The Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the object and purpose of Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act that merely because in the revenue records the secured properties are shown as agricultural land is not sufficient to attract the said provision.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that Conciliation Officer is not an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court and does not exercise judicial/quasi-judicial functions and/or does not adjudicate the claims of /disputes between the parties.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed while allowing the appeal that as per Circular No. 760 dated 13th January 1998, the CBDT have stated that in case of transactions which are, in substance, in the nature of hire-purchase, the receipts of hire charges would not be in the nature of interest and hence assessee were liable to pay interest under Interest-Tax Act, 1974.
The Hon’ble J&K High Court held that, the Bank could auction the property even with encumbrances attached to property but it was incumbent upon the Bank to disclose the encumbrances and litigations on the same or tenancy, if any, attached to the property to all the persons who wanted to participate in the same and to the successful bidder
The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that it is settled law that in the case under Section 138 of NI Act Section 139 of NI Act provides that the Court shall presume that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred into Section 138 of NI Act
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court while relying on Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgments observed that has observed that the principles of audi alteram partem have to be followed by the Patent Office while rejecting a patent application.
The Honble Supreme Court held that that strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial, are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases. In other words, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.
The Honble Supreme Court have considered disability as permanent and have enhanced compensation under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 as the disability report showed that there is Permanent Partial Disability of about 58% of the limb, which corresponds with 26% whole body. There is no dispute that the appellant suffered from disablement of permanent nature. The disablement has incapacitated the appellant from doing the work which she was capable of doing.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act on basis of filial and parental consortium.
In re Deccan Transcon Leasing Private Limited (GST AAAR Telangana) Is GST liable to be paid on leasing of Tank Containers taken from a supplier located outside India and the tank containers do not reach India ? Yes, The applicant is liable to pay IGST on Importation of lease services into India in the light […]
