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 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.

The case discusses the legal journey of the Bajaj — TVS patent dispute from the Madras High Court to the Supreme Court and back to the Madras High Court. Almost four years have passed, yet the final verdict is nowhere in sight. The Supreme Court has recommended a period of four months for such cases to be finally decided. In such instances, the warring parties either settle it out of court or adopt other means to do business. The value of patent is undermined if the patentee has to fight so much for its protection.

Business contracts are done on General Conditions of Contracts (GCC). The GCCs have detailed terms to displace general principles of contract law and bring certainty in commercial dealings. Bunge SA v Nidera BV, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on damages terms in GCCs. A term on damages may not be a comprehensive code, answering all questions on damages. In this case, the general principles will survive and interact and interface with the contract terms to settle the rights and obligations of the parties.

The case deals with the issues of technology transfer and protection of intellectual property in an international contract, with the International commercial arbitration as the dispute resolution method. The case highlights the distrust between parties when they do not want to continue doing business together and the use of legal technicalities to delay the matter from settling and utter confusion due to international nature of contract, multiple court proceedings in different countries and even questioning the status of the contract – whether a concluded contract or not.

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.

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.

In September 2014 Leyth Jamal, a transgender woman, filed suit against her employer, luxury retailer Saks Fifth Avenue. Jamal alleged that she experienced harassment from managers and other employees because of her gender identity while employed by Saks, including verbal abuse and threats of violence. At the time she filed suit, no federal, state, or local laws protected transgender employees from discrimination. However, some federal district courts had recently begun to allow such suits on the premise that discrimination based on gender identity was a form of sex discrimination. Other suits and amicus briefs brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) furthered this trend. The EEOC is the federal agency charged with investigating and supporting claims of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so district and appellate courts watched the EEOC's position on the application of Title VII. Socio-culturally, many Americans supported transgender rights, even as they voiced anxiety about transgender men in women's bathrooms.

This case has students assume the role of a trusted member of the executive team of Hudson's Bay Company, which owns Saks Fifth Avenue. One Friday afternoon in late December 2014, the Hudson's Bay CEO sends an email to his executive team notifying them that he has approved corporate counsel's motion to dismiss Jamal's case based on the argument that transgender people are not a protected class according to Title VII. The motion will be filed in federal court on Monday. The CEO shares that he personally believes it is preposterous for anyone to think that Saks Fifth Avenue is anything but a strong advocate for LGBT rights, but he invites executive team members to call him if they have any concerns. Members of the executive team have a responsibility to consider the broader strategic implications for the company, so students must decide if and how to respond to the CEO.

The cases describe the demise of Arthur Andersen, a firm that had long set the industry standard for professionalism in accounting and auditing. Once an example of strong corporate culture with a commitment to public service and independent integrity, Andersen saw its culture and standards weaken as it grew explosively and changed its mode of governance. The (A) case describes a crisis precipitated by the admission of Waste Management, a major Andersen client, that it overstated its pretax earnings by $1.43 billion from 1992 to 1996. The resulting Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation ended with Andersen paying a $7 million fine, the largest ever levied against an accounting firm, and agreeing to an injunction that effectively placed the accounting giant on probation. Students analyze the causes of Andersen's problems and advise Andersen leadership. The (B) case covers Arthur Andersen's relationship with Enron, one of the great success stories of the “new economy” boom. When Enron's aggressive use of off-balance sheet partnerships became impossible to hide in autumn 2001, news reports stated that Andersen auditors had engaged in extensive shredding of draft documents and associated communications with Enron. Students are asked to act as crisis management consultants to Andersen CEO Joe Berardino. The (C) case details Andersen's collapse following its indictment and conviction on criminal charges of obstructing justice in the Enron case. Its conviction was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on narrow technical grounds, but by then Andersen had ceased to exist, eighty-nine years after Arthur E. Andersen had taken over a small accounting firm in Chicago. Students can focus on the impact of media on a reputational crisis.

Students will: Identify the teachable moment in a crisis that leaders can leverage as an opportunity to improve a firm's reputation or core identity, to reinforce values, and to drive change, Understand the impact on crisis management of the media landscape and regulatory decision-making, Realize the fragility of corporate cultures and the need to actively maintain them, especially during difficult times,

1. Maria Jarlstrom, Essi Saru, and Sinikka Vanhala, “Sustainable Human Resource Management With Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective,” Journal of Business Ethics, 152, (2008): 703–724. 2. Benjamin A. Neville, Simon J. Bell, and Gregory J., “Stakeholder Salience Revisited: Refining, Redefining, and Refueling an Underdeveloped Conceptual Tool,” Journal of Business Ethics, 102, (2011): 357–378. 3. Mick Marchington, Fang Lee Cooke, and Gail Hebson. “Human Resource Management Across Organizational Boundaries,” Sage Handbook of Human Resource Management, (2009): 460–477.

This secondary source case is based mainly on three documents: the 20-page report by a labor union, Unite Here, titled “One Job Should Be Enough: Inequality at Starbucks”; and two reports by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. and Covington & Burlington, LLP.

In February 2020, Unite Here, a labor union, released a damming report about employment practices at the airport Starbucks stores operated by licensee, HMSHost. Among other charges, the report identified several instances of racial and gender discrimination that HMSHost dismissed as a ploy by a union intent on organizing its employees. The adverse publicity, however, put Starbucks Corporation in the spotlight because of the company’s publicly stated commitment to workplace equality. The recently hired Nzinga Shaw, the company’s first-ever Global Chief Inclusion and Diversity Officer, had to address the issue at HMSHost lest it adversely affect Starbucks’ reputation as a progressive employer.

The case is best suited for a graduate or undergraduate course in human resource management or labor relations. As diversity is typically covered in the first third of such courses, the ideal placement of this case would be in the early part of the course. As Starbucks is a well-known name, and it is very likely that students have had their own experience with Starbucks, as either a customer or an employee, the case is likely to draw their interest.

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