Resolution Professional’s job is confined to making recommendations; there is no aspect of adjudication on the Resolution Professional’s behalf. The final decision on whether the application should be accepted or rejected is made by the Adjudicating Authority, which is not bound by the Resolution Professional’s advice.
Vistrat Real Estates Private Limited Vs Asian Hotels North Ltd (Delhi High Court) Once a valid arbitration agreement exists between the parties, the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief in the absence of a third party to the agreement or that third party is required to be impleaded in the proceedings, is […]
PCIT Vs LKG Builders P. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Court is of the opinion that the questions of law raised in present appeals have been settled by earlier Division Bench in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla (supra) and assessment of the respondents had attained finality prior to the date of search and no incriminating documents or […]
The impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 was also issued at Cuttack. The return of income for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also filed at Cuttack. The final assessment order dated 29th December 2017 for the A. Y. 2015-16 was also passed at Cuttack. We are of the view that we should not entertain this writ application and relegate the writ applicant to file an appropriate writ application before the High Court of Orrissa at Cuttack.
Jaganadhan Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Facts- The Government of Kerala amended the Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 by introducing Section 27A, whereby applications for user of unnotified land for other purposes was permitted. A fee was prescribed for granting permission for such user. On 25.7.2021, the Government issued a […]
Having regard to the term of service of the petitioners, they had qualifying service, making them eligible for pension as per the Pension Rules. Petitioners are thus not entitled to claim the condonation of the interruption in their services to enhance their pension.
HC held that we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed without going into the merit of the assessment only on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy. This writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- upon Mr. Somak Basu, learned Advocate because of his rude behavior in Court and addressing to the chair in highly disrespectful manner.
Chennuboina Raj Kumar Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh HC) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only customer who visited the said brothel house for prostitution on payment made to other accused and as per the settled law in this regard, customer is not liable for prosecution for any of […]
Micro Focus Software Solutions India Private Limited Vs Union of India & Anr. (Delhi High Court) Reply to GST Registration cancellation notice was filed by the petitioner, stating why its registration should not be cancelled. Ignoring the reasons stated the GST Registration certificate was cancelled. Inspection of the premises was carried out by the Authority, […]
PCIT Vs Universal Music India Pvt. Ltd. (Bombay High Court) Notice under Section 263 was issued by CIT on two issues, namely, (a) disallowance of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) paid of Rs.10,72,532/- included in miscellaneous expenses and not allowed by the Assessing Officer and (b) provision of Rs.1,40,98,685/- in respect of slow moving and absolete […]
