Possible extent of claim likely to be awarded cannot be a foregone conclusion. Arbitrator fell in error by exercising Section 17 jurisdiction for securing the amount
Veena Joshi Vs CPIO (Delhi High Court) The Delhi High Court has held that the words “inspection of work” under Section 2(j) of the Right To Information (RTI) Act, 2005 does not include “inspection of property” under its ambit. Section 2(j) stipulates that right to information means the right to information accessible under the Act […]
Swastik Pipe Ltd Vs Dimple Verma (Delhi High Court) In terms of Section 7(4)(b) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it is clear that arbitration agreement can be derived from exchange of letters / telex / telegram or other means of communication including through electronic means and if it is shown that the parties are […]
Held that right to file the application u/s 8(1) of A&C Act, after the statutory period to file the written statement, is closed
Settled legal position is that in order for a shape trademark to be registered, it has to be shown that the said shape is not the generic shape of the product. It has to be a distinctive shape that associates the mark with the source by itself without anything further like a name or logo appended on it.
Best Buildwell Private Limited VS ITO (Delhi High Court) The show cause notice primarily states that ‘it is seen that the Petitioner has made purchases from certain non-filers’. However no details or any information of these entities was provided to the Petitioner. It is not understood as to how the Petitioner was to know which […]
Held that the procedural formalities in the CPC are intended to facilitate litigation by stating the procedure to be followed and not to be abused as an instrument of oppression to frustrate validly instituted proceedings.
Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs Mother Dairy Fruit & Vegetables Pvt Ltd. (Delhi High Court) The present case, admittedly, does not deal with the RTI Act. The definition of public authority as contained in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act has no application or relevance, whatsoever, in the present case, which is in the nature of […]
PCIT Vs Future First Info. Services Pvt. Ltd (Delhi High Court) No Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for TDS shortfall due to any difference of opinion Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act refers only to the duty to deduct tax and pay to government account. If there is any shortfall due to any difference of opinion as […]
HC quashed the letter issued by the Revenue department for blocking assessee’s bank account as it does not comply with the perquisites embedded under Section 83 of CGST Act 2017
