“THE EXECUTION OF LAWS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE MAKING OF THEM”
ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai v. M/s I-Ven Interactive Limited, Mumbai
Assessment notice sent to old PAN address valid if assessee failed to update records – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that assessment notices sent to the address available in PAN records cannot be treated as invalid merely because the assessee failed to update the new address.
The Court observed that the Income Tax Department had duly issued notices based on official PAN records maintained by the assessee.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Manju Sipayya v. Directorate of Education & Ors.
Maximum autonomy must be granted to private unaided educational institutions – Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court reiterated that private unaided schools should enjoy maximum autonomy in administration and management.
The Court observed that excessive governmental interference would undermine the independence and functioning of such educational institutions.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
CORPORATE
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) – 1 v. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.
Ex-parte order cannot be recalled when notice served upon company’s Chartered Accountant – Supreme Court
The Supreme Court rejected a plea seeking recall of an ex-parte order where notice had already been personally served upon the company’s Chartered Accountant.
The Court observed that proper service upon authorized representatives satisfies procedural requirements under law.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Mukut Pathak & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
Delhi High Court clarifies law relating to disqualification of directors under Section 164(2) Companies Act
The Delhi High Court clarified that disqualification under Section 164(2) of the Companies Act may apply even where defaults in filing financial statements occurred prior to 2014.
The Court held that the provision does not operate retrospectively merely because it draws upon earlier defaults to determine present disqualification consequences.
The Bench further observed that directors of companies failing to file annual returns for three consecutive years may validly incur statutory disqualification.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
COMPETITION LAW
Saurabh Tripathy v. Competition Commission of India & Anr.
Director General report not binding upon Competition Commission – Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that the Competition Commission of India is not bound by findings contained in the Director General’s investigation report.
The Court clarified that the Commission may independently disagree with the report and close proceedings if no contravention of competition law is established.
The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details
Air Works India (Engineering) Private Limited v. GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited & Anr.
CCI orders investigation against Hyderabad airport operator for alleged abuse of dominance
The Competition Commission of India directed investigation into allegations that GMR Hyderabad International Airport Limited abused its dominant position and denied market access to Air Works India.
The Commission observed prima facie indications of exclusionary conduct favouring an affiliated entity operating in the downstream market.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
In Re: Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Associations of India and Ors.
CCI orders probe against GoIbibo-MakeMyTrip and OYO for alleged anti-competitive practices
The Competition Commission of India directed a detailed investigation into allegations against GoIbibo-MakeMyTrip and OYO involving anti-competitive agreements, deep discounting and denial of market access.
The Commission observed prima facie evidence suggesting preferential treatment arrangements and possible abuse of dominant position in the online hotel booking market.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Vinit Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Bombay High Court quashes phone tapping orders citing violation of privacy rights
The Bombay High Court quashed interception orders issued by the Union Home Ministry authorizing telephone surveillance in a bribery investigation.
The Court observed that interception powers may be exercised only during public emergencies or in the interest of public safety and must strictly comply with privacy safeguards.
The Court further directed destruction of unlawfully intercepted communications.
Swami Ramdev & Anr. v. Facebook Inc. & Ors.
Delhi High Court directs global removal of defamatory online content against Ramdev
The Delhi High Court directed Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter to globally remove defamatory content uploaded from India concerning Swami Ramdev.
The Court held that geo-blocking access within India alone would not sufficiently comply with obligations under the Information Technology Act.
The Bench observed that intermediary platforms must ensure effective enforcement of judicial directions relating to unlawful online content.
Suparn Pandey v. Gayatri Dahiya
Requests to restrict media reporting must be moved before court hearing original matter – Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that applications seeking postponement or restriction of media reporting can only be filed before the court where the principal proceedings are pending.
The Court clarified that separate courts cannot ordinarily entertain such requests independently.
The Order can be accessed at:
View Details
