Categories
Blog Updates

RBI Clarifies Tier 1 Capital Computation for NBFCs

RBI Tier 1 capital computation

Press Release: 2025-2026/2241 Dated 10.03.2026

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued Amendment Directions clarifying the computation of Owned Fund/Tier 1 Capital for Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs) and Asset Reconstruction Companies (ARCs) in relation to Credit and Investment concentration norms.

The revisions aim to remove interpretational ambiguities and ensure uniformity in the application of prudential limits across regulated entities.

1. Background of the Amendments

The changes follow stakeholder feedback on draft directions issued in January 2026. After reviewing the comments received and examining the existing regulatory provisions, the RBI has introduced clarifications to the framework governing capital computation for concentration limits.

2. Clarification on Capital Base for Exposure Limits

The amendment provides clarity on how Owned Fund/Tier 1 Capital should be computed for the purpose of applying credit and investment concentration norms.

This capital base is used to determine the permissible exposure limits that NBFCs and ARCs can maintain with respect to borrowers, groups of borrowers, or investment exposures.

3. Applicability Across Multiple Prudential Frameworks

The amendments have been incorporated across multiple prudential frameworks applicable to NBFCs and related entities regulated by RBI. These revisions ensure consistency in the interpretation of capital definitions used for calculating exposure limits.

4. Objective of the Amendment

The revised directions seek to:

  • Provide regulatory clarity on the computation of Owned Fund / Tier 1 Capital
  • Ensure consistent application of concentration norms across NBFCs and ARCs
  • Address industry concerns raised during stakeholder consultation
  • Strengthen prudential oversight and risk management in the NBFC sector.
Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post RBI Clarifies Tier 1 Capital Computation for NBFCs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

RBI Revises Norms for Dividend and Profit Remittance

RBI dividend declaration norms

Press Release no. 2025-2026/2242; Dated: 10.03.2026

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued revised prudential norms governing the declaration of dividends and remittance of profits by regulated entities (REs). The revised framework aims to ensure that profit distribution by banks remains aligned with their financial strength and capital adequacy.

1. Dividend Declaration by Banks Incorporated in India

Under the revised norms, banks incorporated in India that satisfy the prescribed eligibility criteria may declare dividends, subject to regulatory limits.

The total dividend declared by such banks must not exceed 75% of the Profit After Tax (PAT) for the relevant financial period. This cap applies to the aggregate dividend payout, ensuring that banks retain sufficient earnings to maintain capital buffers and financial stability.

2. Profit Remittance by Foreign Banks

For foreign banks operating in India, the revised norms prescribe that profits may be remitted to the Head Office only if the bank has recorded a positive Profit After Tax (PAT) for the relevant period.

This requirement ensures that profit remittances are made only when the branch operations in India generate actual profits.

3. Objective of the Revised Norms

The revised prudential framework seeks to:

  • Ensure financial stability and adequate capital retention within regulated entities
  • Maintain prudential discipline in profit distribution
  • Align dividend and profit remittance practices with sound risk management principles
  • Strengthen regulatory oversight over capital management by banks.
Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post RBI Revises Norms for Dividend and Profit Remittance appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Maternity Leave During Bond Service Cannot Be Penalised | HC

maternity leave bond service

Case Details: Dr Meenakshi Muthiah vs. State of Maharashtra - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 160 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Anil S. Kilor & Raj D. Wakode, JJ.
  • A.M. Sudame, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • N.S. Rao, A.G.P. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner, an MDS degree holder, was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the respondent medical college under the Government Social Responsibility Service (bond service) for a bond period of 365 days.

The petitioner went on maternity leave during the bond period. The respondent imposed a penalty on the petitioner for not completing the bond period by not treating maternity leave as a duty period.

It was noted that the maternity leave is not a break in service and the bond cannot be used to penalise a woman for exercising her right to motherhood.

Further, it was noted that no bond can override the right to maternity leave, which is a facet of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

High Court Held

The High Court observed that any contract, agreement or bond that penalises a woman for taking maternity leave or tries to deny her this right to that extent is found inconsistent according to Section 27 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

Further, the High Court observed that the petitioner could not be denied such a right only because the bond was executed by her under the Social Responsibility Service Scheme and did not hold permanent status, as she was also entitled to the same protective umbrella as available to regular employees when it comes to maternity-related entitlement.

The High Court held that the period during which the petitioner was on maternity leave was to be considered as a duty period and the petitioner was entitled to salary for the said period.

Further, the High Court held that, by excluding the maternity leave period, the petitioner had shown readiness and willingness to complete her bond period as Assistant Professor; the same was to be permitted if there was no legal impediment.

List of Cases Referred to

  • Commissioner of Police v. Ravina Yadav 2024 SCC Online Del 4987 (para 24)
  • K. Umadevi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025) 8 SCC 263 (para 25).

The post Maternity Leave During Bond Service Cannot Be Penalised | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Illegal Refund Adjustment Against Stay Order | HC

illegal refund adjustment against stay order

Case Details: Piramal Finance Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 14 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • B. P. ColabawallaFirdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.
  • Madhur Agrawal, Adv. & J.D.Mistri, Sr. Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Ms Dhanlaksmi S. Krishna Iyer, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner had filed an application for a stay of recovery of the outstanding demand before the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Tribunal granted the petitioner a conditional stay. The Tribunal directed that the refund be adjusted to the extent of 20% of the outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2020-21.

Despite the explicit terms of the Tribunal’s Order, the AO adjusted the entire refund due to the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2005-06 against the outstanding demand for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner filed a writ petition to the Bombay High Court against the adjustment of the refund.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the AO’s action in violating the said order was clearly illegal. The Tribunal had not given any valid reason for refusing to direct the Respondents to refund the illegal adjustment in the refund for the Assessment Year 2005-06, in response to the demand for the Assessment Year 2020-21. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal to direct the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 28,55,26,240/- for Assessment Year 2005-06, along with interest as per law.

The post Illegal Refund Adjustment Against Stay Order | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

[Analysis] Gratuity under Code on Social Security 2020 – Eligibility | Calculation | Key Rules

Gratuity under Code on Social Security 2020

Gratuity under the Code on Social Security 2020 refers to a statutory social security benefit paid by an employer to an employee as a financial reward for long and continuous service rendered to the organisation. It becomes payable upon termination of employment due to retirement, resignation, superannuation, death, disablement, or completion of a fixed-term employment contract. Under the Code on Social Security, 2020, gratuity is generally payable after an employee completes five years of continuous service, except in cases of death, disablement, or expiry of a fixed-term contract, where the five-year condition is waived. The gratuity amount is calculated at the rate of 15 days’ wages for every completed year of service based on the employee’s last drawn wages.

Table of Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Legal Framework
  3. Definitions
  4. Applicability of Provisions Related to Gratuity
  5. Eligibility and Conditions for Payment of Gratuity
  6. Entitlement to Gratuity on Death of an Employee
  7. Computation of Gratuity
  8. Grounds for Forfeiture of Gratuity
  9. Insurance for Gratuity
  10. Duty of Employer to Determine and Pay the Amount of Gratuity
  11. Disputes Regarding Gratuity
  12. Comparative Analysis of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Code on Social Security, 2020
  13. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Gratuity is one of the most important social security benefits provided to employees in India, recognising their long and dedicated service to an organisation. It acts as a financial reward paid by the employer when an employee leaves the organisation due to retirement, resignation, death, or disablement.

With the introduction of the Code on Social Security, 2020, the law relating to gratuity has been modernised and consolidated, replacing the earlier framework under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Gratuity is payable after 5 years of continuous service, and is calculated at the rate of 15 days’ wages for every completed year of service.

The new Code introduces important reforms such as pro-rata gratuity for fixed-term employees, compulsory gratuity insurance for employers, and clearer definitions of wages. These changes aim to strengthen employee welfare, improve transparency in computation, and enhance social security protection for workers.

2. Legal Framework

The Code on Social Security, 2020 (CoSS) consolidates and replaces several labour laws relating to social security, including the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The Code came into effect on 21 November 2025, and provides a comprehensive framework governing gratuity, provident fund, employee insurance, maternity benefits, and other social security schemes.

Gratuity under the Code functions as a statutory right of employees, ensuring financial protection at the end of employment.

Taxmann.com | Research | Labour Laws

3. Definitions

3.1 Fixed-Term Employment

“Fixed term employment” means the engagement of an employee on the basis of a written contract of employment for a fixed period:

Provided that—

  • his hours of work, wages, allowances and other benefits shall not be less than that of a permanent employee doing the same work or work of a similar nature; and
  • he shall be eligible for all benefits, under any law for the time being in force, available to a permanent employee proportionately according to the period of service rendered by him even if his period of employment does not extend to the required qualifying period of employment.”

3.2 Wages

Wages means all remuneration, whether by way of salaries, allowances or otherwise, expressed in terms of money or capable of being so expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment or of work done in such employment, and includes—

  • basic pay;
  • dearness allowance; and
  • retaining allowance, if any,

but does not include—

  • any bonus payable under any law for the time being in force, which does not form part of the remuneration payable under the terms of employment;
  • the value of any house-accommodation, or of the supply of light, water, medical attendance or other amenity or of any service excluded from the computation of wages by a general or special order of the appropriate Government;
  • any contribution paid by the employer to any pension or provident fund, and the interest which may have accrued thereon;
  • any conveyance allowance or the value of any travelling concession;
  • any sum paid to the employed person to defray special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment;
  • house rent allowance;
  • remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the parties or order of a court or Tribunal;
  • any overtime allowance;
  • any commission payable to the employee;
  • any gratuity payable on the termination of employment;
  • any retrenchment compensation or other retirement benefit payable to the employee or any ex gratia payment made to him on the termination of employment, under any law for the time being in force:

Provided that for calculating the wages under this clause, if payments made by the employer to the employee under sub-clauses (a) to (i) exceeds one-half, or such other percent as may be notified by the Central Government, of the all remuneration calculated under this clause, the amount which exceeds such one-half, or the per cent. So notified, shall be deemed as remuneration and shall be accordingly added in wages under this clause:

Provided further that for the purpose of equal wages to all genders and for the purpose of payment of wages, the emoluments specified in sub-clauses (d), (f), (g) and (h) shall be taken for the computation of wages.

Explanation.—Where an employee is given in lieu of the whole or part of the wages payable to him, any remuneration in kind by his employer, the value of such remuneration in kind which does not exceed fifteen per cent. of the total wages payable to him, shall be deemed to form part of the wages of such employee;

3.3 Permanent Partial Disablement

Permanent Partial Disablement means, where the disablement is of a permanent nature, such disablement as reduces the earning capacity of an employee in every employment which he was capable of undertaking at the time of the accident resulting in the disablement:

Provided that every injury specified in Part II of the Fourth Schedule shall be deemed to result in permanent partial disablement[1].

3.4 Permanent Total Disablement

“Permanent Total Disablement” means such disablement of a permanent nature as incapacitates an employee for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement.

Provided that permanent total disablement shall be deemed to result from every injury specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule or from any combination of injuries specified in Part II thereof where the aggregate percentage of the loss of earning capacity, as specified in the said Part II against those injuries, amounts to one hundred percent[2].

3.5 Superannuation

“Superannuation”, in relation to an employee, means the attainment by the employee of such age as is fixed in the contract or conditions of service, as the age on the attainment of which the employee shall vacate the employment:

Provided that for the purposes of Chapter III, the age of superannuation shall be fifty-eight years.

3.6 Retirement

“Retirement” means termination of the service of an employee otherwise than on superannuation.

4. Applicability of Provisions Related to Gratuity

As per First Schedule of the Code on Social Security, 2020, Every factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port and railway company and every shop or establishment in which ten or more employees are employed, or were employed, on any day of the preceding 12 months and such shops or establishments as may be notified by the appropriate Government from time to time are required to pay gratuity to their employees.

5. Eligibility and Conditions for Payment of Gratuity

Gratuity becomes payable after 5 years of continuous service when employment terminates due to:

  • Superannuation
  • Retirement
  • Resignation
  • Death
  • Permanent disablement due to accident or disease
  • Completion of a fixed-term employment contract
  • Any other event notified by the Central Government.

However, the requirement of five years of service is waived in cases of:

  • Death
  • Disablement
  • Expiration of fixed-term employment

For working journalists, the qualifying period is 3 years instead of five.

6. Entitlement to Gratuity on Death of an Employee

In case an employee dies, gratuity is paid to the nominee designated by the employee. If no nomination exists, the gratuity is paid to the legal heirs. If the nominee or heir is a minor, the amount is deposited with the competent authority, which invests it for the minor’s benefit until the minor attains majority.

7. Computation of Gratuity

Gratuity is calculated at the rate of 15 days’ wages for every completed year of service. If the service period exceeds six months, it is treated as a full year.

7.1 For Monthly Rated Employees

Gratuity = Last drawn monthly salary/26 × 15 × years of service

Note – Here, 26 represents the number of working days in a month.

Illustration – Let’s compare an employee’s gratuity under the old structure versus the new structure.

Employee Data:

  • Total Monthly CTC – 1,00,000
  • Years of Service – 10 Years
  • Salary Split – Basic (Rs. 30,000) + Allowances (Rs. 70,000)
Feature Old Law (Pre-2025) New Code (2026 )
Wages Used for Calculation Rs. 30,000 (Basic only) Rs. 50,000 (Min. 50% of CTC)
Formula = 15/26*30,000*10  = 15/26*50,000*10
Total Gratuity Payout Rs. 1,73,077 Rs. 2,88,461

7.2 Special Cases

7.2.1 Piece-Rated Employees

Daily wages are calculated based on the average wages of the last 3 months, excluding overtime.

7.2.2 Seasonal Employees

Gratuity is payable at the rate of 7 days’ wages for each season worked.

7.2.3 Fixed-Term Employees

Gratuity is paid on a pro-rata basis, even if the employee has not completed 5 years.

Illustration – In case the contract is for 1 year or a fixed-term employee works for 1 year, gratuity will be calculated for 1 year of service.

7.2.4 Employees Working After Disablement

If an employee continues working after becoming disabled at reduced wages, gratuity is calculated separately. For the period before disability, gratuity is calculated on the original salary and for the period after disability, gratuity is calculated on the reduced salary.

Illustration – An employee worked 6 years before disability with a salary of Rs. 30,000 and 4 years after disability with a salary of Rs. 20,000. In such a case, Gratuity will be calculated for 6 years based on Rs. 30,000 and for 4 years based on Rs. 20,000.

8. Grounds for Forfeiture of Gratuity

Gratuity may be partially or fully forfeited under certain circumstances.

It may be forfeited if:

  • The employee causes damage or loss to the employer’s property due to wilful negligence. (Forfeiture limited to the extent of the loss)
  • Employment is terminated due to riotous or violent conduct and acts involving moral turpitude committed during employment.

In Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (2006), the Supreme Court of India held that the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 prevail over internal company rules. The Court ruled that gratuity is a statutory right payable upon retirement, and it cannot be withheld unless the specific conditions for forfeiture under the Act (Code) are satisfied. Since those conditions were not met, the forfeiture of gratuity after the employee’s retirement was held invalid.

9. Insurance for Gratuity

Under Section 57 of the Code on Social Security, 2020, employers must obtain insurance coverage to meet their gratuity liabilities.

9.1 Compulsory Insurance of Gratuity

Every employer (except government establishments) must obtain gratuity insurance from an authorised insurance company.

9.2 Exemption from Insurance

Employers may be exempt if:

  • They already maintain an approved gratuity fund, or
  • They employ 500 or more employees and establish an approved gratuity fund.

An approved gratuity fund has the same meaning as defined under Section 2(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

9.3 Registration and Compliance

Employers must register their establishments with the competent authority and must obtain gratuity insurance or establish an approved gratuity fund.

The employer must immediately pay the gratuity amount, along with applicable interest, to the competent authority.

10. Duty of Employer to Determine and Pay the Amount of Gratuity

Once gratuity becomes payable, the employer must determine the amount and send a written notice to the employee or entitled person and the competent authority, even if no application is made for gratuity and must pay the gratuity within 30 days from the date it becomes payable.

10.1 Interest on Delayed Payment

If the employer fails to pay gratuity within 30 days, simple interest must be paid from the due date until the payment date, unless the delay is due to the employee’s fault and permission for delay has been obtained from the competent authority.

11. Disputes Regarding Gratuity

In case of dispute about the amount payable, eligibility, or the rightful recipient, the employer must deposit the admitted amount with the competent authority. The employer, employee, or any concerned person may apply to the competent authority to resolve the dispute.

After inquiry and hearing the parties, the competent authority decides the matter and directs payment of the amount due. During inquiry, the competent authority has powers similar to a civil court, including summoning persons, examining witnesses, and requiring documents.

11.1 Appeal Against the Order of the Competent Authority

Any person aggrieved by the decision of the competent authority may file an appeal within 60 days to the appropriate Government or designated authority.

An employer filing an appeal must first deposit the gratuity amount as required. The appellate authority may confirm, modify, or reverse the decision after hearing the parties.

12. Comparative Analysis of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Code on Social Security, 2020

Feature

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Previous)

Code on Social Security, 2020 (Current)

Primary Definition of “Wages” Basic Salary + Dearness Allowance (DA). Basic + DA + Retaining Allowance.
The “50% Wage Rule” No such rule; employers often kept Basic low to reduce payout. If allowances exceed 50% of total pay, the excess is added to “Wages.”
Eligibility for Gratuity 5 years of continuous service. 5 years of continuous service remains unchanged.
Eligibility for Fixed-Term Employees FTEs often received nothing. Payable on pro-rate basis.
Full & Final Settlement Within 30 days of the last working day. Within 2 working days of termination/resignation (as per Wage Code).
Gratuity Insurance Optional/Limited (State-specific notifications). Mandatory for all private employers to have insurance/approved fund.
Nomination Process Required, but often neglected. Mandatory filing within 30 days of completing 1 year of service.

13. Conclusion

Gratuity is an essential pillar of employee welfare and social security in India. The Code on Social Security, 2020, modernises and consolidates the legal framework governing gratuity, ensuring greater clarity, broader coverage, and improved protection for employees.

By introducing provisions such as pro-rata gratuity for fixed-term employees, compulsory gratuity insurance, and standardised wage definitions, the Code strengthens workers’ financial security and enhances employers’ compliance responsibilities. As the labour law landscape evolves, understanding the provisions relating to gratuity becomes crucial for both employers and employees to ensure proper implementation and protection of rights.


[1] Section 2(55)

[2] Section 2(56)

The post [Analysis] Gratuity under Code on Social Security 2020 – Eligibility | Calculation | Key Rules appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Law of Torts – Meaning | Damnum Sine Injuria | Strict Liability

Law of Torts

Law of Torts refers to the branch of civil law that deals with wrongful acts or omissions which cause harm or injury to another person’s legal rights, for which the injured party is entitled to claim compensation or damages. In simple terms, a tort is a civil wrong (other than breach of contract) that results in legal liability. When a person violates another person’s legal right—such as the right to reputation, property, safety, or personal liberty—the affected person can bring a civil action for damages in a court of law.

Table of Contents

  1. Tort – Meaning
  2. Damnum Sine Injuria & Injuria Sine Damnum
  3. Strict & Vicarious Liability
Check out Taxmann's Jurisprudence Interpretation & General Laws (JIGL) | CRACKER which is a precision-engineered, exam-intelligence manual for CS Executive – Group 1 | Paper 1, built strictly around how ICSI actually tests, evaluates, and awards marks. It treats the subject as an applied legal-reasoning paper—emphasising issue identification, statutory interpretation, and structured application—rather than abstract legal theory. Aligned with the post-2023 examination framework, which is dominated by compulsory case studies and problem-oriented questions, the book provides complete exam coverage up to December 2025. The 6th Edition integrates fully solved past questions, detailed marks and trend analytics, a dedicated 20-mark case study module, and ICSI Study Material mapping. Structured as a guided answer-writing and revision system, it enables focused, data-backed, and marks-optimised preparation for the 2026 examination cycle.

1. Tort – Meaning

FAQ 1. How does “To constitute a tort, there must be a wrongful act and legal damages”?

A tort consists of some act or omission done by the defendant whereby he has without just cause or excuse caused some harm to plaintiff. To constitute a tort, there must be:

  1. Wrongful Act – The act complained of, should under the circumstances, be legally wrongful as regards the party complaining. Thus, every person whose legal rights, e.g. right of reputation, right of bodily safety and freedom, and right to property are violated without legal excuse, has a right of action against the person who violated them, whether loss results from such violation or not.
  2. Legal Damages – It is not every damage that is a ‘damage’ in the eye of the law. It must be a damage which the law recognizes as such. In other words, there should be legal injury or invasion of the legal right. In the absence of an infringement of a legal right, an action does not lie. Also, where there is infringement of a legal right, an action lies even though no damage may have been caused.

FAQ 2. What is the difference between ‘Tort’ & ‘Crime’?

Points Tort Crime
Meaning A tort consists of some act or omissions done by defendant whereby he has without a lawful excuse caused some harm to plaintiff. Crime means any act or omission made punishable under any law.
Seriousness Less serious wrongs are considered as private wrongs and have been labelled as civil wrong. More serious wrongs have been considered to be public wrongs and are known as crimes.
Suit Suit is filed by the injured person himself. Case is brought by the State.
Compromise Compromise is always possible. Except in certain cases, compromise is not possible.
Penalty The wrongdoer pays compensation to the injured party. Wrongdoer is punished.

Taxmann.com | Learning

2. Damnum Sine Injuria & Injuria Sine Damnum

FAQ 3. What are the Latin maxims ‘damnum sine injuria’ and ‘injuria sine damnum’?

It is not every damage that is a damage in the eye of the law. It must be a damage which the law recognises as such. In other words, there should be legal injury or invasion of the legal right. In the absence of an infringement of a legal right, an action does not lie.

Also, where there is infringement of a legal right, an action lies even though no damage may have been caused. As was stated in Ashby v. White, legal damage is neither identical with actual damage nor is it necessarily pecuniary.

Two maxims, namely:

(i) Damnum sine injuria and

(ii) injuria sine damnum

explain this proposition.

Damnum Sine Injuria – Damnum means damage in the sense of loss of money, comfort, health, service or physical hurt or the like.

Injuria means breach of a legal right i.e. infringement of a right conferred by law on the plaintiff.

In some cases the act or omission of the defendant may have caused damage to the claimant but the claimant may have no action as the interest affected may not be one protected by law. Lawyers refer to this as damnum sine injuria or harm without legal wrong. Therefore, causing damage however substantial to another person is not actionable in law, unless there is also violation of legal right of the plaintiff.

Example – A opens a fish & chip shop in the same street as B’s fish & chip shop. A reduces his prices with the intention of putting B out of business. A has committed no tort as losses caused by lawful business competition are not actionable in tort.

Injuria Sine Damnum – There are cases where conduct is actionable even though no damage has been caused. This is known as injuria sine damno. The maxim ‘injuria sine damno’ means breach of legal right without damage. In other words, there is an injury without damage or loss. It means infringement of legal rights not resulting in damages but giving the right to sue, to the plaintiff as the infringement is an injury in law. This is because there are certain absolute private rights or interests of an individual, so vital, that the infringement itself would be actionable in tort even if there is no proof of damages.

Example – If A walks across B’s land without B’s permission then A will commit the tort of trespass to land, even though he does not cause any damage to the land.

FAQ 4. Alok was running a school at a certain place. Bimal started another school near the school of Alok. As a result of this, most of the students of Alok’s school left his school and joined Bimal’s school. Due to competition, Alok had to reduce the fees by ` 40 per student per quarter thereby suffering huge monetary loss. Alok instituted a suit against Bimal in the court for claiming compensation. Is the suit instituted by Alok maintainable?

In some cases the act or omission of the defendant may have caused damage to the claimant but the claimant may have no action as the interest affected may not be one protected by law. This is explained by doctrine of “damnum sine injuria”, which means harm without legal wrong.

The maxim ‘damnum sine injuria’ is applicable for the given case.

Bimal has committed no tort as losses caused by lawful business competition are not actionable in tort. Therefore, suit instituted by Alok is not maintainable as per doctrine damnum sine injuria.

FAQ 5. Vijay used to run a grocery store. Sanjay was one of his customers. One day, Vijay and Sanjay had an argument over something. With the intention of causing loss to Vijay, Sanjay opened a grocery store right in front of Vijay’s shop. As a result, Vijay lost some customers, and he suffered heavy losses. Can Vijay recover damages from Sanjay?

Damnum means damage in the sense of loss of money, comfort, health, service or physical hurt or the like.

Injuria means breach of a legal right i.e. infringement of a right conferred by law on the plaintiff.

In some cases the act or omission of the defendant may have caused damage to the claimant but the claimant may have no action as the interest affected may not be one protected by law. Lawyers refer to this as damnum sine injuria or harm without legal wrong. Therefore, causing damage however substantial to another person is not actionable in law, unless there is also violation of legal right of the plaintiff.

In view of above, if Sanjay opens shop next to Vijay’s shop and if Vijay suffers loss then he cannot claim damages as Sanjay is exercising his legal right.

FAQ 6. Water supply to A’s mill was disrupted due to B’s digging of his well. This resulted in the cutting of the water supply of the A’s mill, due to which it was shut down. A filed a suit for damages against B in a court of law. Decide and give reasons for your conclusions.

Damnum Sine Injuria – Damnum means damage in the sense of loss of money, comfort, health, service or physical hurt or the like.

Injuria means breach of a legal right i.e. infringement of a right conferred by law on the plaintiff.

In some cases the act or omission of the defendant may have caused damage to the claimant but the claimant may have no action as the interest affected may not be one protected by law. Lawyers refer to this as damnum sine injuria or harm without legal wrong. Therefore, causing damage however substantial to another person is not actionable in law, unless there is also violation of legal right of the plaintiff.

In Chasemore v. Richards, water supply to Plaintiff’s mill was disrupted due to defendant’s digging of his well. This resulted in cutting of water supply to plaintiff’s mill due to which it was shut down. Court held defendant not liable because although monetary losses were incurred there was no violation of legal right.

In view of above, A (plaintiff) will not succeed in getting damage against B (defendant).

3. Strict & Vicarious Liability

FAQ 7. What is strict or absolute liability under the law of torts?

Rules of strict liability refers that if a person bring anything from outside and accumulates on his land, which it escapes may cause damage to his neighbours, he does so at his own risk. He will be responsible for damage, however carefully he might have been and whatever precautions he might have taken to prevent damage. This principle was laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.

Fletcher (plaintiff) leased several underground coal mines from land adjacent to that owned by Rylands (defendant). Rylands owned a mill, and built a reservoir on his land for the purpose of supplying water to that mill. Rylands employed engineers and contractors to build the reservoir. In the course of building the reservoir, these employees learned that it was being built on top of abandoned underground coal mines. This fact was unknown by Rylands. After the reservoir was completed, it broke and flooded Fletcher’s coal mines. This caused damage to Fletcher’s property, and Fletcher brought suit against Rylands.

Rylands was held strictly liable for damage caused to Fletcher’s property by water from the broken reservoir.

But, later, it was decided in the case of Read v. Lyons, that following two conditions were necessary for application of the rule decided in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.

(1) Escape of something from the control of defendant, which is likely to do mischief.

(2) When defendant is making a non-natural use of the land.

If either of these conditions is absent, the rule of strict liability will not apply.

FAQ 8. A mill owner employed an independent contractor to construct a reservoir on his land to provide water for his mill. There were old disused mining shafts under the site of the reservoir, which the contractor failed to observe because they were filled with soil. Therefore, the contractor did not block them. When water was filled in the reservoir, it burst through the shaft and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjoining land. Is the mill owner liable to compensate for loss or damage caused to the plaintiff? Give reasons.

As per rules of strict liability, if a person brings anything from outside and accumulates on his land, which it escapes may cause damage to his neighbours; he does so at his own risk. He will be responsible for damage, however carefully he might have been and whatever precautions he might have taken to prevent damage. This principle was laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.

As per the facts given in case an independent contractor employed by mill owner was negligent as he failed to block the old disused mining shafts under the site of the reservoir and due this negligence water was filled in the reservoir and it burst through the shaft and flooded the plaintiff’s coal mines on the adjoining land. Thus, applying the ‘rules of strict liability’ the mill owner will be liable for damages to the coal mine owner.

FAQ 9. What are the exceptions to the rule of strict liability under Law of Torts?

Rules of strict liability refers that if a person bring anything from outside and accumulates on his land, which it escapes may cause damage to his neighbours, he does so at his own risk. He will be responsible for damage, however carefully he might have been and whatever precautions he might have taken to prevent damage. This principle was laid down in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher.

Exceptions to the Rule of Strict Liability

  1. Damage Due to Natural Use of the Land – The rule of strict liability does not apply in the case where the things are present on a person’s land in the natural form or arise on the land, even though they are dangerous.
  2. Consent of the Plaintiff – The rule of strict liability is not applicable in the cases where the things which escapes was brought or kept upon defendant’s premises by the defendant with the consent of the plaintiff.
  3. Act of Third Party – If the harm has been caused due to the act of a stranger, who is neither the defendant’s servant nor agent or has no control over him the defendant will not be liable.
  4. Statutory Authority – Public bodies performing a statutory duty such as supply of water, electricity etc., are exempted from liability, so long as they have taken reasonable care and are not negligent.
  5. Act of God – The principle of strict liability does not apply for the damage caused due to acts which are irresistible & beyond human contemplation & caused due to operation of some superior force which is beyond human control.
  6. Escape Due to Plaintiffs own Default – If the damage is caused due to the plaintiffs own action or default the defendant is exempted from liability, i.e. if plaintiff suffers damage by his own intrusion into defendant’s property, he cannot complain for damage so caused.

FAQ 10. During the municipal council elections in Nagpur, Ramesh, a registered and eligible voter, reached the polling booth to cast his vote. However, the presiding officer refused to allow Ramesh to vote, despite him having valid identity documents. Later it was found that Ramesh’s preferred candidate won the election and Ramesh suffered no financial loss. Ramesh filed a suit against the presiding officer claiming damages for violation of his legal right. Discuss the remedy available to Ramesh.

Issue Involved – Whether Ramesh can claim damages even though he suffered no financial loss.

Relevant Law

The maxim Injuria Sine Damnum means violation of a legal right without actual damage.

Whenever a legal right is infringed, the injured person can claim damages even if he has suffered no monetary loss.

Case Law – Ashby v. White (1703) – Refusal to allow a qualified voter to vote entitled him to damages though no loss was proved.

Application

Ramesh was a registered and eligible voter. He was wrongfully prevented from voting by the presiding officer, which is a clear violation of his legal right.

Even though his preferred candidate won and he suffered no financial loss, his legal right to vote was infringed.

Conclusion

Ramesh is entitled to claim damages under the principle of Injuria Sine Damnum and the suit against the presiding officer is maintainable.

FAQ 11. The driver of a petrol lorry, while transferring petrol from the lorry to an underground tank at a garage, struck a matchstick in order to light a cigarette and then threw it, still alight on the floor. An explosion and a fire ensued. Who is liable for the damage so caused? Decide giving case law on this point.

When a servant commits a tort in the ordinary course of his employment as servant, the master is liable for the same.

An act is deemed to be done in the course of employment if it is either:

  1. A wrongful act authorised by the employer, or
  2. A wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the employer.

The facts of the given case are similar to Century Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board. In this case, the driver of a petrol lorry, while transferring petrol from the lorry to an underground tank at a garage, struck a match in order to light a cigarette and then threw it, still alight on the floor. An explosion and a fire ensued. The House of Lords held his employers liable for the damage caused, for he did the act in the course of carrying out his task of delivering petrol; it was an unauthorised way of doing what he was employed to do.

FAQ 12. Sunshine Solar Systems Private Limited operated a solar panel manufacturing plant on the outskirts of a city. As part of its operation, it stored large quantities of a dangerous chemical compound used in panel coating. It followed all the safety protocols and government regulations. One day a tank with this material ruptured causing the chemical to leak into a nearby field owned by Surya and destroyed its crops and contaminated the soil. Surya sued Sunshine solar systems private limited for damages. Discuss the applicability of the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher in this case and examine whether Surya can claim damages under the rule of strict liability?

Issue Involved

Whether Sunshine Solar Systems Pvt. Ltd. is liable to compensate Surya for the damage caused due to leakage of hazardous chemicals from its factory.

Rule in Rylands v. Fletcher (1868)

The rule of strict liability states that when a person brings and keeps any dangerous thing on his land for a non-natural use, and such thing escapes and causes damage, he is liable even without negligence.

Essential Conditions

  1. There must be a dangerous thing
  2. It must be brought and kept by the defendant
  3. It must be for non-natural use of land
  4. There must be escape of such thing
  5. There must be actual damage

Application to the Present Case

Sunshine Solar Systems stored a dangerous chemical compound in large tanks in its factory for industrial use, which is a non-natural use of land. Due to rupture of the tank, the chemical escaped into Surya’s field causing destruction of crops and contamination of soil, resulting in actual damage.

Thus, all the essential conditions of strict liability are fully satisfied.

Defences

No valid defence such as Act of God, plaintiff’s fault, consent or third-party act is applicable here.

Conclusion

Sunshine Solar Systems Pvt. Ltd. is strictly liable under the rule of Rylands v. Fletcher and therefore Surya is entitled to claim damages for the loss suffered.

FAQ 13. What is the vicarious or tortious liability of state for the act of his servant. Refer relevant Judgments.

Unlike the Crown Proceeding Act, 1947 of England, we have no statutory provision with respect to the liability of the State in India. When a case of Government liability in tort comes before the Courts, the question is whether the particular Government activity, which gave rise to the tort, was the sovereign function or non-sovereign function. If it is a sovereign function it could claim immunity from the tortuous liability, otherwise not. Generally, the activities of commercial nature or those which can be carried out by the private individual are termed as non-sovereign functions.

In India Article 300 of the Constitution declares that the Government of India or of a State may be sued for the tortious acts of its servants in the same manner as the Dominion of India and the corresponding provinces could have sued or have been sued before the commencement of the Constitution. This rule is, however, subject to any such law made by the Parliament or the State Legislature. No law has so far been passed as contemplated by Article 300(1).

The post Law of Torts – Meaning | Damnum Sine Injuria | Strict Liability appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

HC Rejects Plea to Convert Section 74 Order to Section 73

section 74 to section 73 conversion

Case Details: R B Pandey and Sons vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central Cgst and Central Excise, Division Ix (Ankleshwar) - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 140 (Gujarat)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
  • Hardik V Vora for the Petitioner.
  • CB Gupta for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under section 74 of the CGST Act and the Gujarat GST Act on the allegation of wrongful availment and utilisation of input tax credit (ITC). The adjudicating authority passed an order in the original recording that the petitioner had failed to produce documents prescribed under Rule 36, including tax invoices, debit notes, bills of entry and input service distributor invoices in support of the ITC claimed. The authority further concluded that the petitioner had availed and utilized ineligible ITC without receipt of goods or services. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to treat the order passed under section 74 as one under section 73 so as to claim the benefit available in cases not involving fraud. The matter was accordingly placed before the Gujarat High Court.

High Court Held

The Gujarat High Court held that conversion of an order passed under section 74 to one under section 73 could not be granted in the absence of documentary evidence substantiating the claim of input tax credit. The Court observed that the adjudicating authority had recorded categorical findings regarding fraudulent availment and utilisation of ineligible input tax credit without receipt of goods or services. It was held that in such circumstances the authority had rightly proceeded under section 74 of the CGST Act and there was no justification to reclassify the proceedings as falling under section 73. The Court further noted that the petitioner had failed to place any material warranting interference with the findings recorded in the adjudication order. Accordingly, the prayer seeking conversion of the proceedings from section 74 to section 73 was rejected.

The post HC Rejects Plea to Convert Section 74 Order to Section 73 appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

RBI Amends Counterparty Credit Risk Framework

RBI counterparty credit risk framework

Press Release: 2025-2026/2243, Dated 10.03.2026

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has issued Amendment Directions revising the Counterparty Credit Risk (CCR) framework relating to the computation of Potential Future Exposure (PFE) under the Current Exposure Method (CEM).

The amendments introduce clarifications regarding capital requirements for banks acting as clearing members and align certain exposure calculation parameters with international regulatory standards.

1. Capital Charge for Clearing Members

The revised directions clarify that banks acting as clearing members in the equity and commodity derivatives segments of SEBI-recognised stock exchanges must maintain an appropriate capital charge for Counterparty Credit Risk (CCR).

This requirement ensures that banks adequately account for credit exposure arising from derivative transactions cleared through stock exchanges.

2. Revision of Add-on Factors for Potential Future Exposure

The amendment revises the add-on factors used for computing Potential Future Exposure (PFE) under the Current Exposure Method. These add-on factors represent the potential increase in exposure arising from market movements in derivative contracts.

Specifically, the RBI has aligned the add-on factors for interest rate contracts and exchange rate contracts with the guidelines issued by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS).

3. Alignment with International Standards

By aligning the PFE add-on factors with BCBS standards, the revised framework seeks to:

  • Strengthen the measurement of counterparty credit risk
  • Improve consistency with global prudential norms
  • Enhance the resilience of banks dealing in derivative markets

4. Objective of the Amendments

The revised directions aim to ensure that banks maintain adequate capital buffers against derivative exposures, particularly where they act as clearing members in exchange-traded derivative markets. The alignment with international standards further promotes sound risk management practices in the banking system.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post RBI Amends Counterparty Credit Risk Framework appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

IFSCA Amends Cyber Security Guidelines for IFSC REs

IFSCA cyber security guidelines

Circular no. IFSCA-CSD0MSC/1/2026-DCS; Dated: 10.03.2026

The IFSCA has amended its Circular titled “Guidelines on Cyber Security and Cyber Resilience for REs in IFSCs”. Under the revised framework, certain categories of REs, including branches of regulated Indian or foreign entities, entities providing services only to group companies and entities with fewer than 10 employees, are granted a 3-year exemption from the circular’s requirements, subject to specified conditions.

The REs specified in para 21 shall comply with the following conditions during the exempted period:

  1. The RE shall adopt the Cyber Security and Cyber Resilience framework and IS Policy of its parent entity or the holding company of such parent entity.
  2. The CISO of the parent entity shall act as the Designated Officer for the RE.
  3. The parent entity or the holding company of such parent entity of the RE, in India or overseas, must be regulated by a regulator/Government Body in its home jurisdiction.
  4. The Designated Officer of the RE shall certify that all the necessary systems/processes, in line with these Guidelines
  5. The RE shall submit the annual cybersecurity audit report to IFSCA.

The following categories of REs are also exempted for a period of three (3) years.

  1. Foreign university set up in the IFSC
  2. The RE, which has been established as a newly incorporated standalone entity
  3. Credit Rating Agency

Provided that the Designated Officer of such RE shall, during the exempted period, certify that the RE has implemented adequate cybersecurity measures proportionate to its risk exposure, and shall submit the same to the respective supervision Department/Division of IFSCA within ninety (90) days of the end of each financial year

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post IFSCA Amends Cyber Security Guidelines for IFSC REs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Categories
Blog Updates

Composite Reconstruction Scheme Not Split for Stamp Duty | HC

composite scheme stamp duty

Case Details: SchaeFFler India Ltd. vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 57 (HC-Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
  • Nikhil SakhardandeMs Nafisa KhandeparkarDhaval ShethiaMs Mrudula Dixit, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • O.A. Chandurkar, Addl GP & Ms Tanu Bhatia, AGP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner undertook a “composite scheme of amalgamation” to merge two other companies, the INA Bearing India and the LuK India, into itself, in consideration whereof the Petitioner was to issue equity shares to shareholders of the INA Bearings and the LuK India.

The LuK India was based in Tamil Nadu. The Company Petition was filed before the NCLT, Chennai, which had jurisdiction to sanction the scheme qua LuK India.

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Chennai, sanctioned the scheme vide order dated 13.06.2018, the Petitioner and INA Bearings being located in the Maharashtra filed a similar Company Petition before the NCLT, Mumbai, which sanctioned the scheme vide order dated 08.10.2018.

The Order of the NCLT, Mumbai, directed the lodging of a certified copy of the order along with a copy of the Scheme for adjudication. In pursuance thereof, the Petitioner lodged an order of sanction dated 08.10.2018 for adjudication.

By the impugned order, the respondents held that the scheme consists of two different transactions and that stamp duty was to be paid separately. The order relied upon the stamp duty notification dated 06.05.2002, which capped the maximum duty payable at Rs. 25 crore and accordingly, stamp duty was adjudicated at Rs. 50 crore, considering the instrument comprises two different transactions.

It was noted that the impugned order was legally unsustainable as it assessed the stamp duty payable on the underlying transaction and not the order of the NCLT, Mumbai, which was the instrument to be assessed for the stamp duty.

Further noted that, since the NCLT, Chennai had also sanctioned the same composite scheme, the stamp authorities in Mumbai would not have jurisdiction to assess the stamp duty on the NCLT, Chennai order, as it was not an order that originated in Maharashtra.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that the duty had been paid on the NCLT, Chennai order, which was an issue to be considered by the concerned authorities in Chennai, and the same was immaterial for the purpose of assessing the stamp duty on the NCLT, Mumbai order

Further, the High Court observed that a composite scheme of reconstruction could not be inter-se segregated for the stamp duty purposes, as held by the Gujarat High Court in Ambuja Cement Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority [C/SR/1/2020, dated 10-2-2023].

The High Court held that the impugned orders were to be quashed and set aside, and the petitioners were liable to pay the stamp duty on the instrument, being an order of the NCLT, Mumbai, dated 08.10.2018, under provisions of Article 25 (da) of the Stamp Act, 1958, with a cap of Rs. 25 crore and amount which had already been paid under protest by the Petitioner, Respondents were to refund the excess stamp duty of Rs. 25 crore.

List of Cases Reviewed

List of Cases Referred to

The post Composite Reconstruction Scheme Not Split for Stamp Duty | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source