Unless that allegation was specified in the notice with details and unless material considered adverse to the petitioner had been confronted to it for the purposes of eliciting its reply thereto, the notice dated 9.7.2012 would remain completely vague and mute.
Vaishali Varshikar Vs Vijay Mourya (Madhya Pradesh High Court) The applicant has preferred this application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.1/accused by order dated 22.2.2021 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C.No. 4337/2021. As per prosecution story, respondent no.1/Vijay Mourya had entered into an agreement to sell of […]
Tejas Khandhar Vs Bank of Baroda (NCLAT Delhi) Section 18 of the Limitation Act gets attracted the moment acknowledgment in writing signed by the party against whom such right to initiate resolution process under Section 7 IBC ensures. Section 18 of the Limitation Act would come into play every time when the principal borrower and/or […]
Dr. R. Singh vs Smt. Shabana (Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Only the failure of the treatment is not prima facie a ground for Medical Negligence and in order to attract the principle of res ipsa loquitur, Negligence i.e. the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, […]
Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The present case, admittedly, does not deal with the RTI Act. The definition of public authority as contained in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act has no application or relevance, whatsoever, in the present case, which is in the nature of […]
The breach relates to the absence of signatures from any directors on the company’s Balance Sheet for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2021. Following a hearing, penalties were levied: the company was fined Rs. 3,00,000, while each director, Mr. Veerendra Kumar Vishwakarma and Ms. Neelam Gautam, faced fines of Rs. 50,000 each.
Mere non availability of stock register cannot be sufficient to reject trading results when the audited final accounts and other sources including the VAT data are available to cross verify the trading results including the sales verification.
Daeseung Autoparts India Pvt.Ltd Vs ACIT (OSD) (ITAT Chennai) We have gone through reasons given by the Assessing Officer to reject additional depreciation on capitalization of forex loss in light of provisions of section 32(1)(iia) of the Act, and we ourselves do not subscribe to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee […]
Himanshu Gupta Vs Vs. Narayana Reddy (Karnataka High Court) In terms of Section 421 of the Cr.P.C., a fine can be recovered in a manner as depicted hereinabove. Therefore, non-payment of compensation ensues dire consequences. The scheme of the provision being thus, though no application is filed, the Court may grant interim compensation, but it […]
ACIT Vs Dharmapuri District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. (ITAT Chennai) The material facts are that during assessment proceedings, the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) was examined by Ld. AO. As per the statutory provisions, the assessee was entitled to claim deduction for an amount not exceeding 7.5% of total income and an amount not […]
