Legal Reference Library

In M/s Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. vs. State of MP, a single bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held if the fundamental right of aggrieved party is not infringed than it is beyond the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider relief sought by the employer again. The court dismissed a petition filed by a private firm providing vehicles to 108 Emergency Ambulance Services of the State government. The government has outsourced the transportation to the petitioner private firm. Some differences cropped up between the petitioner private firm and its employees in respect of working hours, payment of wages and other service conditions led the the association of employees to give a demand letter to the petitioner. Justice Sanjay Yadav said “there exist a dispute between the employer and employees and the petitioner has already taken recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947”. “The matter is under active consideration bef...

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...

                                                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION                 WRIT PETITION NO.73 OF 2014 GSL (India) Ltd.                                       ... Petitioner          v/s     Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. ... Respondents 46. We have carefully perused the reasoning of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Amish Jain1 and with the great respect and utmost humility, we are unable to agree with the view expressed therein. Firstly, we are unable to agree with the finding of t...

The Supreme Court last week gave thumbs up to settlement of disputes against litigation among business family members when it ended three-decade row in the case, Rajni Sanghi vs Western Indian State Motors Ltd. The court ruled that if the parties settled their differences amicably, their agreement shall prevail though there were other proceedings like arbitration. Even if there is an arbitration award, which has not been made into a decree of the court, the family arrangement will override it. This was a case of partition of business among four branches of a family whose head died in 1961. Differences cropped up in the 1980s and there was litigation in three high courts with complicated questions of fact and law. There was also an arbitration award which was not made decree of the court. Meanwhile, the parties filed settlement deeds before the Bombay and Rajasthan high courts. The disputes continued over technical details. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the settlement arrived at ...

A contractual dispute should not be decided by a high court by appointing a commission and going into facts, the Supreme Court stated while setting aside the order of the high court in the judgment, State of Kerala vs M K Jose. In this case, a contract for building a road was not completed on time despite extensions. The contract was terminated and the earnest money was forfeited, leading to the writ petition in the high court. It appointed a commission to go into the disputed facts and allowed the petition of the contractor. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that "this kind of orders in a contractual matter is ill-conceived. They not only convert the controversy to a disturbing labyrinth, but encourage frivolous litigation." The high court was criticised for allowing a roving enquiry while the contractor was abusing the process of law.

1. Is a dispute brought before the Company Law Board invoking the provisions of Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 at all referable to a private tribunal, viz., an arbitral panel for resolution? Does a decision of a foreign court on the question of whether a dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement bind the Company Law Board? These are among the questions of law canvassed in this group of appeals. List of Authorities & Decisions Referred/Cited 1. Haryana Telecom Ltd v Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd, (1999) 5 SCC 688. 2. Bennett Coleman & Co. v Union of India & Ors., 1977 (47) Comp Cas 92 3. Manavendra Chitnis & Anr. v Leela Chitnis Studios P. Ltd. & Ors., 1985 (58) Comp Cas 113 4. Surendra Kumar Dhawan & Anr. v R. Vir & Ors., [1977] 47 Comp Cas 276 (Delhi) 5. O.P. Gupta v Shiv General Finance (P.) Ltd. & Ors., [1977] 47 Comp Cas 279 (Delhi) 6. Das Lagerway Wind Turbines Ltd. v Cynosure Investments P. Ltd., [2009] 147 Com...