An acquittal based on the benefit of doubt did not confer upon a candidate an automatic right to appointment in public service. Mere involvement of a person in an alleged offence or in the act of moral turpitude may become sufficient enough to apply it as debilitating factor for such candidate to be offered employment.
A man convicted in a murder case, holding that Call Detail Records (CDRs) could not be relied upon in evidence unless accompanied by the mandatory certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
When a vaccination programme was undertaken as a State-led public health intervention, the government could not evade responsibility towards families who allege deaths or serious injuries following vaccination, particularly when official data itself acknowledged that some deaths occurred after COVID-19 vaccination.
A conclusion of an auction sale would not bar re-valuation of the auctioned property, when a question arises regarding the adequacy of valuation or fixation of the reserve price.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material indicating the applicant’s involvement in the conspiracy to demand illegal gratification, the Court found no ground to grant bail and there were no substantial change in circumstances had been shown.
A show cause notice was issued proposing reclassification, recovery of differential duty under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, and imposition of penalties. Additional Director General confirmed the demand, ordered recovery of duty with interest, and imposed penalties including a penalty on Manager of the appellant company. Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeals.
While interpreting Rule 39(1)(a) to mandate distribution immediately upon receipt of invoice would lead to absurdity and conflict with the statutory scheme, as ITC could not be claimed or distributed before satisfaction of the conditions prescribed under Section 16.
Once the parties had contractually agreed to exclude interest, Arbitral Tribunal, being a creature of the contract, could not award pre-award or pendente lite interest even in the guise of compensation. However, post-award interest stood on a different footing.
Liquidator, in discharge of duties under Section 35, was entitled to take custody and control of the assets of the Corporate Debtor forming part of the liquidation estate and recover outstanding dues.
Once a Resolution Plan was approved by the CoC and submitted for approval under Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the plan becomes binding inter se between the CoC and the Successful Resolution Applicant
