Orders and Judgments Duration March 08-22, 2020

Home / Articles

Orders and Judgments Duration March 08-22, 2020

“THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE IS THE GREATEST LAW.”

MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO

EMPLOYMENT

Punjab and Sind Bank and Others v. Mrs Durgesh Kuwar

Supreme Court reiterates that sexual harassment at workplace violates fundamental rights of women

The Supreme Court observed that sexual harassment at the workplace violates a woman’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court further emphasized that such acts also interfere with a woman’s right to practice any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business with dignity.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details

WORDS & PHRASES

Mallika v. Union of India and The State of Tamil Nadu

Madras High Court clarifies meaning of “Eminent Senior Advocate” under SC/ST Rules

The Madras High Court clarified that the expression “Eminent Senior Advocate” used in the SC/ST Rules is not synonymous with a “Designated Senior Advocate” under the Advocates Act.

The Court observed that the word “eminent” refers to a lawyer possessing expertise, skill and experience in a particular field of law, irrespective of formal designation as Senior Advocate.

The Bench further held that such advocates may be considered eligible for providing legal assistance before Special Courts under the relevant Rules.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
View Details

CORPORATE

Union of India v. P.D. Sunny & Ors

Supreme Court stays High Court orders restraining tax recovery and bank recovery measures during COVID-19

The Supreme Court stayed orders passed by the Kerala High Court and Allahabad High Court which had restrained authorities from initiating tax recovery and bank recovery proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Court intervened against directions preventing levy of taxes and recovery of dues during the lockdown period.

The Order can be accessed at:
View Details

Angul Energy Limited v. Union of India and Ors

Corporate debtor not liable for offences committed prior to commencement of CIRP after approval of resolution plan

The Delhi High Court held that a corporate debtor cannot be prosecuted for offences committed prior to commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process once a resolution plan has been approved under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

The Court observed that after approval of the resolution plan and change in management, the corporate debtor stands discharged from prosecution for prior offences.

The proceedings initiated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office and the summons issued against the corporate debtor were accordingly set aside.

The Judgement can be accessed at:
Read More

alayalegal

Most Recent Posts

All Posts
Articles

Orders and Judgments Duration March 08-22, 2020

Home / Articles