Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The court held that the appropriate government, while considering whether to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute on merits. Its function is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. It cannot delve into the merits and determine the dispute itself. The authority erred by refusing reference on the technical ground that the petitioner worked only 85 days without substantiating further employment claim. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appropriate government for making a reference of the dispute.
The court held that the appropriate government, while considering whether to make a reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is not entitled to adjudicate the dispute on merits. Its function is administrative, not judicial or quasi-judicial. It cannot delve into the merits and determine the dispute itself. The authority erred by refusing reference on the technical ground that the petitioner worked only 85 days without substantiating further employment claim. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the appropriate government for making a reference of the dispute.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.