bout the Institute The idea of ‘Symbiosis’ is nurtured by Dr. S. B. Mujumdar on the principles of Vedic thought ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ which means ‘World as One Family’. Symbiosis Law School (SLS) Hyderabad was established in 2014 inheriting splendid novelty, dynamism and excellence in the education of Symbiosis International University, Pune. bout the Centre Established in 2018, the Centre for Corporate and Competition Law (CCCL) is a student-run centre aiming to provide a platform for students of the institute to explore and learn more about the nuances of Corporate and Competition Law, and to prepare them for the corporate world. To advance our agenda, CCCL has been successful in conducting multiple landmark events in the history of our institute, which has carved a niche corner for our centre within the legal fraternity. Amongst others, CCCL conducted our flagship event, the first-ever National Corporate Restructuring Competition in India in 2019. We have also spread our roots into banking law by conducting a three-day value-added course on Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Over the past two years, we have invited eminent personalities like Mr. Dhanendra Kumar, first Chairperson of the CCI and Dr. K. D. Singh, Joint Secretary for Law at CCI conduct webinars on relevant topics. bout The Events There will be a total of two event that will be hosted by the Centre. a. A One-Day National E-Conference b. A National Discussion bout The E-Conference In the modern economy, the corporate sector has been assigned the leadership for ensuring the growth process. To carry forward the growth, the companies in India require a conducive legal environment with appropriate corporate and commercial laws. The developed countries and the transnational economic institutions like WTO need to have an ease of business and trade to work in. By taking giant steps, India has moved into

The Apex Court, while setting aside NCDRC order, made an observation that rejection of insurance claim would be valid if the insured vehicle is found being used or driven without a valid registration. The bench made this observation as unavailability of valid registration would constitute fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. In the instant case, the policy-holder had purchased a vehicle with temporary registration. Even though the registration had expired, the policy-holder travelled outside his residence and parked his vehicle at a premises from where later the vehicle had been stolen. Due to the incident, the policy-holder had claimed insurance but the same had been rejected on the ground that vehicle had not been registered. The policy-holder then approached DCDRC and claimed relief against insurer. However, the complaint had been dismissed. On an appeal before SCDRC, it had been held that insurance claim could not be repudiated on petty, technical and frivolous grounds. The forum blamed the insurer for escaping from its liability to indemnify the policy-holder/complainant for the loss of his vehicle. The revision petition preferred by the insurance company had also been rejected. Before the Supreme Court, the insurer contended that since the vehicle in question did not have permanent registration, which amounted to fundamental breach of policy, it had been entitled to reject the claim of policy-holder/respondent. The counsel on behalf of complainant/respondent argued that the compensation had been sought on ground of accident and not theft, thus the policy could not be applied in the case of complainant. The bench observed that in case of an insurable incident which bears the tendency of occurrence of liability, there should not be fundamental breach of terms and conditions provided in the contract of insurance. The bench placed reliance on the case of Narinder

The Apex Court, while setting aside the High Court judgment, made an observation that retrospective seniority could not be claimed as of right and that to from a date when the employee had not been even borne in service. In the instant appeal, the employer/authorities had rejected the claim of employee who had sought for seniority from the year 1985 on the ground that he had been appointed as an employee upon the direction of Supreme Court in the year 1996 and had not been borne in service in the year 1985. Upon the rejection of claim, the order had been challenged before the Patna High Court, which directed the authorities to consider employee’s seniority from 1985. Thereafter, the order of Patna High Court had been appealed before the Supreme Court and these issues had been raised – whether seniority in service could be claimed from a retrospective date; and whether the employee would be entitled to the benefits accrued from seniority from the date he entered the service. The bench referred to a catena of judgments and observed that benefit arising out of seniority accrues only after the employee joins the service. It further observed that the ruling that benefits could be earned retrospectively stand erroneous in the eyes of law. The bench explained that allowing retrospective seniority bears the tendency to affect other employees who had earlier entered into the service. While setting aside the order passed by High Court, the court held the action of authorities, in determination of employee’s seniority from the date he joined the service, stands in parlance with the governing laws. The post Seniority benefits cannot be earned retrospectively- SC appeared first on LexForti Legal News & Journal. Did you miss our previous article… https://www.itcse.org/?p=68 Randy Reidwww.itcse.org