Search results

A person can approach the High Court directly under Article 226 for a violation of a Fundamental Right. The Fundamental Rights, however, are available only against the bodies which are ‘state’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. The judgement of the Supreme Court in Dr. Janet Jeyapaul v. SRM University extends the ambit of Article 226 to all bodies, whether governmental or private, which are performing ‘public function’ or ‘public duty’. Imparting education is taken to be a public function. The judgement opens new dimensions of constitutional law

The case discusses the issues related to Zee Tele Films Limited's claims that the Board of Cricket Control of India was “state” and could act arbitrarily in the award of telecasting rights. The “state” as defined in Article 12 includes “other authorities”, and these are subject to the constitutional limitations. The right to equality requires them to not act arbitrarily. A body which is an instrumentality or agency of the government is “other authority”. The term has been subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court, by a majority judgement, in the Zee Tele Films Case ruled that the Board is not “other authorities” within Article 12 of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court judgement, Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority consolidates the law on award of liquidated damages and stipulations on penalties. Contractual damages are to cover losses and not to profit from or penalise the party in breach. Stipulated amounts in damages or penalties are appraised by the courts and only a reasonable compensation is given. Earnest money, and its forfeiture, stood distinct. It could be forfeited without appraisal. The case integrates the different categories and re-states the principles for award of damages.

Most business contracts are meant to be in writing, on standard terms. However, with the facilities of communications, businesspersons will talk business on the phone. With this, contentions will arise, whether they were only negotiating or had gone the distance and made a contract. If they have contracted, what are the terms of the contract? The case explores the judgement of the United Kingdom Supreme Court judgement, Wells v Devani, which is on the theme of oral contracts.

Online stores sell thousands of products and services. Despite all care, mistakes can occur. These mistakes can have severe implications for the seller. A contract once formed is normally binding on the parties. The seller gets bound to sell at the mistaken price. Can an online seller get out of the contract on the ground that the price was a mistake? The only court judgement on the theme is Chwee Kin Keong v. Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd, a judgement of the Singapore High Court. With reference to the judgement, the case explores pricing mistakes by online stores.

The Fundamental Rights, guaranteed by the Constitution of India, are very substantive rights. The rights, however, are available only against the State as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. The definition of State includes the Union and States' legislatures and executive. The meaning of these terms is clear and definite. The last entry in the definition is Other Authorities. This term has been subject to judicial interpretations. The Airport Authority of India Case was a landmark judgement expanding the scope of Other Authorities. It formulated that a public corporation, which was an instrumentality or agency of the government, should be considered as Other Authority.

Customers often sign lengthy offer documents, running in several pages, without reading them or understanding their contents. Later, they discover the contract has exclusion clauses or unfavourable terms. Are the terms binding on the person? The case explores the UK High Court judgement in Coys of Kensington Automobiles Limited v Tiziana Pugliese, which is on the theme of the signing of an offer form. The case explores themes frequently encountered in forms, including the following: The font size is small and terms not conspicuous. The form refers to more terms without enclosing them. The applicant is not fully familiar with the language.

This is an illustrative case analyzing shareholder and accounting outcomes and legal issues resulting from a merger of two major publicly traded companies. In today's business world, the “urge to merge” is tempered by heightened shareholder activism. In response to this activism, boards must proceed with care when negotiating mergers. Challenges to mergers that appear to be in the shareholders' best interest occur often. As is the case here, shareholders and their well funded legal representatives, seek damages for alleged bad decisions. Conoco Oil and Phillips Petroleum announced their intention to merge in November 2001. At that time the cost of gasoline spiraled ever upward and large oil firms put heavy competitive pressure on smaller oil producer/refiners. The merger described as a “merger of equals”, intimated that neither Conoco nor Phillips shareholders would receive a financial advantage (or disadvantage) over other merging shareholders following the completion of the merger. Immediately following the announcement, Michael Iorio, a Conoco shareholder, filed a lawsuit, claiming damages to Conoco shareholders from the merger of the two firms.

From a pedagogical point, the case may fulfill following objectives: First, to understand Vodafone’s position in the current environment. Does the environment present the elements that are necessary for them to thrive (as analyzed using a PESTEL framework)? Second, to understand the resources needed to build competitive advantage in an emerging market context (as analyzed using the Porter five forces model); and third, to understand the competitive challenges of conducting business in a highly (and sometimes capriciously) regulated industry.

The Indian Telecommunication sector is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. There are nine telecom operators who are pioneering this growth; however, five private companies: Bharti, Idea, Reliance, Aircel and Vodafone make up 78.86 per cent of the market. These five companies have the opportunity to increase their market share by expanding the services provided to rural India; however, the Indian Tax Authorities have caused some hesitation. Aside from being known as heavy handed and unpredictable, the authorities have also demanded that Vodafone pay them billions in taxes. These court cases have challenged the way that other telecom operators look at investing. The arrival of Reliance Jio as a new player in the Indian wireless space with deep pockets has not helped the already fierce competitive landscape. Reliance Jio is forcing all wireless companies including Vodafone to reevaluate their India strategy.

This case could be used in both MBA and executive education programs.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

CSS 11: Strategy.

The case highlights the concern of involuntary attrition in Indian information technology firms. With rapidly changing technology landscape, firms are resorting to restructuring exercise resulting in job loss for middle-level professionals. The case focuses the spotlight on the grey area of employment laws and forces a rethink on the applicability of labor laws to the IT/ITES sector. The case encourages discussion on the lack of collectivisation in the industry. It also introduces the concept of self-directed learning as opposed to firm directed learning as essential to remain viable in the knowledge-based labour market.