Vekanteswara Electricals Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh High Court) It is to be noted here that as per Section 38 (1)(a) of the APVAT Act, 2005, a refund is to be made within 90 days from the date of claim made by the dealer. As stated above, the claim was made nearly a […]
Admittedly, no limitation is provided for filing an appeal under Section 3G(5) of National Highways Act, 1956. Therefore, it can be construed, as held in the aforesaid judgments, that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would stand applicable to such cases.
Respondent cannot be presumed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of Court and waived its right to arbitration when it had reserved its right to take appropriate legal proceedings against plaintiff.
Since the petitioners are having effective and statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority, they cannot come to this Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The process of law cannot be taken recourse to circumvent the due procedure prescribed in law. There is further no reason why the petitioner cannot take recourse to institution of appropriate proceedings before the competent authorities in accordance with law.
Bali Nagwanshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court) The main contention of the respondent State, respondent-BRPL and respondent- Union of India is this that the whole process for determination of compensation was based on fraud and criminal conspiracy, as out of numerous land oustees, only two of them, namely, Bali Nagwanshi and Neelima Belsariya […]
Since the nature of activities conducted by the Board Of Control for Cricket in India were commercial activities, therefore, the appellant Board was covered by the provisions of ESIC Act and was liable to pay ESI contribution on the wages paid to the coverable employees.
Recovery of demand more than statutory pre-deposit amount, on the basis of adjudication order, which was never served on the petitioner is declared as arbitrary and illegal
There was no right to apply for reference of a dispute to arbitration until there was a clear and unequivocal denial of the right asserted by one party by the other.
As per Rule 142(1)(a) of the JGST Rules, the summary of show cause notice has to be issued electronically to keep track of the proceeding initiated against the registered persona whereas a show cause notice need not necessarily be issued electronically.
