same parties, two cases 234 Experience of subsidiary

Ramesh Rajgopal has not entered any contract in his name,

Back wages related ESI Act 266

Transferor company can not forfeit the service benefits even if

You might also like