There is no rule which requires SEBI to furnish the opinion under Rule 3 to the noticee in its entirety. The documents relied upon for formation of opinion were not required to be disclosed to the noticee unless relied upon in the inquiry.
Compensation so received by the assessee company would only go to reduce the cost of project as it is effectively meant to cover up for the expenses and investments incurred by the assessee for the said project. Hence, the receipt of compensation would be capital in nature and would go to reduce the cost of project.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that Payment Aggregators would fall under Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 as Payment Aggregator ensures that the money is transferred to the designated nodal account, and after a gap of a stipulated timeframe, which the petitioners say is three days, a settlement takes place and funds are transmitted to the merchant’s account.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Constitution of India prohibits the State from making any law which takes away or infringes the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution of India and any law made in contravention of Article 13(2), to the extent of the contravention would be void.
HC held that Parents would be considered as dependents under Motor Vehicles Act and the compensation awarded to them would be computed on the basis of the income of the deceased for the last three years.
Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mohit Raghuram Hegde Proprietor Creative Infotech (Bombay High Court) Conclusion: In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that mere valid arbitration clause exist in “terms and conditions” as mentioned in the website and mere allegation of fraud would not vitiate the constitution of arbitral […]
Bombay High Court held that rights created by SARFAESI Act would have the overriding effect over any State Acts and accordingly Secured Creditor would have first right over the State Tax Departments.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble High Court observed that in no manner under Commercial Courts Act, the Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 11 has been either disturbed or divested in matters of appointment of an arbitral tribunal as provided for under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India invoked Article 142 of the Constitution of India and have directed to form new arbitral Tribunal due to disputes in the fee structure provided in IV Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Government not denuded from running a company holding majority of shareholder. But shareholder independently cannot be made a party for adjudication of the lis.
