The Court observed that show cause notices had clearly provided opportunities for personal hearing and submission of documents. It directed payment of costs after finding the allegation of denial of natural justice to be false.
The Tribunal held that an amount paid under protest before adjudication cannot be treated as duty under the Central Excise Act. It ruled that interest at 12% per annum must be paid from the date of deposit until refund.
The Tribunal allowed the bank’s recovery application after borrowers failed to appear or dispute the claim, resulting in an ex-parte decision. It permitted recovery of ₹37.80 lakh with interest and costs and allowed sale of hypothecated assets if payment is not made.
The Tribunal ruled that simultaneous proceedings arising from reassessment and revision for the same year could lead to multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings. It restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for consolidated de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed recovery of ₹10.74 lakh after the borrower defaulted on a car loan and failed to appear in the proceedings. The bank’s documentary evidence remained unrebutted.
The Tribunal removed the transfer pricing addition on delayed receivables from associated enterprises, holding that the company’s profit margins exceeded comparable companies and interest was already embedded in pricing.
Supreme Court held that even if a raid under the PCPNDT Act was unauthorized by the full District Appropriate Authority, evidence collected during the search may still be admissible. As allegations regarding non-maintenance of mandatory records existed, the complaint proceedings were allowed to continue.
Supreme Court disposed of a petition seeking a ban on a film after the filmmaker filed an affidavit withdrawing the disputed title and undertaking to adopt a new title that would not resemble or evoke the earlier one.
Israr Ahmad Khan Vs Amarnath Prasad & Ors. (Supreme Court of India) The Supreme Court considered contempt proceedings arising from alleged non-compliance with its earlier order dated 20.05.2025 passed in Civil Appeals No. 7023/2025 and 7024/2025. At the outset of the hearing, senior counsel representing the alleged contemnors sought permission to withdraw from the matter, […]
The High Court declined to implead a Minister after the District Collector clarified that a prohibitory order did not intend to hinder compliance with a prior court direction. The Court held that contrary public statements cannot override judicial verdicts.
