The Rajasthan High Court held that policy decisions relating to the Foreign Trade Policy and the Hand Book of Procedure cannot be altered through judicial directions under Article 226. It dismissed the PIL seeking directions to modify the framework governing pre-import and Actual User Conditions.
The Allahabad High Court held that a bona fide typographical error in the date of birth could be corrected since it did not confer any eligibility advantage. It quashed the rejection order and directed the authorities to conduct the petitioner’s detailed medical examination.
The Supreme Court held that disputed monetary claims arising from a construction contract could not be decided in writ proceedings. It ruled that such disputes must be resolved through the agreed arbitration mechanism.
The Supreme Court held that cancellation of a public tender was arbitrary because it was driven by ministerial directions without proper application of mind. It restored the successful bidder’s contractual rights and set aside the High Court’s decision.
The Madras High Court directed unblocking of the electronic credit ledger upon deposit of Rs. 5 lakh and ordered adjudication of the DRC-01 notice on merits within a stipulated period.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of police quarters for the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation is excluded from service tax. It set aside the tax demands after following earlier Tribunal decisions on the same issue.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of residential quarters for the Tamil Nadu Police is not liable to service tax as it falls within the exclusion category. The Tribunal set aside the demand, interest, and penalties by following settled precedents.
CESTAT Chennai held that construction of individual houses for Tsunami-affected people does not fall under ‘Construction of Complex Service. The service tax demand was therefore set aside.
The Supreme Court held that High Courts should ordinarily refrain from entertaining writ petitions in SARFAESI matters where an effective statutory remedy before the DRT exists. The ruling reiterates the limited scope of Article 226 in commercial recovery disputes.
The Madras High Court held that delayed transfer of seized documents under Section 132(9A) did not invalidate notices issued under Section 153A. It ruled that the statutory time limit is directory and the assessment proceedings can continue.
