Bajaj Finance Ltd. Vs LD. District Collector (Gujarat High Court) On perusal of the section 26E and Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, it is clear that the District Magistrate has to discharge the ministerial act of providing assistance to the secured creditor to take physical possession of the secured assets when the secured creditor has […]
Azaz Khan Vs N.I.A. through Special P.P. (Rajasthan High Court) it is not in dispute that except Amzad Ali, all the other accused were apprehended at Jaipur Airport on 3.7.2020 while attempting to smuggle gold into India from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and an FIR was registered against them under Section 135 of the Customs Act. […]
North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs IJM Corporation Berhad (Delhi High Court) Delhi High Court held that when Petitioner has granted the contractor an extension of time for a specified period, it cannot turn around to contend that the extension was mere provisional and it’s allowed to reassess or reduce the amount of days by which […]
There is no reason why a person who has been declared bankrupt by a foreign court in terms of the law applicable to that jurisdiction, should be afforded protection by the Indian Courts on technical objections being raised with regard to the validity of the foreign judgment. In the modern times of globalization, foreign creditors cannot be treated differently from domestic creditors.
Thampi V. S. Vs State of Kerala (Kerala High Court) Petitioner, approached this Court with an allegation that respondents are attempting or devising to vaccinate every child in Kerala, irrespective of whether their parents give consent to it or otherwise. It is pertinent that not a single specific incident or instance has been impelled by […]
Universal City Studios Llc & Ors. Vs Vegamovies Run & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Defendant Websites provide illegal content for free and such availability of content is supported by the advertisements featuring on these websites. The primary purpose of the Defendant Websites is to commit or facilitate copyright infringement. Thus, Defendants No. 1 to 12 […]
High Court of Meghalaya stays demand related to SCN issued by DGGI related to recovery of GST on royalty paid for mining rights to the State.
Re-opening proposed is purely based on change of opinion and entire issue which is subject matter of reasons recorded has been raised during assessment proceedings
Petitioners company is a ‘repeat offender’, this Court is of the view that the respondents are entitled in law to impose a higher compounding fee i.e. five per cent instead of three per cent.
Court is of the view that time of eight hours to file reply to the show cause notice was neither reasonable nor effective, as within this short time, the Petitioner could not have supplied relevant information and documents to substantiate his case.
