Transfer-pricing aggregation of distinct support-service and subcontract transactions was rejected, while debt-free receivables attracted no notional ...
Customs exemptions cover photovoltaic assembly machinery and PVF backsheets, while fully declared cleared imports may avoid confiscation and penalties...
Specific tariff classification for LCD devices overrides treatment as electricity-meter parts, defeating differential duty, extended limitation, and p...
Stayed disciplinary punishment does not establish unfitness for insolvency professional registration; reconsideration must disregard mere pendency of ...
Indirect corporate control can create related-party status, excluding financial creditors from Committee of Creditors representation, participation an...
Page of 4881
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
101 to 120 of 97618 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
SC held that key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, including those on minimum age, curtailed tenure, upper age caps, panel selection process, and equivalence of service conditions with civil servants, are unconstitutional. The Court found that Parliament had impermissibly reenacted, in altered form, provisions previously struck down, without curing the constitutional defects, amounting to a legislative override of binding judicial directions. Such measures were held violative of constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, judicial independence, and Article 14. SC clarified that while Parliament may enact curative legislation, it cannot disregard or nullify prior judicial pronouncements. The offending provisions were struck down, with protection extended to affected tribunal members whose appointments had been delayed and improperly subjected to the new regime. Petitions were disposed of.
SC held that key provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, including those on minimum age, curtailed tenure, upper age caps, panel selection process, and equivalence of service conditions with civil servants, are unconstitutional. The Court found that Parliament had impermissibly reenacted, in altered form, provisions previously struck down, without curing the constitutional defects, amounting to a legislative override of binding judicial directions. Such measures were held violative of constitutional supremacy, separation of powers, judicial independence, and Article 14. SC clarified that while Parliament may enact curative legislation, it cannot disregard or nullify prior judicial pronouncements. The offending provisions were struck down, with protection extended to affected tribunal members whose appointments had been delayed and improperly subjected to the new regime. Petitions were disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.