Legal Reference Library

In Madan Kumar Athya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held the personal inconvenience, etc. cannot be a ground to challenge transfer from one place to another by an employee if it do not run contrary to statutory provisions. The court turned down the relief sought by the employee to get transfer to a nearby place on health ground and ailing old-aged mother dependent on him. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/personal-inconvenience-not-ground-challenge-transfer-mp-hc-read-order/

On December 7, 2016, a notification was issued by the Central Government, through the Corporate Ministry, it stated- All petitions relating to winding up under clause (e) of Section 433 pending before High Courts, and which have not been served on the Respondent as required by Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, stand transferred to the appropriate Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) exercising territorial jurisdiction over the mater. In light of the above notification, Neelkamal Realtors contended before the High Court that the winding up petitions filed against it, ought to be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal. Whereas the petitioners argued that since the petition has been served to the respondents under Rule 26, the transfer notification did not apply to them and the Bombay High Court retains its jurisdiction over them. Since the issue pertains to a particular notification that may potentially decide the fate of many petitions filed before t...

In Namboothiri Trust Vs. Government, a student secures admission in a college, completes the first year, applies to the University for inter-college transfer and secures it; the college compels the student to pay liquidated damages for the loss of fee it suffers because of the student’s leaving the college mid-course. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that the college is justified in demanding and collecting the liquidated damages from the student.

Whether old age of the accused and long distance travel difficulty, can be a ground to transfer a criminal case? Madras High Court, in a recent order, observed that such concerns are not a valid ground for transferring a case. The accused, in a corruption case, had sought transfer of Trial from a Court situated 1000 kilometres away from his place of residence, on the ground of his inconvenience on account of his age as well as his present place of residence. The Prosecution contested his plea on the ground that case has become part-heard and some witnesses have already been examined. Justice P.Devadass observed: “it is quite natural in the present set up, he has to undergo some inconvenience. But, the Court has to see whether by this his defence is prejudiced. He has engaged a counsel to defend himself. Except the stated inconvenience, there is no bottleneck for defending himself as against the charges levelled against him. On account of the said inconvenience, we cannot transfer the c...

Dilip Manhar Parekh vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) COURT: ITAT Mumbai CORAM: Amit Shukla (JM), Ramit Kochar (AM) SECTION(S): 2(47), 54F GENRE: Domestic Tax CATCH WORDS: binding precedent, exemption, transfer COUNSEL: Dr. K. Shivram DATE: April 15, 2016 (Date of pronouncement) DATE: April 28, 2016 (Date of publication) AY: 2007-08 CITATION: S. 54F: The demolition of a structure does not amount to a "transfer". It is not correct to contend that Vania Silk Mills 191 ITR 647 (SC) is overruled by Grace Collis 248 ITR 323 (SC). Lower authorities cannot refuse to apply binding High Court judgements on the basis that the High Court has not considered a Supreme Court judgement (i) The demolition of the structure would not constitute a transfer of the assets in terms of Section 54(3) of the Act in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Vania Silk Mills P. Ltd. v. CIT, reported in 191 ITR 647. In the above case, the Apex Court has held that when an ass...

The right to maintenance of a Hindu widow is not a "mere formality" but a spiritual and moral right that can be judicially enforced upon by claiming "absolute right" on the property given to her for sustaining herself, the Supreme Court has ruled. A bench, headed by Justice M Y Eqbal, while upholding a Andhra Pradesh high court verdict in favour of a widow who had transferred the property willed to her by her husband for her lifetime to a relative, said it was the woman's "absolute right" and she was free to bequeath the property. "It is well settled that under the Hindu Law, the husband has got a personal obligation to maintain his wife and if he is possessed of properties, then his wife is entitled to a right to be maintained out of such properties. "It is equally well settled that the claim of Hindu widow to be maintained is not a mere formality which is to be exercised as a matter of concession, grace or gratis but is a valuable,...

1.  [Gurpreet Singh Ahluwalia vs. District Magistrate Dehradun & Ors.] (Uttarakhand HC, 13.01.2015) Properties of the borrower were taken into possession by the Bank followed by auction notices for sale of the properties in question calling upon the bids from the interested purchasers. Pursuant to completion of bidding process, part deposit was made by the successful bidder out of total consideration amount with the Bank and bank was requested to get the properties auctioned demarcated so that sale deed may be executed in favour of the successful bidder after receiving balance consideration and physical possession thereof could also be handed over. Several requests were made to the concerned authority to demarcate the properties auctioned so that Bank may receive the balance of the consideration from the bidder and to also execute the sale deed in favour of the highest bidder. However still no demarcation was carried out and the Bank instead of pursuing the demarcation proce...