Legal Reference Library

In H.P. State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. State of H.P., the Himachal Pradesh High Court held that dues to the State shall have priority. Referring to various judgments, the court said - “126. While enacting the DRT Act and the Securitisation Act, Parliament was aware of the law laid down by this Court wherein priority of the State dues was recognised. If Parliament intended to create first charge in favour of banks, financial institutions or other secured creditors on the property of the borrower, then it would have incorporated a provision like Section 529-A of the Companies Act or Section 11(2) of the EPF Act and ensured that notwithstanding series of judicial pronouncements, dues of banks, financial institutions and other secured creditors should have priority over the State’s statutory first charge in the matter of recovery of the dues of sales tax, etc. However, the fact of the matter is that no such provision has been incorporated in either of these enactments despite conf...

The Delhi high court on Saturday has struck down a central tax on shortterm accommodation of less than three months in a hotel, inn, guest house, club or campsite as "unconstitutional and invalid". A bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Najmi Waziri said a seperate "luxury tax" is already being levied by states on such accomodations and central government can't encroach on the preseve of states in this regard. The ruling will reduce the tax burden on customers whoavail such accomodation in the city since they won't have to pay both luxury and service tax. However, the bench upheld another levy imposed by the Centre as service tax on food and beverages served in airconditioned restaurants and hotels across the country. The court's decision came on the petition of a National Federation of Hotels and Restaurants Association of India, city based luxury hotel Leela Palace and restaurant Rodeo challenging the levy of both central taxes on the ground...

W.P.Nos.39022 and 36735 of 2015 Dr.T.Rajakumari vs The Government of Tamil Nadu, ONCE a High Court strikes down the provisions of a Central Act, the same cannot be selectively applied in other States. Thus there is no question of applicability of the provisions struck down by the High Court as of now until and unless the Supreme Court sets aside the judgment or stays the operation of the judgment, the first Bench of the Madras High Court has asserted. The Bench of Chief Justice SK Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan was on Wednesday disposing of a PIL from Dr T Rajakumari and three other doctors seeking to declare the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques  (Six months training) Rules, 2014 as beyond the scope of the Act 57 of 1995 and inconsistent with the Medical Council of India Act and Regulations. The Bench said the Delhi High Court by an order dated February 17. 2016 had declared certain provisions of the Central Act, including sec. 3(3)(1)(b), as ultra vires the ...

When there is a labour dispute in a central government undertaking, the state government where it is situated can refer the issues to a labour court there according to its law. It is not essential that the central government should refer it according to the Industrial Disputes Act, the central law, the Supreme Court stated when a dispute arose between the workers of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in Nashik, Maharashtra, and the central undertaking. The Supreme Court, thus, quashed the Bombay High Court order, which held a different view. This is a question, which has arisen in several cases when a central industry is situated in a state. Though there have been decisions in the cases of Air India, SAIL and Heavy Engineering Corporation, the issue has cropped up again. In this case, the workers' union filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. The labour court found that HAL had indulged in unfair practices and ordered rei...