Align Components Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court) It is clarifed that since the State of Maharashtra has partially lifted the lock down recently in certain industrial areas in the State of Maharashtra, the workers would be expected to report for duties as per the shift schedules subject to adequate protection, from […]
Kerala State Beverages (Manufactoring And Marketing) Corporation Limited Vs ACIT (Kerala High Court) Conclusion: Surcharge on sales tax and turnover tax was not a ‘fee or charge’ coming within the scope of Section 40 (a) (iib) and was not an amount which could be disallowed under the said provision. Therefore the disallowance made in this […]
The Court, in the present case, had appropriately restrained the Suit filed by the Defendant before the Eastern District of New York on the ground of being vexatious and oppressive. Further the Court rightly considered that Domain name is akin to a Trademark.
In our opinion, this action of the respondents is also violative of Art.14,19,265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own negligence, assuming that the Demand drafts handed over by the petitioner, were not presented and encashed by the respondents.
Principle of, a mutual Will coming into effect and binding also the testator who may still be alive, on the death of one of the two testators, is well enshrined in the Indian Law.
The period of the moratorium during lockdown will not be reckoned by ICICI Bank for the purposes of computation of the 90-day NPA declaration period. Further, if the lockdown extends beyond 31st May 2020, then these days will be deferred accordingly, irrespective of whether the moratorium itself is extended beyond 31st May 2020.
Hon’ble Court opined that irrespective of the question, as to whether the moratorium as envisaged by RBI would be applicable to the petitioner qua the instalments, any classification of the petitioner’s accounts as NPA in present situation would certainly cause a grave and irreparable loss to the Petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was contacted through video conferencing he was found to be wearing Baniyan. This court has already observed that during this penadamic where court functioning is being done through video conferencing, lawyers must appear in proper uniform. Even through video conferencing a dacoram of the court is required to be maintained.
In the given case, the writ petitioner has requested Income Tax Department for the adjournment of 3 weeks to respond to the show cause notice on account of the lockdown declared by the Government of India across India so as to effectively deal with the Covid-19 pandemic.
Lalit Kumar Gandhi Vs State of M.P. (Madhya Pradesh High Court) This is an application made by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial. The allegation against the applicant is that he had received a sum of about Rs.6,52,00,000/- from the applicant for supply of pesticides and insecticides and as […]
