Explore the case of Amba Shakti Udyog Ltd. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Delve into the importance of timely appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act and the role of delay condonation.
Analysis of Salim Mohammad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue case. Calcutta High Court remands GST penalty case for reconsideration, citing issues with interpretation. Explore the details.
Analysis of Mohler Machine Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT case. Madras High Court sets aside order by NFAC and PCIT, citing lack of clear findings and directs reassessment. Explore the details.
Analysis of Purushottam Sharma vs. DCIT (ITAT Jodhpur) case. Is income from LIC commission considered business income or other sources? Explore the legal arguments and conclusions.
In present facts of the case, it was held that findings of State Commission that the patient and his family members were not informed about the risk nor their consent was obtained, do not suffer from any illegality as procedure/risk was explained to the patient.
In present facts of the case, the Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 14.12.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’).
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI (NCDRC) have refused to condone the delay for 125 days as no ‘sufficient cause’ was shown because there was difference in oral submissions and the contents of the Application submitted.
In present facts of the case, the Complaint of the patient was dismissed and it was observed that it is natural that if any patient consults with a doctor, then he would inform about all alternative modes of treatment.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) have allowed the Revision Petition in favour of the Complainant as medical negligence of the doctor was established as the Complainant was able to discharge its initial burden of proof.
In present facts of the case, the NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (NCDRC) allowed the Revision Petition on the basis of ‘medical negligence’ as the Government Guidelines issued by Ministry of Health pertaining to Swine Flu was not followed properly which have resulted into death of the patient.
